Democratic Lawmaker threatens riots

[essentialsaltes]

Contrast that with what Sen. Oliver said when she invoked that quote:

So yeah, we gonna fight. Dr. King said that riots are the language of the unheard. You ain't seen nothin' yet. If you keep silencing us like this, what do you think our district's gonna do? We have had it up here. Gloves off. Like we gonna fight like hell. You don't expect us to respond when you gaslight us every single day with these bills?​

It seems Sen. Oliver didn't quite understand what Dr. King was saying and badly misappropriated that quote, as many often do.

I think her meaning is at least as ambiguous as Trump's bloodbath if he's not elected. She can fight the bill and be heard. She has concerns about what her district's gonna do if its needs are unheard.

 

[probinson]

I think her meaning is at least as ambiguous as Trump's bloodbath if he's not elected. She can fight the bill and be heard. She has concerns about what her district's gonna do if its needs are unheard.

Not even FactCheck.org thinks Trump's bloodbath comment means what you're implying.

President Joe Biden’s campaign quickly accused Trump of fomenting “political violence.” The Trump campaign said Trump was clearly using the term in the context of an economic bloodbath.​

​

“If you actually watch and listen to the section, he was talking about the auto industry and tariffs,” Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump’s campaign, told the Washington Post, adding that “Biden’s policies will create an economic bloodbath for the auto industry and autoworkers.”​

​

That explanation seems the most plausible, given the context of Trump’s comments. ​

​

Trump's 'Bloodbath' Comment - FactCheck.org

While speaking about the potential loss of U.S. auto manufacturing jobs to foreign countries, former President Donald Trump said if he isn't elected, "it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country."

www.factcheck.org

​

 

[probinson]

When you see how many people were participating, it should change your perception (I think....at least a bit). And since the root of the comment was not about the violence itself but meant to be a condemnation of hte people participating in it.

It doesn't really change my perception at all. The BLM protests will always have a negative perception in history because of the extremists that caused $1 BILLION in damages. The images of the protestors attacking police, breaking windows, setting fires and being generally violent will forever be associated with that summer.

Yes. And 93% of the protests were peaceful.

That percentage sounds completely fabricated. But I would agree that the majority of the people assembled and protesting were peaceful.

Yes. I agree. There is also more than just suspicion that some unknown portion of that violence and damage WAS propagated by Far Right players and not necessarily BLM supporters.

Hmm. That sounds a lot like people claiming it was Antifa doing much of the damage on Jan. 6. I guess both sides also have their scapegoats.

 

[rambot]

It doesn't really change my perception at all. The BLM protests will always have a negative perception in history because of the extremists that caused $1 BILLION in damages. The images of the protestors attacking police, breaking windows, setting fires and being generally violent will forever be associated with that summer.

And that's thanks to the media.

That percentage sounds completely fabricated.

That's great. It's not.

For someone critical of others following media narratives, you're kinda falling for a media narrative.

Hmm. That sounds a lot like people claiming it was Antifa doing much of the damage on Jan. 6. I guess both sides also have their scapegoats.

Yes. Of course the people who said that about J6 were doing that baselessly and without merit.

There was an video burned into my brain where there was a group of BLM protestors being filmed across the street. The cameraman pans around to show a white guy with an umbrella across the street CLEARLY unaffiliated with that protest, randomly smashing windows in a store of some kind.

AP finds most arrested in protests aren't leftist radicals

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110775/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20200610-SD019.pdf. to be clear, while I recall some of these events (the first example above), I can't speak to much on this document other than it somehow ended up on a govt. page.

People like that know how protests work: During protests, people can be lured into being more destructive than they would ever be on their own. Bad people know that.


Ultimately, in America, the FAR right's whole hope to is stir up chaos. But I want to be clear that is NOT what the right leaning and right folks want. JUST the FAR right (folks like boogaloo boys). Their actions are engineered for that. IMHO, the goal of the FAR left, is to whine as loudly as possible and try to impose language and manage other people's speech. At times, I think the more militant of them want stupid things like NO police (instead of just advocating for better training) that would be destructive for society.

 

[probinson]

And that's thanks to the media.

Not really. The media wouldn't have had anything to cover if there had not been any of that violence.

That's great. It's not.

Source?

For someone critical of others following media narratives, you're kinda falling for a media narrative.

No, I'm not. The media narrative was that the BLM protests were mostly peaceful. They said this with a straight face while they showed video footage of burning buildings. Baghdad Bob would be proud.

