Red Mosquito

macphisto wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Only 100 people looted guys

I learned that today as well. Great news!

I think we all learned a few days ago that all violence or looting is done by right wing white supremacist agent provocateurs.

verb_to_trust wrote:

macphisto wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Only 100 people looted guys

I learned that today as well. Great news!

Incredible the number is that low. Those 100 looters are incredibly efficient in their destruction.

Gotta be some members of Thomas Wictor's Gulf State super soldier program.

Not meant to be a statement of fact. But still ... https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/a ... group-says

B wrote:Not meant to be a statement of fact. But still ... https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/a ... group-says

Cool. So that’s about 0.178 looters per riot.


But if you read the link, you see they captured protests down to the 10s of people and the vast majority of their data comes from early protests (within 2 weeks of Floyds death) which were overwhelmingly peaceful. What is unclear about the data is if day/night protests were treat as one or two. Here in DC the day time marches were widely attended and mostly peaceful. The nighttime ones not so much despite the large overlap in attendees.

Does anyone have any idea what’s going on anymore?

B wrote:Not meant to be a statement of fact. But still ... https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/a ... group-says

This is a great way to disguise the number of violent riots. World War II only killed 3% of the world population, so it was mostly peaceful, too.

Even assuming the study is legit (doubt), the ratio of peaceful to violent protesters isn't very important to me. Violent actors are always going to be much fewer than nonviolent ones. What matters is the absolute number of violent ones.

You're super concerned with peaceful protesters being painted with the same brush as violent ones, which is understandable. My concern is the violent rioters, tho. Like I said, I don't really care what the peaceful ones are doing.

BurtReynolds wrote:.

You're super concerned with peaceful protesters being painted with the same brush as violent ones, which is understandable. My concern is the violent rioters, tho. Like I said, I don't really care what the peaceful ones are doing.

The reasons for these protests are real and need to be addressed and putting all our attention on the assholes just gives justification to anyone who wants to ignore police reform and systemic racism.

I know my posts come off as defending violent protesters and looters. That's not my stance. I want them out. I want them arrested quickly and charged, so the protests can continue.

What if people didn’t resist arrest? Speak with the police. If they need to take you in, go willingly. Get bailed out, fight it in court, file a formal complaint...live to fight another day. I know it’s a crazy idea, but what if?

pEaCeFuLlY rEsIsTiNg ArReSt WiTh ViOlEnCe ShOuLdNt Be A dEaTh SeNtEnCe!

Yep.

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:.

You're super concerned with peaceful protesters being painted with the same brush as violent ones, which is understandable. My concern is the violent rioters, tho. Like I said, I don't really care what the peaceful ones are doing.

The reasons for these protests are real and need to be addressed and putting all our attention on the assholes just gives justification to anyone who wants to ignore police reform and systemic racism.

I can't wait until it gets cold as fuck out in most of the country. Then maybe people will be forced to come up with a more proactive means of change than hanging out in the streets like dumbasses.

You know...like voting?

Higgs wrote:Yep.

There are only 100 bad cops.

There aren't good cops and bad cops. There are cops whose disciplinary records are shielded from public scrutiny and people who aren't cops.

B wrote:There aren't good cops and bad cops. There are cops whose disciplinary records are shielded from public scrutiny and people who aren't cops.

What are your top five police policy and policing standard changes would like to see?

I read an article on the weekend, unfortunately I can't find it now, that said the Left needs to start articulating what patriotism means to them in the future, and what being a good patrriot means. Same for citizen of a country. Then for the Left to define the structure and policies to support these ideals, and how they propose to go about administering those changes. Hope and change with details.

I like that it focused that at some point you have to move on from highlighting deficiencies to proposing solutions (and not slogans). Seems like politics on all sides can't get past empty sloganeering.

B wrote:There aren't good cops and bad cops. There are cops whose disciplinary records are shielded from public scrutiny and people who aren't cops.

Give me a break

I like that it focused that at some point you have to move on from highlighting deficiencies to proposing solutions (and not slogans).

Democratic politics are a platform for the expression and promotion of public will, not for scripting the implementation of that will. Creating actual policy is an incredibly complex task, and solving serious problems effectively requires expertise and input from multiple avenues of experiential knowledge.

I feel like the article you’re describing has been written a thousand times in America since 1992, sometimes about the left in general and sometimes about individual candidates. Examples of candidates without enough actual solutions in their pockets include the guy who coincidentally was in office when we climbed out of a recession and (also coincidentally) when we created the ACA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/p ... elect.html

Star Tribune, 2008 wrote:”...an answer to critics, who say his campaign is longer on inspiration than on specifics.”

CNN, 2008 wrote:”In short, they worry that he’s all speeches and no specifics.”

During that time, the Republican Party has at no point had a more detailed or nuanced platform than the left. Right now it literally is a list of bullet point items like “create 10 million jobs.” I don’t recall ever seeing an article chastising the right for not offering “real solutions.”

Nor do I blame movements or candidates for not being more detailed. Ambitions guide the broader conversation, but aren’t meant to (and shouldn’t) map out the details. In fact, research has shown that after a point, offering too many specifics during a campaign has a detrimental effect on voter share at every level. Why? Because change inevitably requires sacrifice, implementation pains, and a step into the unknown....each new “how to” proposal is a new attack opportunity for your idealogical opponent, and each step into the weeds takes the conversation further away from the big picture version of your message, which is where it has the most volume and sway.

Seems like politics on all sides can't get past empty sloganeering.

Only for the last handful of centuries or so

Even the rent-A-cops aren't safe

https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2020/09/ ... ity-guard/