I honestly thought “mostly peaceful” was a meme at this point.
With cities on fire for months and months, how can anyone take such a claim seriously?
Edit: Twitter seems to agree with me.
original report here: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_poli...
Funny thing, BLM basically disappeared after this and just reappeared in 2020
I think the deal is that getting a person to donate to an uninspiring political campaign is difficult, but it is easy to add a more-palatable organization in the middle to pass along the funding. It's almost money laundering.
And you cite those very same news-stories as evidence of this article being wrong. Congratulations.
Also, that guy who only beats his wife when he gets drunk in the weekend is mostly non-violent, so I guess there’s no problem there either then? At least not by your logic?
The same approach is taken to other areas: Violence by police gets described in detail, violence by protesters gets a brief statistic such as "Post-deployment, the percentage of violent demonstrations has risen from under 17% to over 42%".
I must say I was shocked when the report managed to mention how many Rittenhouse shot, but omitted that he was shot at himself, and was on the floor, being hit in the head with a skateboard when he shot the 2nd and 3rd persons. Oh but it did mention Trump failed to condemn his actions - that part was important enough to include.
Which is one way to say that there have been approximately 542 protests this year involving serious harm to people or property. But sure, nothing to see here. (And by the way, what % of that 93% involved harm that the researchers didn't consider "serious"?)
Next time I see my grandad I'll tell him that there were only 71 bombing raids on London over 8 months of the Blitz, therefore his childhood in that city was "mostly peaceful."