Yes. Of course the people who said that about J6 were doing that baselessly and without merit.

Kind of like you're doing.

There was an video burned into my brain where there was a group of BLM protestors being filmed across the street. The cameraman pans around to show a white guy with an umbrella across the street CLEARLY unaffiliated with that protest, randomly smashing windows in a store of some kind.

Sounds anecdotal. One guy in one video burned into your brain does not a compelling case make.

AP finds most arrested in protests aren't leftist radicals

You're missing two key words, found in the second paragraph of your article.

Very few of those charged appear to be affiliated with highly organized extremist groups, and many are young suburban adults from the very neighborhoods Trump vows to protect from the violence in his reelection push to win support from the suburbs.​

There is only a passing mention of "far-right" people being arrested, but literally nothing to quantify that.

Some of those facing charges undoubtedly share far-left and anti-government views. Far-right protesters also have been arrested and charged. Some defendants have driven to protests from out of state. Some have criminal records and were illegally carrying weapons. Others are accused of using the protests as an opportunity to steal or create havoc.​

​

This does not change the fact that the vast majority of the damage done in these protests was NOT perpetrated by the "far-right".

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110775/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20200610-SD019.pdf. to be clear, while I recall some of these events (the first example above), I can't speak to much on this document other than it somehow ended up on a govt. page.

Here is the original source:

Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists

Widely broadcast real-time video images challenge our beliefs about who is really protesting and for what reason.

www.justsecurity.org

It concludes thusly:

If the protests are being infiltrated by police provocateurs, accelerationists or other bad actors, ...​

​

In other words, there is no evidence of this. Just speculation. Not unlike those who speculate that Antifa stoked the flames on Jan. 6.

People like that know how protests work: During protests, people can be lured into being more destructive than they would ever be on their own. Bad people know that.

True enough. There are most certainly opportunists that simply take advantage of the chaos for their own benefit. That does not in any way absolve the primary perpetrators of or reason for the violence.

 

[keith99]

So this is all over allowing police to pull people over for broken/burned out taillights or expired registrations? I'm not black, and I've been pulled over for both of those things in my lifetime. Seems like an odd reason to call for riots.

It depends a lot on the history of what happens when someone gets pulled over for these. It also can depend a lot on just how expired the tags are when people get pulled over.

Sadly the history often says black drivers are pulled over as an excuse to perform borderlne to flat out illegal searches. I doubt that minority drivers would care that much if the worst that ever happened to them when they get pulled over for a burnt out taillight was a fix it ticket.

Here in California you have met the legal requirement for tag renewal if you have mailed in the renewal payment by the expiration date. Thus pulling someone over the day the tags expire is most likely harassment. 3 months after, probably not. 3 years out of date, definitely not.

 

[probinson]

Here in California you have met the legal requirement for tag renewal if you have mailed in the renewal payment by the expiration date. Thus pulling someone over the day the tags expire is most likely harassment. 3 months after, probably not. 3 years out of date, definitely not.

Here in PA, you can renew your registration online and it is effective immediately. I know someone that got pulled over for an expired registration (1 month late), and when the cop was walking back to his car to write the ticket, he went online and paid it. The cop couldn't ticket him, because by the time he went to file it, the registration was valid.

 

[rambot]

Not really. The media wouldn't have had anything to cover if there had not been any of that violence.

Do you REALLY think that 15-26,000,000 protestors wouldn't get ANY kind of lookin' from the news?

Source?

Demonstrations and Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020.

No, I'm not. The media narrative was that the BLM protests were mostly peaceful. They said this with a straight face while they showed video footage of burning buildings. Baghdad Bob would be proud.

There were EXAMPLES of the news media saying that. Of course there are MANY more examples of them NOT saying that.

But of course, the BLM protests WERE mostly peaceful. And there were ones where there was violence.
10,000 people protest all day. In the evening 5 people toss

Kind of like you're doing.

False. As indicated, there is evidence that far right actors were ENCOURAGED to go stoke the flames. There are examples in the articles I quoted.
There is ABSOLUTELY no comparison to J6 where anti-fa was blamed for participating with no convincing evidence. 0. Nothing. Certainly no anti-fa charged and no evidence of them participating.

Sounds anecdotal. One guy in one video burned into your brain does not a compelling case make.

Not saying it did; just giving an example. And so I included the article...with several examples....which should not be ignored.

You're missing two key words, found in the second paragraph of your article.

Very few of those charged appear to be affiliated with highly organized extremist groups, and many are young suburban adults from the very neighborhoods Trump vows to protect from the violence in his reelection push to win support from the suburbs.​

What impact do those two words have on the argument in your mind?

There is only a passing mention of "far-right" people being arrested, but literally nothing to quantify that.

Some of those facing charges undoubtedly share far-left and anti-government views. Far-right protesters also have been arrested and charged. Some defendants have driven to protests from out of state. Some have criminal records and were illegally carrying weapons. Others are accused of using the protests as an opportunity to steal or create havoc.​

​

This does not change the fact that the vast majority of the damage done in these protests was NOT perpetrated by the "far-right".

There is no way to know that.
Violence Against Black Lives Matter Protestors: a Review - Current Trauma Reports

Here is the original source:

Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists

Widely broadcast real-time video images challenge our beliefs about who is really protesting and for what reason.

www.justsecurity.org

It concludes thusly:

If the protests are being infiltrated by police provocateurs, accelerationists or other bad actors, ...​

In other words, there is no evidence of this. Just speculation. Not unlike those who speculate that Antifa stoked the flames on Jan. 6.​

That is an incorrect presumption of the meaning of the word "if". I mean, the writer just spent a whole essay providing evidence of exactly that. The use of the word "if" is because this writer is creating a hypothesis that is contingent on the evidence she just presented; She's not saying there's no evidence.

You could argue it's not clear or poor writing, but to think there is no evidence when that whole article is just ....all evidence, suggests you didn't take a look at the evidence presented.

 

[rambot]

For the record (and to answer the question), I'd be inclined to say that rioting in response to this bill..... not sure I'd get behind that until I would see the impacts (though if the bill is just saying "nothing can change or will ever change") I guess we wouldn't see any changes.

Again, go back to fighting for better training.

 

[probinson]

Do you REALLY think that 15-26,000,000 protestors wouldn't get ANY kind of lookin' from the news?

Of course they would. And if there had not been any violence, they couldn't have shown it. But unfortunately there was. In spades.

Demonstrations and Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020.

Well color me impressed that you actually had a source for your claim. Kudos to you, good sir. My apologies for insinuating that your number was made up.

Interestingly enough, that source also says that there were violent demonstrations at ~220 locations. Sadly, there is a smattering of orange dots representing violent demonstrations all across our great nation.

There were EXAMPLES of the news media saying that. Of course there are MANY more examples of them NOT saying that.

I don't really care what the media did or did not say. The violent demonstrations greatly overshadowed any of the 93% of peaceful protests not because of media coverage, but because there were enough violent protestors all across the nation to tarnish any good.

But of course, the BLM protests WERE mostly peaceful.

See, this is an interesting statement, because from a sheerly mathematical perspective in comparing the number of "peaceful" demonstrations to the violent ones, you are correct. However, I'm once again skeptical of the relative numbers. Allow me to demonstrate why.

Let's say there were 10 demonstrations at various locations categorized thusly:

• 3 protestors, peaceful
• 10 protestors, peaceful
• 8 protestors, peaceful
• 100 protestors, peaceful
• 53 protestors, peaceful
• 96 protestors, peaceful
• 253 protestors, peaceful
• 28 protestors, peaceful
• 37 protestors, peaceful
• 7,500 protestors, violent

10 demonstrations. 9 of them were peaceful, only 1 violent. If looking at the number of protests instead of the number of protestors, mathematically you could say that 90% of the above hypothetical demonstrations were peaceful. But can you accurately classify this overall as being "mostly peaceful"? I would hope not.

Do you see my hesitation to call demonstrations that cost 17 lives and $1 BILLION in damages "mostly peaceful"?

And there were ones where there was violence.

Yes, and as the map shows, larger demonstrations were correlated with violent demonstrations.

False. As indicated, there is evidence that far right actors were ENCOURAGED to go stoke the flames. There are examples in the articles I quoted.
There is ABSOLUTELY no comparison to J6 where anti-fa was blamed for participating with no convincing evidence. 0. Nothing. Certainly no anti-fa charged and no evidence of them participating.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence one way or the other. Your biased article notwithstanding, there is no hard evidence of either. They are simply unproven theories.

Were there "far-right" actors at demonstrations that responded violently? Yes. Were they the primary perpetrators of the violence and damage that resulted from the protests? There simply is no evidence that suggests that is the case.

