[1] https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21275720/george-floyd-protests-...
[2] https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/03/false-claims-of-antifa-...
[3] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/paid-pro...
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bellevue-police-chief-says-...
Buzzfeed, Vox and even Snopes are a bit partisan on this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008852
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516762
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516623
(also, note that "professionally organize riots" might as well mean that they are good at organizing them, or that they helped organize multiple riots)
>https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c...
Yes, fact-checking is hard. You can say things that are literally true but clearly imply false conclusions, or vice versa. And Snopes isn't perfect. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to be getting here.
>ethicsalarms.com
This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Anyone who cites it as an argument should immediately lose all semblance of credibility. Here are some direct quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of clicking around:
>>>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats in control of the government.
>>>Pelosi’s Democrats have orchestrated one attempted coup after another
>>>There have been 19 Plans to abuse various processes, laws and theories, all put forward and promoted by members of the Democratic Party/”resistance”/mainstream news media alliance since President Trump’s election in November of 2016... The desired effect of this barrage, apart from serving the goal of removing an elected President without the bother (and risk) of an election, has been to make it impossible for the President to govern, and to destroy his support among the public.
Yep. Fair and balanced, and definitely not unhinged. Moving on:
>Snopes and BBC articles about a commentator named Robert Lee
As Snopes says:
>There is no dispute that Robert Lee was moved off covering a University of Virginia football game for ESPN because of the coincidence of his name. However, ESPN’s intent appeared to have been a desire to avoid prompting public ridicule rather than public offense — a move that ended up subjecting the network (for different reasons) to the very mocking they had hoped to head off.
What else am I supposed to be seeing here? A megacorp attempted to sidestep a potentially awkward situation, and ran into the Striesand effect. Both Snopes and the BBC pointed out that it was maybe misguided, and we all had a chuckle at their expense. Do you think that Disney, of all companies, is a leftist organization, and that Snopes is covering for them?
>Google search for "snopes strawman"
The top results for me are, in order:
1. A bunch of Reddit results referring people to Snopes as a source because the thing they're arguing against is a made-up strawman.
2. Snopes's own Facebook page
3. A blog nitpicking semantics over... Amelia Earhart's bones? https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-checking-s...
4. ethicsalarms.com, discussed above.
5. "A Guide to Arguing with a Snopes Denier", from the Houston Press
>>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats in control of the government.
In your view is CNN not partisan?
In regards to Robert Lee, like other misleading fact checks, the objection wasn't that he was fired. People were observing that it was misguided. I think we should be able to have this discussion without terms like "batshit right-wing conspiracy theory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State...
Clearly you are citing some high-quality, objective journalism here my friend. Whoever writes for that web site needs medication and therapy. It is legit unhinged.
None of these links are sources. The first two are just editorials, the second one is practically frothing at the mouth.
The Robert Lee ones are pretty interesting, though. I think Snopes did an OK job of covering that particular story, though not ideal in my analysis. They pointed out that Mr. Lee was not actually fired by ESPN (he was not) and that ESPN was trying to avoid potential embarrassment and in the process ended up embarrassing themselves more - which is exactly what happened.
ESPN hired the guy, they clearly weren't offended by his name. They thought they were covering their asses and ended up making asses of themselves. All over an imagined issue that was really a non-issue.
That said, there is more opinion in that Snopes article than I would like. I'm don't think Snopes' best and highest function is to try to explain why ESPN behaved the way they did (unless they have facts to share). That said, their analysis seems sound.
Really, your links are kind of the opposite of sources. All you've proven is that many people do not trust Snopes or any other news source when they don't like what it says. More News at 11 folks.
p.s. - it's garbage in, garbage out. Your brain deserves better input than that.
I would say, there are 4 groups involved:
1. Hard-working Blacks. Against gangs. Against violence. Pro police. Pro civilization. Don't really hate Whites.
2. Short-sighted Blacks. Pro gangs. Against education. Don't have a high-paying job. Plenty of free time. Often substance abuse. Unhappy with their lives. Feel unfairly disadvantaged over Whites.
3. Hard-working Whites. Pretty much, the same as hard-working Blacks. Reasonable people are reasonable regardless of their race.
4. Short-sighted Whites. Unhappy with their lives. Didn't put much effort in education, mastering hard skills, etc. Do have a better starting point than the short-sighted Blacks due to their parents' efforts. Feel unfairly advantaged over group #2 and jealous towards group #3.
The thing is, groups #1 and #3 are busy with their work, while groups #2 and #4 are extremely vocal. So the click-driven media makes it look like there's a problem between the Black and Whites. While, in reality, groups #1 and #3 (a.k.a. silent majority) are happily working together, while groups #2 and #4 are stirring up the pot.
