Your statement is dense with issues:
1. You're comparing a single "protest" to a protest movement. Also, where did you get a figure like "12-19"?
2. There are documented and confirmed cases of capitol-riot-type people using the BLM protests as cover for violence (e.g. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-man-accused-o... and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...). The attempts to blame the capital riots on "antifa" are groundless.
3. The capitol rioters deliberately struck at the democratic process itself (e.g. process of conducting a fair election) because they rejected the results of that process, which is a far more serious thing than any traditional protest, no matter how violent.
2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?
3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?
No, there wasn't just a single incident. Just to give some examples off the top of my head: large groups of III%ers participated in both the Capitol Attack and Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and the BLM counter-protests were arguably part of the same phenomenon (and one of them shot three people in Kenosha).
> 2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?
That's a sloppy reading of what I said. I merely pointed out a fact that makes attribution of violence that occurred at the protests difficult.
> 3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?
It's pretty obvious that it wasn't an "attack on democracy" because they made reform demands to elected officials and were cooperating with the government:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/seattle-autonomous-zon...
> The protest zone has increasingly functioned with the tacit blessing of the city. Harold Scoggins, the fire chief, was there on Wednesday, chatting with protesters, helping set up a call with the Police Department and making sure the area had portable toilets and sanitation services....
> The demonstrators have also been trying to figure it out, with various factions voicing different priorities. A list of three demands was posted prominently on a wall: one, defund the Police Department; two, fund community health; and three, drop all criminal charges against protesters.
In comparison, the capitol attackers setup a gallows and were chanting things like "Hang Mike Pence," because he wouldn't unconstitutionally override the election (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capi..., https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/15/mike-pence-cl...). The sloppy false equivalences to deflect away from that are getting old.
2) In the same vein, there seems to be only one actual victim of protester violence at the capitol, and that one also looks more like an accident (got hit in the head with a thrown item, which is of course a stupidly dangerous attack, but also common at BLM riots)
3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.
Also, there are videos from the capitol of security staff chatting with the protesters. So I guess they were also cooperating, and hence, by your logic, democratic.
Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.
We'll see about that when he goes to trial.
> And if you arbitrarily lump things together, you can probably find an arbitrary number of victims.
Which is what you're doing. Why arbitrarily lump together BLM and looters, when it could make more sense to consider them different groups that happen to be in the same area reacting in their own ways to the same circumstances?
> 3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.
The point is it's not a succession if you continue to recognize the government by calling on it to reform.
> Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.
Yep.
Lee Keltner
Aaron "Jay" Danielson
Garret Foster
Tyler Gerth
David Dorn
Victor Cazares Jr
Secoriea Turner
....
And that's just a small sampling.
Do I need to go on?
Lee Keltner - Killed in Denver by the hired security guard for a journalist.
Aaron Danielson - Killed at dueling protests by self identifying anti-facist (antifa)
Garret Foster - He was a BLM protestor killed by an active Army sergeant.
Tyler Gerth- he was a protest photographer killed by a guy with a grudge over an argument.
David Dorn - Not killed by BLM The protests were several miles away and had disbanded a few hours earlier near the Metropolitan Police Headquarters downtown after clashes between police and a few remaining agitators turned violent
Do I really have to go on?
You make it sound like those on your list were killed BLM mobs and a modicum of investigation makes it obvious you lack perspective. Those that marched on the Capitol were indeed a mob.
When: 2 people died as a result of strokes. No participation in the riot.
1 person trampled by the rioters. 1 unarmed person shot by the police. 1 police officer dead due to being struck in the head.
So clearly, only 2 people died as a consequence of the riots, per your logic.
If you're proud to be a fascist and white supremacist then this doesn't make someone not want to be one. If you're not then you'd be offended by that accusation that you are one. It's a polarising statement that target's an individual's identity, not their actions. It was an ad hominem attack.
Had you made reference to the disinformation campaign surrounding the election results or the President's remarks that actively fanned the flames of their outrage (outrage that they certainly perceived as legitimate but the rest of us know was misguided) then that would be a very different argument. It would be one that forgave regular people for being people and targeted those truly responsible. It's an argument that invites people to agree with you rather than making them the enemy.
CHAZ was even one step further.
In Atlanta BLM protestors set up an armed road block. Several people were shot there culminating in the shooting death of a 9 year old girl.
You're claiming BLM is about murdering black kids? Are you serious?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/atlanta-mayor-8-year-o...
As someone who considered himself to be on the right until relatively recently, I'm pretty disturbed by how it seems to have rejected reason in favor of sloppy free association.
> The capital riots were patriots who have been upset that the corrupt courts refused to allow anybody to present evidence of fraud when there is more than enough out there to show
The allegations of fraud were laughed out of court, even by Republican judges, because they had no merit whatsoever. They were little more than expressions of an incompetent demagogue's psychological insecurity.
Isn’t declaring part of the sovereign territory of the United States to be an autonomous zone sort of similar?
Or this one: BLM hasn't caused any deaths, to date; the Capitol (capitalized, btw, and with an "o") insurrection caused 5 and could easily have resulted in the assassination of various senior government officials.
Or this one: BLM protests involved tens of millions of citizens across all walks of life and were prompted by very real social problems with police murdering black people; the Capitol riot was prompted by fascism and white supremacy.
Do I need to go on?