5 ms·
You're right, practicing restraint is very important. What I meant is that the difference itself is what's despicable. An actively hostile, antagonistic respons
by shadowfacts 6y ago
You're right, practicing restraint is very important. What I meant is that the difference itself is what's despicable. An actively hostile, antagonistic response to protestors who were almost entirely peaceful versus doing almost nothing to impede armed rioters breaking into the Capitol.
- cltby 6y agoIt seems widely agreed that 93% of BLM protests were peaceful [1]. That remaining 7% slice was responsible for $1-2 billion of property damage [2], on par with a serious natural disaster. I don't know how someone can continue to use the "mostly peaceful" line with a straight face. [1] https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/ https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/ [2] https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4...
- timeinput 6y agoIf I flipped a coin and it came up heads 93% of the time would you say it came up mostly heads?
- caddemon 6y agoI feel like people are just talking past each other on this. Yes the protests were technically mostly peaceful, but if the loss from a violent protest is 15x the magnitude of the gain of a peaceful protest, the impact is no longer mostly peaceful. I do not think this extreme minority should warp one's overall opinion of BLM for the record, but I do think the lack of acknowledgement for the damage that was caused is counterproductive.
- triceratops 6y agoLast I heard, 50% + 1 is the definition of "mostly". 93% is "overwhelmingly". To be clear, any property damage or loss of life is a tragedy but "mostly peaceful" isn't just accurate, it's an understatement.
- cltby 6y agoPoint taken, but by this standard, we could defend drunk driving as overwhelmingly safe, war as overwhelmingly non-fatal, Vioxx as overwhelmingly heart-healthy, ISPs as overwhelmingly customer friendly, etc etc. It strikes me as pyschopathic to endorse actions that stand a 7% chance of ruining numerous innocent lives.
- triceratops 6y agoI didn't endorse any of the violent protests. But I don't understand your analogy at all. Drunk driving is never ok. Are you saying any kind of protest is never ok because it has a chance of turning violent? confused face
- cltby 6y agoThere are over 110M drunk driving incidents in the US every year and nearly 7M crashes, drunk or otherwise [1][2]. If we conservatively attribute all of these crashes to drunk drivers, we find that 94% of drunk driving causes no damage or injury. It is, to borrow your words, overwhelmingly safe. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im... [2] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-highway-safety#Motor%20vehicle%20crashes https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-highway-...
- triceratops 6y agoI ask you again, are you saying protests of any kind are never ok? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
- cltby 6y agoAll I ask is that your social movement be less injurious to society than being wasted behind the wheel.
- deleted 6y ago