4 ms·

> You say this after the president of the United States has incited a seditious, violet mob to attack the Capitol because he's a sore loser. By this logic pro-

by umvi 6y ago

> You say this after the president of the United States has incited a seditious, violet mob to attack the Capitol because he's a sore loser. By this logic pro-BLM democrats (including some high level pro-BLM politicians) incited numerous violent mobs over the course of 2020 to attack Seattle and Portland and usurp rule-of-law. But when it happened then the protests were "fiery but mostly peaceful" because "collateral damage is okay if it is done in the name of grappling with racism". Now that the other side has gathered to protest what they see as injustices, it's "a coup" and "terrorism" because of the bad actors who postponed congress for a few hours despite the fact that the vast majority of the people at the protest were peacefully protesting.

edmundsauto 6y ago
You say these things as if they are not facts. BLM was protesting the injustice of systematic oppression that results in black people bejng murdered by police. 93% of the protests were entirely peaceful. In the other 7%, it is not clear if the violence was instigated by citizens or police. On the right, you have people who storm the US fucking Capitol building while they are confirming the next POTUS. They were trying to disrupt the federal government. Some of them had zip tie handcuffs and were reportedly looking for VP Pence. If you cannot see the clear daylight between those two things, and insist on reducing it to “violence on both sides”, then I simply don’t know what to say to you except to please re-examine your humanity as well as your critical thinking skills.
- umvi 6y ago
  > On the right, you have people who storm the US fucking Capitol building while they are confirming the next POTUS. Could you directly address that time back in June when armed BLM protestors stormed Capitol Hill in Seattle and kicked out all the police for a month?[0] Why does that event get a pass in the context of this conversation? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone
  - Tokkemon 6y ago
    It's not the most important government building in the entire nation. Don't be stupid, this is not at all comparable.
    - viridian 6y ago
      Why should we consider it a tragedy that people were occupying this building? I certainly don't see any reason to, just like I didn't see any reason to consider the occupation of the two police stations (and destruction of one) a tragedy.
      - Tokkemon 6y ago
        The symbolism is what's important. This building, the largest and tallest and most ornate of all the government buildings in DC, is the beating heart of the US government. To take it over is to strike at the very heart of the government, and to have one branch taken over by instigation by the other branch, it is horrific. Because the consequences are a collapse of this society. With no functioning US Government, the United States cease to be united. It's an existential symbol, and that's why terrorists attempted to target it on 9/11 and why terrorists targeted it this week.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    CHAZ was awful, a complete failure for everyone involved. Police escalated during protests, then when it got too hot, they pulled a LA Riots style retreat. Protesters became violent and undercut the moral fiber of their message, going from patriots to criminals very quickly. My understanding was the police decided to withdraw from the area due to the intensity. It looks like the Seattle people rejected law enforcement, but weren't trying to overthrow the government. Not all violence is equal. Overthrowing the US federal government because you didn't win is very different than CHAZ. Both can be disgusting while acknowledging that FEDERAL INSURRECTION AND ATTACKING DEMOCRACY IS WORSE THAN CHAZ.
    - umvi 6y ago
- Exuma 6y ago
  Aren't white people more likely to die by police? (seriously asking, I remember this data point but it's not in front of me).
