I was just giving you plausible explanations. But sure it's always easy to say "X" got away with this because of white privilege.

I don't think that Mayor Bowser refused to get additional law enforcment because of white privilege.

Given the difference between the two types of protestors, Occam's Razor leads us to the obvious conclusion. Now, I say again, if you want to claim it wasn't white privilege, I'm still gonna need more than "could it be the case," and "perhaps."

Are you actually trying to make that claim or just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I don't agree that that's the obvious conclusion, and I have give you three very plausible arguments against that.

That's fine, obviously we don't have to agree.

I do ask that you be a bit more civil though in our discussion.

If you think I'm being uncivil, don't step out into the rest of the comments section, bud. I haven't called you a single name, or done anything, other than express incredulity at your position. I didn't even point out how racist it sounded that you were claiming one side was more prone to violence or less law and order oriented.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to disagree with Occam's Razor, given the history of racial relations in this country, including the fact that there's an entire protest movement about police violence against non-white people, you've gotta bring something besides "could it be," and "perhaps."

If you can't deal with that, I'd suggest you avoid internet discussions entirely.

I'm talking about politeness and courtesy not name calling. Having a discussion and avoiding snarky comments so this forum doesn't devolve into Twitter or Reddit.

"I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you? "

"You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line."

"Are you actually trying to make that claim or just arguing for the sake of arguing?"

"If you can't deal with that, I'd suggest you avoid internet discussions entirely."

Okay, well, see ya then. None of those are attacks on you in any way. I'd advise you to grow a thicker skin if you want to participate on the internet.

I totally get what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that there are community guidelines here to create civil discourse that is not present on other internet forums.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yes, which I have followed, thank you.

Well Mayor Bowser tried to get additional law enforcement, but the Whitehouse refused to authorize it.

So I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

Here is the text from the tweet that I had previously posted. Mayor Bowser goes on to say in her letter that MPD and their partners are well prepared for the event and didn't need further assistance.

I'm not certain the context of why she begins her statement "To be clear". I looked at her previous tweets from the day and day before and this matter wasn't specifically addressed. The only thing I could think of is that a federal law enforcement authority wanted to get involved and she didn't feel the need?

https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466

"To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway."