We don’t have to imagine. #BLM incited many riots which killed many people, what action did Twitter take there?
"Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution. I'll happily provide video commentary."
@dickc was never suspended. He still has his account.
https://twitter.com/Blklivesmatter
For proof that's official, see https://blacklivesmatter.com/statement-from-black-lives-matt...
It's not suspended.
Spike Lee settled:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/spike-le...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/spike-lee-sued-zimmerman_n_42...
So they still want to defund the police. I don't think even the next administration would agree with demand #6.
[0] https://twitter.com/Blklivesmatter/status/134773793490928845...
Trump called for insurrection. He didn't call for a protest. So did Trump Jr. So Did Giuliani. It's a matter of public record.
Also the people, and please respect that I single out this comment as completely tangential to the original point, that try to make the "Sure Trump supporters rioted, but BLM!" argument never seem to take the following into account:
BLM is fighting against a system that arbitrarily tortures and executes them, often with impunity. While The Trump supporters are literally fighting to end American democracy.
So tired of people having these absolutely vile attitudes (accusing the person you're responding to of being "likely to disagree with reality") while never presenting any facts.
Edit: I've been hit with the dreaded "You're posting too fast" block, meaning I cannot respond anymore. Why? Because I asked somebody who said that Trump was on public record calling for insurrection to prove it with a quote.
Vice-president-elect Kamala Harris, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XxLR2r5oPg
The comment is simply pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard that pervades this discussion.
If pointing this out makes you angry, that's not an issue with the comment, but an issue with your ability to handle information that undermines your constructed narrative.
And yes, your comment was clear example of whataboutism.
When people say Trump incited an insurrection, they are bearing this in mind. All but the most obtuse of people understand this.
So, he didn't say "do an insurrection" he said those other - on the margin things (are those the things called dog whistles?) like "go wild" and "we will never back down" and the like.
Vice-president-elect Kamala Harris, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XxLR2r5oPg
> Jan 6th, 2:38 PM: Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!
> 3:13PM I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!
From: https://www.thetrumparchive.com/
Can you link to where Trump called for insurrection? If that's true, that would certainly be significant. He's certainty spread unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, and it culminated in a riot. But saying that someone called for an insurrection is a very specific and very serious claim, and one that is best supported with references.
The outrage is that, regardless of how many people were violent at or around the protests for racial justice, the ones who weren't violent were brutalized on many occasions. Lots of people, reporters and ordinary people, experienced it and documented it. And at the attack on the Capitol, no matter how many people were peaceful, the authorities gave the violent people strikingly more free rein.
Simply by arguing the statistics, I think you get derailed from what matters, which is how both sides are not equal.
You are right. Things are not equal. I would love for the same standard to be applied to everyone.
I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry. It's not. Any other speaker at that rally who had said the same things would be trivially charged. This was a crime, in ways that BLM organizing a march isn't. (Maybe there are some other BLM-related actions where people called out a target like this, it was a big movement. I'm not aware of one though.)
It’s denial and it’s obvious that they want to believe something else with all their might. If Trump said it literally go do the deed there would be some who would argue that’s not true. Strategy amongst trolls is to wear us down a la gaslighting but I don’t understand what’s the long term goal, if there is any.
Because it is. I dislike Trump as much as the next guy, but he didn't say anything new in that speech ( frankly, neither did anyone that preceded him ). What he did, however, is consistently rile up his base. This time he overshot. And he did not even overshot with words. Tons of worse things are said on many political meetings if you ever been to one. He overshot with the timing and a sense of desperation. And the retard got burned playing with fire.
What you are really saying is that you don't think it is blurry.
The reason people argue that it is blurry is because they want to advance the interests of that side. So they argue whatever they can, including the blur, which might give them a 50-50 chance of prevailing in amongst the confusion.
It's how people argue when they can't prevail in an argument based on principle, logic, or literality.
People came to a protest. Trump made a speech on the stage. People got incited to rush the building by what was said.
But then we the events that say that people constructed bombs at home and organized an attack far in advance, and traveled to the protest in order to rush the building.
The odd thing is that I heard similar narratives about BLM riots. In some it was said that BLM organized protests which were peaceful, but which later turned into riots. Other say that the rioters was people from outside that had planned the rioting in advanced and traveled to the protests.
Are all four versions true, or only a subset?
For both the Trumpist Insurrection and the BLM protests, some people were intending a peaceful march, some were intending a riot, and some were even intending or hoping for violence.
However, where the Trumpist Insurrection differs was the (small?) portion that intended a "revolution," to quote one Elisabeth from Knoxville. The most extreme form of BLM seemed to be the CHOP, which may have wished for an autonomous zone, but not a revolution.
Interesting line of argument. How is it different from capitol climb? The protest in DC were mostly peaceful until after Trump ( and friends ) speech. It is just some bad actors, who incited riots.
"What happened on the Capitol was not peaceful from the outset--people came up, climbed the wall, broke through the entryway, took a podium, etc.--they started it."
This is where we may disagree. Initially, it was just a gathering. The wall climbing and all that jazz happened after speeches were over. Timeline is important.