  - sharatvir 6y ago
    There may be more white people killed by police (in sheer volume) but that’s not the same as white people being more likely to die by police.
  - umvi 6y ago
    Not quite. More white people die by far in total, but as a percentage of the demographic more non-white people die. This is largely attributed to systemic racism, but also to poverty.
    - Exuma 6y ago
      I see, thanks for explaining.
    - newsbinator 6y ago
      > This is largely attributed to systemic racism Citation needed
      - Exuma 6y ago
        Yes I've wanted to say this, that in legal terms systemic racism can't be proven, but I've already kicked the bee hive enough. PS not saying racism isn't real, only that it's not as clear of an issue as everyone acts like it is.
        gremlinsinc 6y ago
        Ask yourself honestly. If BLM or an Islamic American group had done the same thing yesterday. How many deaths would there have been? I'm guessing we'd be counting in percentages not fingers...something like 75% dead, 25% captured/in prison. For doing the SAME thing in the SAME location. I know, it's hard to prove, here say, but you know it's true. Snipers would've been out in force. Cops were high fiving and letting these people in. National Guard was told to stand down. Police were taking selfies with confederates holding flags in the People's building. This was a desecration of democracy and the rule of law in America. Everyone responsible needs at least 20 years in prison. No exceptions. Trying to disrupt our republic should have some consequences, no?
bdamm 6y ago
There's a difference between attacking the Capitol and attacking a Pizza Hut. There's also a difference between a protestor throwing a firework at a courthouse and taking tactical gear and weapons with a couple hundred buddies into a legislature. This equivalence between BLM and the mobbing of the Capitol is confusing to be because it's so obviously a false one.
- umvi 6y ago
  > There's a difference between attacking the Capitol and attacking a Pizza Hut What's the difference? In both cases the stated goal of the protests was not to "break stuff" so if that ends up happening, is that the protest's fault? > There's also a difference between a protestor throwing a firework at a courthouse and taking tactical gear and weapons with a couple hundred buddies into a legislature. What about armed protestors forcibly ejecting police from a section of the city and setting up a police-free zone? > This equivalence between BLM and the mobbing of the Capitol is confusing to be because it's so obviously a false one. It's not equivalent, just similar. In both cases peaceful protesting of perceived injustice is the stated goal, and in both cases bad actors go renegade and break down rule-of-law.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    The Pizza Hut isn't in the process of processing Electoral College votes for the next president of the United States. Disrupting the delivery of pizzas is not in the same category as disrupting the selection of the president. This wasn't just a riot. It wasn't just a protest. Wasn't just an attack on a building. It wasn't just some vandalism. It was an attack on the last step of the presidential election process.
    - umvi 6y ago
      The purpose of the protest was not to breach congress and stop the processing of the Electoral College votes. A small minority of protestors decided to do that. If we are going to do that and say the entire protest is bad if contained a few bad actors, then in order to not be hypocritical we need to condemn any BLM protest that had bad actors, including the one that resulted in CHAZ. Or, you can recognize the right to assemble and protest while condemning non-peaceful protesting. I personally unequivocally condemn the violence that occurred in both BLM and Trump protests. I also support the right to gather and peacefully protest, for both BLM and Pro-Trump supporters.