> At least 13 officers were inside the building at the time, Meuser said, and some wrote what they thought were final texts to family members and loved ones fearing they would be killed.
The third precinct was abandoned when the fences started coming down. That's a full 30 minutes before any fires were started.
Please don't insult me.
Cement was at East Precinct.
Fire was at West Precinct.
You've received misinformation that filtered down from one very dishonest conservative source, MyNorthwest.
Out of interest, if there was an intentional fire in a school, would consider this act to be an "attack on elementary school children"? Or would you consider there to be a distinction between setting a fire in a building and harm to actual human beings?
>It’s probably a mistake to even try to comment here...
>...there’s another term for this I won’t use...
Right now, officers are trained and conditioned in a way that keeps their gun at the forefront of responses. Especially in Minneapolis, where--as of six years ago--96% of the MPD were not from Minneapolis, but commuted from surrounding suburbs, there's an "us vs them" occupier mentality that results from not being a public servant in your own neighborhood. Many MPD cops openly talk about Minneapolis being akin to entering a warzone.
If we had people properly trained in deescalating non-violent or domestic situations, who people would feel confident in calling because they wouldn't be worried about somehow getting shot, the armed officers would be able to focus their efforts on the situations requiring their presence.
It's a complicated situation. But it's been shown time and again that our system isn't necessarily working, and it would be beneficial to look at other approaches and countries for guidance.
There's very little oversight of how the police spend their money, which leads to instances like Snoqualmie purchasing a mine-resistant armored vehicle instead of investing in training.
I won't advocate via the mantra of "defund the police" because, as I pointed out, no one agrees on what that means. This distortion of language makes it very difficult to have rational discussion. Witness all the problems caused by not understanding that "protesting" and "rioting" are actually different activities and that "mostly peaceful" is not a valid synonym for "frequently violent".
The vocabulary of critical social justice theory is another minefield of words used in novel ways. Lots of people don't understand this (including myself until I started researching this recently) so you get very divisive interactions going on because people are talking past each other.
Madness.
The police spend relatively little of their time doing what anyone would consider essential police work: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/upshot/unrest-police-time...
I see no reason that redistributing their duties related to things like traffic infractions, non-criminal calls, property crime, medical emergencies, etc. would do anything but help public safety, as cops are not particularly good at most of those things. They lack the training and professional culture to handle them appropriately. Rather than give them yet more money to train in such a wide variety of situations, we should have actual professionals that know how to handle, say, mental health crises respond to them, and only involve police as a backup to them at most.
Also, the vast majority of crime is related to poverty. Even gang violence is a product of poverty and the drug war, both of which can be addressed through policy and reallocation of funds.
> For those who can afford it, the safety "gap" will be addressed by private security forces, gated communities, or simply re-locating (and taking their tax dollars with them).
I wouldn't mind this much, as anyone interested in using their capital to do such things are also meddling unhelpfully in local politics.
It's the same reason guns are selling like crazy, with new gun owners at all-time high.
I fear a situation where because of empathy the state has given up the monopoly on force by essentially allowing violent riots that destroy individuals livelihoods, and those individuals will look for some other way to secure themselves and their property.
Why do you believe chaos and rioting will be the outcome of reworking policing? That "chaos" and riots are a direct result of the status quo of violent and often racist policing.
This will only be ended with overwhelming violence. Either the state needs to step up and accept their role/responsibility as the monopoly holder on violence, or I fear the general population will. And if the average joe does it, it'll be in the form of mass killings at rallies, which no one wants.
There were rioters armed in various ways. A favorite was a long and narrow skateboard, because denying that it is intended as a weapon works pretty well. Business owners, homeowners, and their friends were caught in the middle, and typically armed with rifles similar to the AR-15.
Rioters chased a guy down the street. He fell. The rioters were soon upon him. He shot at one while on the ground, and got hit by a skateboard. He then managed to stand (this I feel is where the biased video editing will start) and fire at the skateboard attacker who was coming back for another attack. That shot, at a range of 1 to 5 feet, turned the attacker's biceps into a mist that is visible in the video. (other footage shows a fist-sized chunk missing) Way off on the right side of the video another armed rioter apparently has second thoughts, stopping his approach and backing off a bit. Yet another rioter doesn't seem to get the message, continues approaching, and is shot. The shooter then carefully walks down the street.
Meanwhile, in a different location but close enough that the shots from one video can be heard in the other, there is another shooting with a similar gun. This time the rioter suffers a head shot or two, then drops down with whole-body spasms that suggest brain stem destruction. I could see a bullet wound on the side of the head, but it looked like a grazing wound. I think there was another that hit the neck or entered a nostril. The nose was bleeding, and the neck was hidden by a scarf.
The shooter was the same in both instances. The extra shots are of unknown origin. The head shot, that I described second, was the first instance.