Not saying it did; just giving an example. And so I included the article...with several examples....which should not be ignored.

I didn't ignore it. I read the whole thing. I was not convinced that any "evidence" was presented. Just speculation.

What impact do those two words have on the argument in your mind?

You're trying to make the case that it was the far right that was causing the violence. But your chosen news article doesn't say that. It draws a distinction between average young adults and "highly organized" leftist extremists. It only makes an unquantifiable passing mention that some "far-right" people had been arrested also.

There is no way to know that.
Violence Against Black Lives Matter Protestors: a Review - Current Trauma Reports

I suppose if you want to cling to the idea that the far-right is responsible for the violence in the BLM protests without any compelling evidence, that is certainly your prerogative.

That is an incorrect presumption of the meaning of the word "if". I mean, the writer just spent a whole essay providing evidence of exactly that.

I'm not entirely sure you understand what the word "evidence" means, since you keep repeatedly misusing it.

 

[rambot]

Do you see my hesitation to call demonstrations that cost 17 lives and $1 BILLION in damages "mostly peaceful"?

Oh, absolutely I do. It's simply a matter of perspective. And to be clear, I'm NOT here denying that violence happenned.

Yes, and as the map shows, larger demonstrations were correlated with violent demonstrations.

That's not quite right. It's places with more FREQUENT demonstrations that turned more violent. And that makes sense. Bad actors, also, aren't going to go to all those small piddly places.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence one way or the other. Your biased article notwithstanding, there is no hard evidence of either. They are simply unproven theories.

Well there is. The article from the .gov gives precise examples of exactly that; video examples.

I have not seen anything about J6. There is NOTHING for J6. There IS evidence for BLM riots.

It's simply not a "that side does it too" example...at least not this PART of the "rioting issue".

I didn't ignore it. I read the whole thing. I was not convinced that any "evidence" was presented. Just speculation.

You're trying to make the case that it was the far right that was causing the violence.

Oop! Not quite. I am ABSOLUTELY not saying that the right right "was causing the violence". I am claiming that at LEAST they contributed to the violence and possibly, (in an effort to undermine the message of the protests), took steps to try to encourage it. I've seen the term "accelerationists"; that seems appropriate.

But your chosen news article doesn't say that. It draws a distinction between average young adults and "highly organized" leftist extremists. It only makes an unquantifiable passing mention that some "far-right" people had been arrested also.

One of my articles say that, yes.

I suppose if you want to cling to the idea that the far-right is responsible for the violence in the BLM protests without any compelling evidence, that is certainly your prerogative.

"Accelerationist". In my humble opinion, the only people responsible for things like burning buildings are the individuals who do it. I don't know who gets charged for those events. And I'm all aboard for arsonists of all political stripes feeling the justice.

I'm not entirely sure you understand what the word "evidence" means, since you keep repeatedly misusing it.

Maybe.
Here's the thing though; If someone tells me what they want, when they appear to be doing things to make that thing a reality, I'm inclined to think they are doing those things for real.

Bellingcat has documented the involvement in the protests of a largely white, and far-right movement called the Boogaloo, whose leaders “expect, even hope, that the warmer weather will bring armed confrontations with law enforcement, and will build momentum towards a new civil war in the United States.” “As protests over the death of George Floyd heated up in Minneapolis on May 26th, members of Boogaloo groups across Facebook considered it a call to arms,” wrote Bellingcat’s Robert Evans.

 

[probinson]

Oop! Not quite. I am ABSOLUTELY not saying that the right right "was causing the violence". I am claiming that at LEAST they contributed to the violence and possibly, (in an effort to undermine the message of the protests), took steps to try to encourage it. I've seen the term "accelerationists"; that seems appropriate.

Then I'm really not sure what your point is at all. If you agree that there were violent BLM protestors at the core of the violence, what exactly is the point of saying, "Yeah, but there were "accelerationists" too"?

I don't know if you're a football fan, but it seems this argument is akin to when a player gets flagged for unnecessary roughness when responding to an after-the-play shove or a cheap shot. It's always the second guy that gets flagged. Sure, you could try to make the argument that he was provoked into the action, but he still took the action, and must face the penalty. Ultimately, each person is responsible for their own actions. And if BLM protestors were baited into more violence and took the bait, then they are still responsible.

