Does white privilege exist in the US?

[RocksInMyHead]

You have to ask yourself; during the summer of 2020, how many BLM protests became violent? (countless times all over the country, all night long)

Lucky for you, there's a study for that: About 93% of racial justice protests in the US have been peaceful, a new report finds - CNN

So no, not "countless times". As people on the right are so fond of saying, don't believe everything you see on the media. We saw the violence on a nightly basis because that's what got people to tune into the news. The reality is that the VAST majority of protests were peaceful.

And while Trump's rallies generally have not turned violent in the past, the FBI did have indicators that this particular event had a significant chance of violence breaking out. Conversely, in the summer DC protests, there weren't any real indicators of violence beforehand. The preparations made were based on violence that had occurred elsewhere

 

[Strathos]

They forcefully entered police stations and in some cases....burned them down. I don't see why they couldn't have done the same thing at the Capitol.

I'll tell you why they couldn't have: Because when the authorities were alerted that they were going to be protesting in DC, this was the response:

 

[Ken-1122]

Lucky for you, there's a study for that: About 93% of racial justice protests in the US have been peaceful, a new report finds - CNN

So 7% were violent? That is waaaay to many.

So no, not "countless times". As people on the right are so fond of saying, don't believe everything you see on the media.

7% of how many? a thousand, ten thousand? a million? And BTW the 93% number came from the media; so sometimes they can be trusted.

We saw the violence on a nightly basis because that's what got people to tune into the news.

We saw violence everyday because that is what happened and the politicians just sorta looked the other way and refused to allow the police to stop it. The way I see it, any politician who looked the other way when rioters were firebombing business, beating, raping, killing people in the streets over the summer but now want to grandstand over the 3 hr event in DC, those politicians should just shut up!

The reality is that the VAST majority of protests were peaceful.

Are you suggesting 7% of BLM protests ending up violent is acceptable? How about if only 7% of the planes that flew crashed? Would you find that acceptable?

And while Trump's rallies generally have not turned violent in the past,

Generally? No; they NEVER turned up violent in the past. Yeah; not even 7%

the FBI did have indicators that this particular event had a significant chance of violence breaking out.

Did they have indicators that thousands would be involved? Perhaps they were prepared, but not prepared for the number who rioted. And let's face it, they didn't riot for very long; 3 hours later it was all over.

Conversely, in the summer DC protests, there weren't any real indicators of violence beforehand. The preparations made were based on violence that had occurred elsewhere

7% violence elsewhere is a pretty good indication it may happen there IMO

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll tell you why they couldn't have: Because when the authorities were alerted that they were going to be protesting in DC, this was the response:

But they still got to the Capitol and blew it up!

Thank goodness Will Smith saved the day!

Don't post pictures without context.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So 7% were violent? That is waaaay to many.

I agree, it's too many. Again, I'm not arguing that the Capitol police were wrong to be prepared for violence during the summer protests. I was addressing your "countless" claim.

7% of how many? a thousand, ten thousand? a million?

I would suggest reading the article I linked. It answers that question. Or the study itself, which can be found here:
Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020 | ACLED (acleddata.com)

And BTW the 93% number came from the media; so sometimes they can be trusted.

No, the 93% number came from a study cited by the media. You can read the study yourself to verify - no need to trust them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree, it's too many. Again, I'm not arguing that the Capitol police were wrong to be prepared for violence during the summer protests. I was addressing your "countless" claim.


I would suggest reading the article I linked. It answers that question. Or the study itself, which can be found here:
Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020 | ACLED (acleddata.com)


No, the 93% number came from a study cited by the media. You can read the study yourself to verify - no need to trust them.

Well that explains a lot....

In the section that describes what the study considers "political violence"....they don't include violence against the police.

Given that most people probably consider violence against the police a disqualifier for the label "peaceful protest".....that 93% number is pure nonsense.

Ironically, they consider excessive force by the police to be a disqualifier....but not violence against the police.

 

[Strathos]

Don't post pictures without context.