The rioters were dumb enough to corner a man with a gun. One did the silly "come on, shoot me" thing and got shot in the head. The rioters then chased the shooter a very long ways, until he fell to the ground.
The guy who got shot in the biceps was attempting to use a pistol to execute the guy on the ground. I couldn't make it out, but the biceps loser had a cell phone in his left hand and a pistol in his right hand. He held both hands up as if to surrender, using that to get closer to the guy on the ground. At this point the guy on the ground had killed 2 people, but he held back. The biceps loser suddenly brought his hands down to fire the pistol. It was a clear attempt to execute the guy on the ground, who then shot off the biceps that was on the arm holding the pistol.
The shooter showed lots of restraint. In numerous cases, he pointed his rifle at potential attackers, but he didn't shoot if they backed off. Legally, he's going to be fine, but I wouldn't be surprised if a politically-motivated trial happens.
His score is 4 rioters shot, 3 of whom died. The biceps loser, who tried to perform an execution, will almost certainly live. The arm might be saved, but that is uncertain.
My overall impression is that it looked like a zombie movie. WTF. The rioters just kept coming, seemingly unaware that in real life you can actually get mangled or killed. The rioters are insane. It's interesting that they scream "medic" when injured. They don't scream "police" or "call 911" or "help" or anything normal. It's like they imagine themselves to be soldiers or in a video game.
They're literally a response to George Floyd being murdered. The straw that broke the camel's back. Every single protest has chanting of the high-profile cases of black people being murdered by police.
> The chaos and riots are a direct result of weak leadership. When the mayor and governor practically declare a "purge" this is what you get.
I have no idea what this is referring to.
> This would happen in any place and any time in which the government stands down and tells the civilian population they are on their own.
When the government stands down from what? Civilian population on their own for what? I have so many questions.
> We've been locked down for months and it seems like the only thing that's legal to do is burn down buildings and rob stores.
Are you trying to make this about the pandemic?
> This will only be ended with overwhelming violence. Either the state needs to step up and accept their role/responsibility as the monopoly holder on violence, or I fear the general population will. And if the average joe does it, it'll be in the form of mass killings at rallies, which no one wants.
It will be ended when cops stop murdering black people. That seems like a more copacetic solution than escalating violence.
>Are you trying to make this about the pandemic?
I'm not trying to make this about any one thing, but I think it's foolish to imagine that the pandemic lockdowns have no impact on the proverbial temperature in the room.
> It will be ended when cops stop murdering black people. That seems like a more copacetic solution than escalating violence.
Police violence against black people is a problem in every way except statistically.
I went there personally. It was a defensive protest area with blockades against cars that had been running into protesters and aggressive cops.
> When your neighborhood is violently overtaken by an occupying force and the government does nothing, what do you call that?
"Violently overtaken". It's just protesters being in an area, most of which was a public park. It wasn't seized using weapons or anything like you might assume based on how you word that claim.
In addition, the denizens of Capitol Hill reported being much happier with CHAZ than the constant nightly indiscriminate and liberal use of teargas that seeped into their apartments and hurt their children and infants. CHAZ put a stop to that by preventing organized police aggression.
> And of course Portland is not the only city to have made the police stand down and refused to call in the national guard after 3 months now of nightly riots, they're just the most egregious.
PPD was extremely aggressive and escalatory. There's a reason they're targeted by calls to stand down or otherwise be massively restricted. They also have a long-standing history of collaborating with white supremacists. Nothing there is okay.
> I'm not trying to make this about any one thing, but I think it's foolish to imagine that the pandemic lockdowns have no impact on the proverbial temperature in the room.
I think it's callous and dismissive to speculate that protests about yet another unarmed black man being murdered by cops is about the pandemic.
> Police violence against black people is a problem in every way except statistically.
Hardly.
This same group of people was throwing rocks, hitting people with sticks, permanently blinding people with powerful lasers, and other acts of violence. Whether you agree with it or not, they were violent occupiers of several city blocks, not just a park. And they were definitely armed. They even created their own "peacekeeping" force which walked around with AR-15s.
>I think it's callous and dismissive to speculate that protests about yet another unarmed black man being murdered by cops is about the pandemic.
George Floyd died of an overdose of fentanyl. He was complaining about not being able to breathe before he was lying on the ground. While he was still up, he begged the police to lay him down on the ground, which they did. It appears you are the victim of race baiting. It's a shame, because the police involved in this are almost certainly going to be found not guilty, but because this story has been ginned up so much it will result in even more violent riots in the streets.
The outcome of surrendering to violent mobs is to embolden and empower violent mobs. There will be more and worse.
This sounds like a description of police departments throughout the United States.
