9 ms·
The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any lea
by bananabreakfast 6y ago
The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any leader express any kind of approval of violence. And most importantly, no one told the rioters that they love them and that they are special.
- Pfhreak 6y agoAgreed. Additionally, it's important to recognize that "peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive -- but they were explicitly non-violent.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago>"peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive peaceful: 1. free from disturbance; tranquil. 2. not involving war or violence.
- Pfhreak 6y agoYes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoThe protests were neither free of disturbance nor non violent (on the fringe)
- djrogers 6y agoI'm sorry, but that's revisionist history. Ariel Atkins - Chicago BLM leader: "That is reparations,” Ariel Atkins, an organizer, told NBC Chicago. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it" She said that about a riot in which 13 police officers were injured, and at least one rioter fired at police. This is just one example of many where BLM leaders justified (or glorified) violence.