by umvi 6y ago

edmundsauto 6y ago

You say these things as if they are not facts. BLM was protesting the injustice of systematic oppression that results in black people bejng murdered by police. 93% of the protests were entirely peaceful. In the other 7%, it is not clear if the violence was instigated by citizens or police. On the right, you have people who storm the US fucking Capitol building while they are confirming the next POTUS. They were trying to disrupt the federal government. Some of them had zip tie handcuffs and were reportedly looking for VP Pence. If you cannot see the clear daylight between those two things, and insist on reducing it to “violence on both sides”, then I simply don’t know what to say to you except to please re-examine your humanity as well as your critical thinking skills.

umvi 6y ago
> On the right, you have people who storm the US fucking Capitol building while they are confirming the next POTUS. Could you directly address that time back in June when armed BLM protestors stormed Capitol Hill in Seattle and kicked out all the police for a month?[0] Why does that event get a pass in the context of this conversation? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone
- Tokkemon 6y ago
  It's not the most important government building in the entire nation. Don't be stupid, this is not at all comparable.
  - viridian 6y ago
    Why should we consider it a tragedy that people were occupying this building? I certainly don't see any reason to, just like I didn't see any reason to consider the occupation of the two police stations (and destruction of one) a tragedy.
    - Tokkemon 6y ago
      The symbolism is what's important. This building, the largest and tallest and most ornate of all the government buildings in DC, is the beating heart of the US government. To take it over is to strike at the very heart of the government, and to have one branch taken over by instigation by the other branch, it is horrific. Because the consequences are a collapse of this society. With no functioning US Government, the United States cease to be united. It's an existential symbol, and that's why terrorists attempted to target it on 9/11 and why terrorists targeted it this week.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  CHAZ was awful, a complete failure for everyone involved. Police escalated during protests, then when it got too hot, they pulled a LA Riots style retreat. Protesters became violent and undercut the moral fiber of their message, going from patriots to criminals very quickly. My understanding was the police decided to withdraw from the area due to the intensity. It looks like the Seattle people rejected law enforcement, but weren't trying to overthrow the government. Not all violence is equal. Overthrowing the US federal government because you didn't win is very different than CHAZ. Both can be disgusting while acknowledging that FEDERAL INSURRECTION AND ATTACKING DEMOCRACY IS WORSE THAN CHAZ.
  - umvi 6y ago
Exuma 6y ago
Aren't white people more likely to die by police? (seriously asking, I remember this data point but it's not in front of me).
- sharatvir 6y ago
  There may be more white people killed by police (in sheer volume) but that’s not the same as white people being more likely to die by police.
- umvi 6y ago
  Not quite. More white people die by far in total, but as a percentage of the demographic more non-white people die. This is largely attributed to systemic racism, but also to poverty.
  - Exuma 6y ago
    I see, thanks for explaining.
  - newsbinator 6y ago
    > This is largely attributed to systemic racism Citation needed
    - Exuma 6y ago
      Yes I've wanted to say this, that in legal terms systemic racism can't be proven, but I've already kicked the bee hive enough. PS not saying racism isn't real, only that it's not as clear of an issue as everyone acts like it is.
      - gremlinsinc 6y ago
        Ask yourself honestly. If BLM or an Islamic American group had done the same thing yesterday. How many deaths would there have been? I'm guessing we'd be counting in percentages not fingers...something like 75% dead, 25% captured/in prison. For doing the SAME thing in the SAME location. I know, it's hard to prove, here say, but you know it's true. Snipers would've been out in force. Cops were high fiving and letting these people in. National Guard was told to stand down. Police were taking selfies with confederates holding flags in the People's building. This was a desecration of democracy and the rule of law in America. Everyone responsible needs at least 20 years in prison. No exceptions. Trying to disrupt our republic should have some consequences, no?

bdamm 6y ago

There's a difference between attacking the Capitol and attacking a Pizza Hut. There's also a difference between a protestor throwing a firework at a courthouse and taking tactical gear and weapons with a couple hundred buddies into a legislature. This equivalence between BLM and the mobbing of the Capitol is confusing to be because it's so obviously a false one.

umvi 6y ago
> There's a difference between attacking the Capitol and attacking a Pizza Hut What's the difference? In both cases the stated goal of the protests was not to "break stuff" so if that ends up happening, is that the protest's fault? > There's also a difference between a protestor throwing a firework at a courthouse and taking tactical gear and weapons with a couple hundred buddies into a legislature. What about armed protestors forcibly ejecting police from a section of the city and setting up a police-free zone? > This equivalence between BLM and the mobbing of the Capitol is confusing to be because it's so obviously a false one. It's not equivalent, just similar. In both cases peaceful protesting of perceived injustice is the stated goal, and in both cases bad actors go renegade and break down rule-of-law.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  The Pizza Hut isn't in the process of processing Electoral College votes for the next president of the United States. Disrupting the delivery of pizzas is not in the same category as disrupting the selection of the president. This wasn't just a riot. It wasn't just a protest. Wasn't just an attack on a building. It wasn't just some vandalism. It was an attack on the last step of the presidential election process.
  - umvi 6y ago
    The purpose of the protest was not to breach congress and stop the processing of the Electoral College votes. A small minority of protestors decided to do that. If we are going to do that and say the entire protest is bad if contained a few bad actors, then in order to not be hypocritical we need to condemn any BLM protest that had bad actors, including the one that resulted in CHAZ. Or, you can recognize the right to assemble and protest while condemning non-peaceful protesting. I personally unequivocally condemn the violence that occurred in both BLM and Trump protests. I also support the right to gather and peacefully protest, for both BLM and Pro-Trump supporters.