Context is that those were some of the guards stationed in DC in preparation for a BLM protest last year. Far more and more heavily armed than the guards present on January 6th.

 

[Ken-1122]

I agree, it's too many. Again, I'm not arguing that the Capitol police were wrong to be prepared for violence during the summer protests. I was addressing your "countless" claim.

When I said "countless" I didn't mean it literally was a number too large to count, I was only pointing out there were an awful lot of violent rioting that started out as protesting.

I would suggest reading the article I linked. It answers that question. Or the study itself, which can be found here:
Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020 | ACLED (acleddata.com)

That is an awfully long link; no thank-you. How about if you read that link and answer the question?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well that explains a lot....

In the section that describes what the study considers "political violence"....they don't include violence against the police.

Please provide a reference for where you derive this. Because as far as I can tell, you're being intentionally misleading. Or you didn't read the whole article.

They don't mention it specifically in their definition of political violence (US-Crisis-Monitor_FAQs_Upd2November.pdf (acleddata.com)), but they also don't exclude it. I'm fairly certain it would fall into many of the categories of violence that they mentioned as forms of political violence (i.e. mob violence). Not all (or even most) attacks on police are politically motivated, so simply saying that violence against police counted as political violence would be grossly incorrect.

But that's beside the point, because in the relevant section to this discussion (the part discussing the percentage of "violent demonstrations"), they give the following definition for "violent demonstration":

Violent demonstrations refer to demonstration events in which the demonstrators themselves engage in violently disruptive and/or destructive acts targeting other individuals, property, businesses, other rioting groups, or armed actors. Such demonstrations can involve engagement in violence (e.g. clashes with police), vandalism (e.g. property destruction), looting, road-blocking using barricades, burning tires or other materials, amongst others. This category also includes events where violence may have been initially instigated by police or other actors engaging demonstrators associated with the BLM movement.

They specifically call out "clashes with police" as a qualifier for violent demonstration.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

When I said "countless" I didn't mean it literally was a number too large to count, I was only pointing out there were an awful lot of violent rioting that started out as protesting.

Words have meanings. If you didn't mean "countless," you should have picked a different word.

That is an awfully long link; no thank-you. How about if you read that link and answer the question?

No, I'm not going to do your work for you. I have read the link, and I do know the answer. But I knew the answer before I posted the link because the number was also in the CNN article that I originally linked. As I already told you. I posted the original source in case anyone was curious about it or for people who don't trust CNN to tell them the truth.

 

[Ken-1122]

Words have meanings. If you didn't mean "countless," you should have picked a different word.

Are you being factious, or did you think I was speaking literally. If you thought I was speaking literally, recognize I used the term only as a figure of speech to make a point.

No, I'm not going to do your work for you. I have read the link, and I do know the answer.

Fair enough; unfortunately I don’t care enough about that answer to go through the trouble of reading such a long link.

 

[wing2000]

Why was a DHS/FBI threat assessment done prior to the BLM protest in D.C. and not for the events January 6th?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Why was a DHS/FBI threat assessment done prior to the BLM protest in D.C. and not for the events January 6th?

I am sure that there is a good reason.

 

[wing2000]

I think he nails it:

Eddy* says in hindsight he believes the problem was something he calls "the invisible obvious" — things that sit right in front of us that we don't notice. "The reason that they are invisible to us ... gets to our biases," he said. "The situation here, I'm unfortunately quite sure we're going to find, that it was very hard for these decision-makers and these analysts to realize that people who look just like them could want to commit this kind of unconstitutional violence and could literally try to and want to kill them."

This was supposed to be a pro-Trump rally, until it wasn't.

"Foe look differently, foe act differently, say different things," Eddy said. "They don't have the same bumper stickers. They don't have the same yellow flag of 'Don't Tread on Me.' It was hard for them to see that the law-and-order hierarchy in which they were born and bred ... where they got their paycheck, was inciting the mob that was going to commit the violence that was indeed the foe, not the friend."

