Learn some history.
Naturally large scale protests are taking place. Israel protests are usually very tame, no looting and practically no violence,atleast when to what you see in French or the US.
The most violent things protesters did was sitting on the road (which was blocked by police) in front of the PM residence. This did not stop media controlled by Netanyahu to pump the notion that these protesters are all rioters and anarchists. While a lot of them are yound middle class educated family people, Led by 60-70 yo without any political aspiration.
So when the person being protested against calls the protesters rioters, I tend to take it with a grain of salt.
To be frank, i don't know about the US, but violence in French protest used to be well-contained and limited to a few buildings (often a mcdonald, a bank or two and sometime a Tesla, nothing an assurance wouldn't cover, and free time for a dozen employee during the repairs) until recently when lawkeeping doctrine were changed to avoid making our government looking like they lost.
Violence from protesters used to be limited to black blocks, and black blocks are organized and carefull, attached to symbols. You could predict which batiment could be targeted ahaed of time, take preventive mesure for those batiments. They never put fire in commercial building if there were occupied appartement nearby.
Then, because of a macdonald destruction that looked bad on a camera (despite looking really, really good for anybody aware of what lawkeeping really is about: 3 minor injuries, 90 BB arrested for a quarter of a million of property damage), police were asked to start protecting batiment.
That made mobile brigade and CRS immobile and unable to follow and limit property destruction, so a minister door was fractured.
Easy solution, just had more police. even if the ones we add are not trained in lawkeeping at all and are used to anti-drugs operation and are a bit trigger-happy. And also, change the doctrine, instead of letting black blocks destroying property to scare protesters off and nest BB more easely, meet them earlier. If "normals" protester don't want to be hurt, they shouldn't be near these black blocks!
We are two deaths, three hands, around twenty eyes, battered poicemen and a dropping confidence in the police after those "clever" decisions.
Violence call for violence, and now the protester are really violent. Their rights.
So yes, violence calls for violence. But, we must break the cycle, I think nonviolent resistant is the only way to go.
Sadly, a lot of the media in Israel is either controlled by netanyahu via a web of corrupt interests or out right fear. Now it's mainly commercial fear, but he has been targeting and enflaming against top tier journalists that won't back down. Anyway, they don't show the peacful side of the protest.
:Facepalm:
I think this claim lost any validity long, long ago.
As long as you want to paint all protesters as rioters, then to be consistent you have to put all of the police into the same bucket as well.
No sane person can look at the riots and say this is protest it stopped being that long ago.
It stopped being that the moment it turned into riots.
Those still participating are complicit at the very least and I would hazard a guess are well fucking aware of what they're doing.
I should clarify, I am well aware there are still ongoing peaceful protests.
Those are not an issue, and nobody on this side is confusing them or labelling them as rioters.
If you want to see what biased but relatively fair coverage of this, go watch tim pool on youtube. There is a bit of exaggeration but by and large what he speaks is mostly pretty solid reasoning.
The extreme left has taken over this issue and is destroying our chances at finally removing trump. And I'm pissed about this, because the issues these riots started over are real, and need resolution, but these riots don't result in this outcome.
They result in more people falling down the right side of things.
Plenty of us sane people can still see the protests going on, the actual riots are not that common but are covered disproportionately by the press (but especially by FoxNews who is making out Portland and Seattle as apocalyptic hellscapes). I assume you are either in Portland and just not paying attention or you are getting all your information from the media.
I am saying what we have here is not protest. Its rioting.
I don't know what law enforcement have to do with this.
Riots are when people assemble and commit crimes. Especially felony crimes like arson, destruction of property, etc.
These are riots.
If we could know for sure the police weren't going to abuse their authority, there would have been neither protests nor riots.
The thread started out with someone arguing that the "protests" are actually "riots". Someone else replied by pointing out "because there's riots and protests", which are not the same thing.
So then you replied with, "The cops are after evidence on arson and gun theft, not protests, as the headline says." – which I took (perhaps mistakenly) as an argument that the media's footage should not be considered as innocuous "protest footage", because the cops believe that it contains evidence of crimes.
But that seems like begging the question? Ignoring the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept (two suspects have been arrested and charged, but not tried), it seems problematic to argue that the media should handover its riot footage on the basis that the police believe it contains evidence of riotous activity.
Just as it would be problematic to characterize someone's personal email account as being non-innocuous, on the basis of what the police assert they might find if they do a few keyword searches of it.
The way this part was written in context was hard to parse for me - on first read it seemed that you were arguing that it would be fair to say that you were complicit. This reply shows that you intended this in a more hyperbolic way, or in such a way that you would mock-suggest that “surely this would not be fair,” which is obvious when I already know your meaning, but didn’t seem clear to me on first read.
See: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/10/protes...