 

[rambot]

Then I'm really not sure what your point is at all. If you agree that there were violent BLM protestors at the core of the violence, what exactly is the point of saying, "Yeah, but there were "accelerationists" too"?

My italicized part refers to the big question mark to me; I imagine that in some instances there were some bad players at blm protests

BUT TO YOUR QUESTION...
I think it's important because it speaks to the characterization of BLM as a group that is motivated by violence. I don't think it's fair to label blm violent unless we see them without the influence of the accelerationists.

. And if BLM protestors were baited into more violence and took the bait, then they are still responsible.

Just a sidebar, what are your thoughts on stochastic terrorism?
I don't think I could disagree with taking responsibility (though im not sure what that looks like). But I do think the reflection of character when you are manipulated like that leaves the protestors on a higher moral ground that the far right.

My personal opinion iS that far right players had a large Impact on the violence and desperately wanted MORE. I will say that is based on excellent circumstantial and "meh" direct evidence as well as a self proclaimed motive

 

[BPPLEE]

You know how there is SOME racism on a police force (simply because it's kinda unavoidable); even if that number is TINY, it is not 0. Policies like that give those officers carte blanche in targeting who they like.

Jsut as an FYI though, your characterization of the bill isn't quite correct....

"or reasonable suspicion" adds a bit of a wrinkle.

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Fiscal/FM2374.pdf

Take away reasonable suspicion and you will eliminate a majority of DUI arrests. Is that a good idea?

 

[BPPLEE]

My italicized part refers to the big question mark to me; I imagine that in some instances there were some bad players at blm protests

BUT TO YOUR QUESTION...
I think it's important because it speaks to the characterization of BLM as a group that is motivated by violence. I don't think it's fair to label blm violent unless we see them without the influence of the accelerationists.


Just a sidebar, what are your thoughts on stochastic terrorism?
I don't think I could disagree with taking responsibility (though im not sure what that looks like). But I do think the reflection of character when you are manipulated like that leaves the protestors on a higher moral ground that the far right.

My personal opinion iS that far right players had a large Impact on the violence and desperately wanted MORE. I will say that is based on excellent circumstantial and "meh" direct evidence as well as a self proclaimed motive

The devil made me do it!

 

[rambot]

The devil made me do it!

That's correct! Sure! The far right is the devil

 

[Pommer]

That's correct! Sure! The far right is the devil

Now, now, I’m sure our friend made a Flip Wilson reference; no need to fan the coals.
(This disappears if yours does)

 

[rambot]

Now, now, I’m sure our friend made a Flip Wilson reference; no need to fan the coals.
(This disappears if yours does)

I'm sorry. I don't understand this

 

[Pommer]

I'm sorry. I don't understand this

Flip Wilson was an American comedian back in the 60s and 70s; one of his catchphrases was “the devil made me do it”, usually delivered by his character “Geraldine”.

 

[probinson]

BUT TO YOUR QUESTION...
I think it's important because it speaks to the characterization of BLM as a group that is motivated by violence. I don't think it's fair to label blm violent unless we see them without the influence of the accelerationists.

Sounds like you're making excuses for violence perpetrated by BLM protestors.

Just a sidebar, what are your thoughts on stochastic terrorism?

Full disclosure: I didn't even know what stochastic terrorism was until a few minutes ago (thanks, Internet!)

According to Dictionary.com, stochastic terrorism is defined thusly:

the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted​

"The public demonization of a person or group" sounds an awful lot like what governments and public health agencies did all throughout the pandemic. Now I have a term for that. Thanks.

With regard to this topic, I am sure that there are those that attempt to goad others into doing bad things. Heck, it happens right here on this forum. Does that absolve the person of their responsibility if they take the bait?

Nope.

I don't think I could disagree with taking responsibility (though im not sure what that looks like). But I do think the reflection of character when you are manipulated like that leaves the protestors on a higher moral ground that the far right.

I think if you can be manipulated to take violent acts, not only do you lack self control but you probably have the propensity and desire to take violent acts in the first place. Not sure that gives anyone a high moral ground.

My personal opinion iS that far right players had a large Impact on the violence and desperately wanted MORE.

I'm sure there were isolated incidents where this was the case. Even the studies you posted only referenced a handful of instances where that was the case.

I will say that is based on excellent circumstantial and "meh" direct evidence as well as a self proclaimed motive

Regardless, violence was perpetrated by the BLM protestors at the largest demonstrations. Cities were set ablaze. That is what will forever be linked with the BLM protests.