* R.P. Eddy, a former U.S. counterterrorism official and diplomat who now runs Ergo, a private intelligence firm.

Why Didn't The FBI And DHS Produce A Threat Report Ahead of The Capitol Insurrection?

 

[Ken-1122]

I think he nails it:

Eddy* says in hindsight he believes the problem was something he calls "the invisible obvious" — things that sit right in front of us that we don't notice. "The reason that they are invisible to us ... gets to our biases," he said. "The situation here, I'm unfortunately quite sure we're going to find, that it was very hard for these decision-makers and these analysts to realize that people who look just like them could want to commit this kind of unconstitutional violence and could literally try to and want to kill them."

What does this mean when he says the rioters look like the decision-makers in DC? Obviously they aren't twins so what is he talking about here?

This was supposed to be a pro-Trump rally, until it wasn't.

"Foe look differently, foe act differently, say different things," Eddy said. "They don't have the same bumper stickers. They don't have the same yellow flag of 'Don't Tread on Me.' It was hard for them to see that the law-and-order hierarchy in which they were born and bred ... where they got their paycheck, was inciting the mob that was going to commit the violence that was indeed the foe, not the friend."

* R.P. Eddy, a former U.S. counterterrorism official and diplomat who now runs Ergo, a private intelligence firm.

Why Didn't The FBI And DHS Produce A Threat Report Ahead of The Capitol Insurrection?

We're talking about Washington DC! If there were ever a place where liberals rule, it's gotta be this place. Didn't they paint a mural "Black lives matter, Defund the Police" right in front of the White House as a middle finger to Trump? If DC was trump haven, he might have a point; but DC is the opposite. First they say "defund the police" then they complain due to a lack of police response, when they get what they ask for. What part of stupid do you gotta buy into in order to see this as a race issue?

 

[wing2000]

What does this mean when he says the rioters look like the decision-makers in DC? Obviously they aren't twins so what is he talking about here?


We're talking about Washington DC! If there were ever a place where liberals rule, it's gotta be this place. Didn't they paint a mural "Black lives matter, Defund the Police" right in front of the White House as a middle finger to Trump? If DC was trump haven, he might have a point; but DC is the opposite. First they say "defund the police" then they complain due to a lack of police response, when they get what they ask for. What part of stupid do you gotta buy into in order to see this as a race issue?

Why was a DHS/FBI threat assessment done prior to the BLM protest in D.C. and not for the events January 6th?

I think bias played a role.
Do you have another explanation?

 

[Ken-1122]

Why was a DHS/FBI threat assessment done prior to the BLM protest in D.C. and not for the events January 6th?

I think bias played a role.
Do you have another explanation?

Donald Trump held countless rallies all over the country prior to January 6th, not a single one even came close to turning into a riot. BLM had countless rallies all over the country prior to coming to DC and lots of them resulted in riots. Judging from that information alone, which one do you think poses more of a threat? Which one would it make more sense to be more prepared for?
Again; what do you think he meant when he said the decision makers in DC looked like the rioters?

 

[rturner76]

Are you upset that Trump supporters could enter the Capitol and BLM activists couldn’t? Protest envy - is that what this is?

It is a question about race relations and law enforcement. Would a BLM protest be allowed in or would they be gassed and shot with rubber and real bullets?

Personally, I don't think BLM would of made it to the block the capital is on.

 

[rturner76]

In fact, black people get to complain about the way they think white people are treated by police and it's taken seriously. This thread is proof of that.

How are the opinions posted on this thread proof of anything? The thing is, there was no police misconduct. There would never be against a group of whites.

I think BLM touting protesters would of be gunned down before they could enter the Capitol Building. It would of been a bloodbath I think from what police have done in other situations The optics on TV are way worse when blonde women are being shot or beaten and bones broken. Police just can't have that on TV. With blacks, beatings and mace is to be expected.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think BLM touting protesters would of be gunned down before they could enter the Capitol Building. It would of been a bloodbath I think from what police have done in other situations

When has that ever happened?