Also, Jason Stanley’s book, “How Fascism Works” also has a write up on this usage of language too.
No, they’re not. What a ridiculous stretch to further broaden and water down what is considered racism.
Politicians who describe whole categories of persons as “criminals” are imputing to them permanent character traits that are frightening to most people, while simultaneously positioning themselves as our protectors. Such language undermines the democratic process of reasonable decision making, replacing it with fear. Another salient example in the U.S. context is the use of the term “riot” to describe political protests. In the United States in the 1960s, the civil rights movement included black political protests in urban areas against police brutality (most famously in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles and the Harlem district of Manhattan). These protests were regularly described in the media as “riots.” As James Baldwin wrote at the time about the media description of these protests, “when white men rise up against oppression, they are heroes: when black men rise, they have reverted to their native savagery. The uprising in the Warsaw ghetto was not described as a riot, nor were the participants maligned as hoodlums: the boys and girls in Watts and Harlem are thoroughly aware of this.” 2 Such misrepresentations allowed Richard Nixon to run for office in 1968 on a “law and order” platform. Nixon’s administration is generally viewed as laying the groundwork for the subsequent mass incarceration of black American citizens.
In 2015, widespread protests by largely black crowds against police brutality occurred in Baltimore after the killing of Freddie Gray by police. In an article for Linguistic Pulse in April 2015, Nic Subtirelu compared different media outlets’ use of “protest” versus “riot” to describe the Baltimore protests. Subtirelu found that Fox News, the United States’ far-right media outlet, used “riot” in its coverage of the Baltimore unrest with more than twice the frequency of its use of “protest.” CNN, by contrast, used “riot” with only slightly more frequency than “protest,” and MSNBC used “protest” with only slightly more frequency than “riot” in its coverage of the unrest in Baltimore. 3 The misrepresentation of political protests as riots was a factor in the election campaign of Donald Trump, whose campaign had strong echoes of Nixon’s. Nixon, however, campaigned at a time of rising rates of violent crime. Trump’s successful “law and order” campaign took place under the conditions of some of the lowest rates of violent crime in recorded U.S. history.
Discussion that uses terms like “criminal” to encompass both those who commit multiple homicides for pleasure and those who commit traffic violations, or “riot” to describe a political protest, changes attitudes and shapes policy. A good example of what can result when language that criminalizes an entire group of people distorts debate and leads to unreasonable outcomes is the mass incarceration of American citizens of African descent.
What category specifically is the Portland Police describing as "criminals"? They are specifically calling those partaking in a riot "rioters". None of this is race related, and as a matter of fact, the vast majority of these rioters are white.
>Such language undermines the democratic process of reasonable decision making
The decisions have been made. Defacing and burning down buildings and assaulting officers is illegal. Partaking in this illegal behavior in large groups is what rioters do.
>Another salient example in the U.S. context is the use of the term “riot” to describe political protests.
No one is describing the peaceful protests as riots. The riots are described as riots.
The rest of your post is full of illogic and is clearly not describing what we're seeing in Portland. By no legal definition is what's going on in Portland now considered a "peaceful protest".
>Discussion that uses terms like “criminal” to encompass both those who commit multiple homicides for pleasure and those who commit traffic violations
Homicides are criminal, many traffic violations are decidedly NOT CRIMINAL, and instead are civil infractions. Much like riots are criminal and protests are civil. Perfect example actually, thanks for proving my point.
An interesting historical footnote from [1]:
A leader of the Cuban rebels, Gen. Calixto García[3], gave Hearst a Cuban flag that had been riddled with bullets as a gift, in appreciation of Hearst's major role in Cuba's liberation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
Categorically false. There were dozens upon dozens of peaceful protests across the country in the past weeks that were decidedly not branded as riots. Very few police departments have declared groupings as riots, fewer than ten. Orders of magnitude less than the amount of protests.
>This should be obvious, as they have allowed looting and rioting in instances, as well as curtailing and meaningfully impeding constitutionally protected protest activity.
This makes little sense and actually disproves your point? City councils and mayors oversee the police departments and tell them to stand down.
>When law enforcement is allowed to designate people or groups as rioters indiscriminately, and then brutalize them, then arrest them, it’s clear that your rights are being impinged.
So you just said they're not able to since in other areas they've been told to stand down and not enforce or designate anything. You can't have it both ways.
>and can do as much or more “journalism” on a Twitter account today than William Randolph Hearst could on a good day in 1898.[1][2]
>An interesting historical footnote from
Total non sequitur.
As for why everyone deserves the same protections that journalists do under the law, the same journalists being subpoenaed in OP are broadcasting citizen journalists’ content as well. We’re all journalists now.
Where did I leave my press pass? Oh, there it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHb3xVqxcp8