> The more you surrender to violent rioters demanding policy change through fire and violence rather than the ballot box, the more you demonstrate that violence is the way to accomplish anything.
The rioters aren't doing that. The rioters are releasing pent-up frustration and anger at a system that abuses them. They're not sending any message other than their own pain.
The organized protesters are making such demands. They're being met with extreme police violence and aggression.
> The outcome of surrendering to violent mobs is to embolden and empower violent mobs. There will be more and worse.
Please actually attend a protest to see how the power dynamics work.
No. Racism is bad but not all police are racist (I would guess most aren't) and the violence is not for political purposes.
>The rioters aren't doing that. The rioters are releasing pent-up frustration and anger at a system that abuses them. They're not sending any message other than their own pain.
Disagree. They're burning down businesses, attacking people, threatening them and intimidating them. You can be in pain without attacking others. Once you attack others you're not communicating pain, you're attacking people, and you can expect to receive it in kind when the people you intimidate and threaten communicate their own pain.
>The organized protesters are making such demands. They're being met with extreme police violence and aggression.
yawn
>Please actually attend a protest to see how the power dynamics work.
I have been to protests, but violent riots are not protests, and rewarding violent rioters and defending them is its own power dynamic. The power dynamic right now is heavily on the side of violent rioters and people pushing political violence, and it will lead to even more tragedy.
The police are reacting to a direct political criticism of their legitimacy by hurting, disabling, nearly killing protesters indiscriminately. Of course it's political. They're fighting for their own budgets that are at risk via the political process.
We could discuss of all the fun ways that the police are racist (it is primarily, but not solely, systemic), but I don't think it was really a point of contention.
> Disagree. They're burning down businesses, attacking people, threatening them and intimidating them.
This doesn't contradict anything I said.
> You can be in pain without attacking others. Once you attack others you're not communicating pain, you're attacking people, and you can expect to receive it in kind when the people you intimidate and threaten communicate their own pain.
I hope you never experience the pain and frustration they did, because that is exactly how this kind of systemic abuse is expressed. I highly doubt you've have to see your friends beaten, arrested, killed, mistreated, talked down to constantly, and then watch executions by cops of people like yourself over and over and over again without anyone caring to do anything about it.
This is essentially a form of tone policing long after the damage and horrors have already happened.
> >The organized protesters are making such demands. They're being met with extreme police violence and aggression.
> yawn
I have to wonder what you find boring about extreme police violence and collective punishment happening right in front of you.
> >Please actually attend a protest to see how the power dynamics work.
> I have been to protests
George Floyd protests where the police form a line to block you, then start moving on you?
> but violent riots are not protests, and rewarding violent rioters and defending them is its own power dynamic.
You haven't been to them, so please stop trying to explain the power dynamic to someone who has.
> The power dynamic right now is heavily on the side of violent rioters and people pushing political violence, and it will lead to even more tragedy.
It absolutely is not. Protesters will be beaten, gassed, maimed, and arrested. Cops will get off scot-free regardless of the extreme violences they commit indiscriminately against protesters.
I'll give you an example: I watched a woman get shot with a grenade in her chest. It stopped her heart. She was rushed to the hospital by medics and that's the only reason she lived. Her crime? Standing in the middle of the street yelling protest slogans 20-30 feet away from the cops.
Tell me, what was the power dynamic there? What consequences will any officers face for nearly murdering that woman?
The people of Ferguson Missouri were exploited by their policemen years before Garner was killed [1]. The Department of Justice found that the city itself had targeted African Americans, fining them at every turn, and imprisoning them when they couldn't pay. I find it hard to believe that these victims wanted to give their “protectors” even more money.
Frankly, pretending the anger isn't real, that it's just a few professional rabble-rousers riling up the woefully ignorant-- is akin to the rhetoric China has weaponized in Hong Kong.
It's not honest at all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_effect
[2] https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/doj-fin...
This survey tells us what I thought we already knew for decades now. Black Americans, particular those living in high poverty and high crime areas, overwhelmingly support increased police funding and increased police presence in their communities.
While some protestors who are carrying signs like “Defund the police” may not take the slogan at face value, the ones spray painting “Fuck 12” or “ACAB” across their local courthouse certainly do, and they do not speak for the people responding to this Gallup poll.
The literal attacks on police (and police infrastructure) appear to be an intentional destabilization effort in order to neuter policing capacity within a community, resulting in increased violent crime (i.e. the “Fergusson effect”). While I think there are many well-meaning and good intentioned peaceful protestors that initially joined with “BLM”, the “Defund the police” movement has been hijacked by radical anarchists who professionally organize riots (there’s another term for this I won’t use) and absolutely believe police should be abolished.
National public perception of BLM which initially spiked positively after Floyd has been decreasing and overall become much more polarized. [1]
[1] - https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?annotations=tr...