7 ms·

You think the protestors also don't benefit from chaos? Neither side is innocent here. Any time the police are pushed to the point where they use force on the

You think the protestors also don't benefit from chaos? Neither side is innocent here. Any time the police are pushed to the point where they use force on the protestors, mass media is then awash with out of context clips of the event, claiming police brutality, drumming up more support for the protestors and their cause. The more chaos, the better it is for the protester's message. There's lots of peaceful protests every year that don't end in the police using force. In fact, the vast majority of them, before this. These protestors benefit politically if the police use force. So what's the difference here, why do these "protests" result in use of force? It's blatantly obvious to me ..

ogre_codes 6y ago
> You think the protestors also don't benefit from chaos? Neither side is innocent here. I don't see how your point is relevant here. Protestors aren't paid with tax dollars. Cops are getting paid massive amounts of overtime to prevent looting and damage during this crisis and instead they are contributing to it.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  From the mayor's public statements, it's clear that there's political pressure to not intervene - it doesn't seem to be solely a police decision.
noobaccount 6y ago
Nah people who get hurt don’t benefit. One side is organized like a military with command stations and ranks like captain and lieutenant, while the other is just people marching because they feel like it.
darkerside 6y ago
Because they are protests against the police, and the police don't like that? Simplest answer I can see
- krzyk 6y ago
  Use of force by police in those protests results in more protests. So the simplest answer is actually: protesters benefit from police using force. (because they'll get more protesters, more media coverage etc.)
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > So the simplest answer is actually: protesters benefit from police using force. I'm struggling to see the equivalency here. In one case you have cops, getting paid to protect people and property and ignoring that responsibility (or actually participating in mayhem) at no cost to themselves. Lots of incentive to act poorly, little personal consequence. On the other hand you have protestors who might collectively benefit from police using force at the cost of taking a club to the head or pepper spray to the face. Not seeing how the two are comparable.
  - mcv 6y ago
    The goal of the protesters is not to have more protests. I'm pretty sure they'd rather stay at home and do something fun. The goal of the protesters is to stop police violence. So the police using force is the exact opposite of what the protesters want.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    People in large groups typically don't exhibit intelligent coordinated behavior taking advantage of second order effects without training and coordination. Soldiers in battle require training to maintain formation in violent circumstances even though that's in their advantage as a group. It sounds like you may have a blind spot based on a preconceived notion here.
    - krzyk 6y ago
      Yes, I get that, but protests are rarely spontaneously created, they are organized by someone or some group of people.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> You think the protestors also don't benefit from chaos? Neither side is innocent here. I don't see how your point is relevant here. Protestors aren't paid with tax dollars. Cops are getting paid massive amounts of overtime to prevent looting and damage during this crisis and instead they are contributing to it.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
From the mayor's public statements, it's clear that there's political pressure to not intervene - it doesn't seem to be solely a police decision.

noobaccount 6y ago

Nah people who get hurt don’t benefit. One side is organized like a military with command stations and ranks like captain and lieutenant, while the other is just people marching because they feel like it.

darkerside 6y ago

Because they are protests against the police, and the police don't like that? Simplest answer I can see

krzyk 6y ago
Use of force by police in those protests results in more protests. So the simplest answer is actually: protesters benefit from police using force. (because they'll get more protesters, more media coverage etc.)
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > So the simplest answer is actually: protesters benefit from police using force. I'm struggling to see the equivalency here. In one case you have cops, getting paid to protect people and property and ignoring that responsibility (or actually participating in mayhem) at no cost to themselves. Lots of incentive to act poorly, little personal consequence. On the other hand you have protestors who might collectively benefit from police using force at the cost of taking a club to the head or pepper spray to the face. Not seeing how the two are comparable.
- mcv 6y ago
  The goal of the protesters is not to have more protests. I'm pretty sure they'd rather stay at home and do something fun. The goal of the protesters is to stop police violence. So the police using force is the exact opposite of what the protesters want.
- darkerside 6y ago
  People in large groups typically don't exhibit intelligent coordinated behavior taking advantage of second order effects without training and coordination. Soldiers in battle require training to maintain formation in violent circumstances even though that's in their advantage as a group. It sounds like you may have a blind spot based on a preconceived notion here.
  - krzyk 6y ago
    Yes, I get that, but protests are rarely spontaneously created, they are organized by someone or some group of people.