2020 Civil Unrest, Protests, Demonstrations, et al.

But weren't the 2021 protests pretty much the opposite of the 2020 ones?

I think they definitely qualify as civil unrest.

"Civil unrest". That's definitely an understatement.

Three members of the grand jury that was set up after Breonna Taylor was killed have filed for the Kentucky legislature to impeach the Kentucky AG for misleading them during the grand jury investigation.[1]

Here’s hoping this goes somewhere, even though it’s incredibly unlikely.

I will note it's interesting to imagine what the original plan (if plan there was) of the January 6th Insurrection was. I've heard some people speculate that the idea would be that it would be setting the ground for a 2024 Trump or Trumpist run but the violence as well as the fact it involved terrorism utterly fucked up their original plan. That it now sullied their argument against Biden.

The GOP not quite realizing it was legitimately going to murder Pence and others like them.

Something I've been turning over in my head, the right-wing talking point "Antifa/BLM has been burning down cities for months and nobody cared, but a group of right-leaning peaceful protesters enter the Capitol and don't even set any fires and everyone loses their minds". Besides the willful mischaracterization of the Jan 6 mob and the obvious fact that the cities BLM supposedly burned down are still standing, I've been thinking about how many fires those cities usually have yearly. Just from reading Masslive, I see a lot of stories about fires caused by accidents all over the state and maybe one about a building damaged by fire related to a BLM protest.

I just chalk it up to the usual rightwing cavalcade of gaslighting psychological projection bullshit.

Edited by M84 on Jan 25th 2021 at 12:21:20 AM

I’m also gonna be honest, I think that at least a decent amount of property damage at BLM protests is caused by cops shooting shit at the protestors.

Also destroying Targets is inherently different from breaking into the Capitol. Even if a federal courthouse had been trashed by leftist protesters it would be a lower level than trashing the Capitol.

Edited by Bur on Jan 24th 2021 at 10:28:22 AM

Yeah, I'm almost certainly putting more thought into it than the people who make the argument are. But I'm wondering if it would be worth getting numbers on as a counter to "but what about BLM?"

No. No it would not. The rightwing never engages in good faith.

If for whatever reason you actually decide to engage with one of these people, when they go "What about BLM?", just respond with "What about them?" and move on.

Don't feed the troll.

Edited by M84 on Jan 25th 2021 at 12:34:45 AM

So I shouldn't try going "Well, what about these fires? Why don't you care about them?"

These people are not interested in changing their minds, just to muddy up discourse.

Ultimately these type of assholes are wannabe intellectual cowards. They will come up with every justification to fit with their fearmongering biases.

Edited by Wispy on Jan 24th 2021 at 8:45:02 AM

If someone's saying BLM did worse damage than the insurrectionists, they're either lying sacks of shit or delusional sacks of shit.

Either way...not worth the time and energy.

Pointing out hypocrisy is one of those things that leftists like to do because it makes them feel good. It's an easy target to dunk on conservatives with, because conservatives do not actually care if the things coming out of their (or their leader's) mouths are factually accurate.

But ultimately it has no actual value as a tool for combatting the right. It's utterly useless, because conservatives do not actually care if the things coming out of their (or their leader's) mouths are factually accurate.

They're just looking for leftists naive enough to legitimize their nonsense by trying to debate it in public. After all, if their position is substantial enough to warrant leftists trying to debunk it, then it must at least be worthy of consideration.

EDIT: Always remember that nothing about the Right's appeal is logical. Their strategy is simple: they assertively and confidently say the things they believe in and, when challenged, they assertively and confidently continue to say the things they believe in. In debate, they act as though they were effortlessly winning even as their opponent keeps pulling out fact after fact after fact to refute them. They never stop to argue the points, they never concede a thing, and they couch all of their fallacious arguments in memorable quips.

They do this because they know that the people watching won't remember most of the complicated rebuttals that the leftist delivered, but they will remember how suave and powerful and in control of the situation the right-winger was. As the leftist grew frustrated and desperate, the right-winger never once conceded a single point, was never once tripped up, and swaggered away at the end of it looking like a boss. That guy probably knew what he was talking about.

When you're up against a right-winger, you aren't arguing with a debater. You're arguing with a showman.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jan 24th 2021 at 8:55:14 AM

This seems like flawed logic, it doesn't matter what they care about. They're either lost causes or not going to be convinced in an adversarial format like a debate. It's about convincing the audience by defeating the conservative's arguments. From that perspective emphasizing hypocrisy can be an effective means of attack, humans instinctively dislike hypocrisy after all.

(this assumes that there is an audience, if it's just 1 v 1 then it won't be useful, but you shouldn't be arguing without an audience anyway)

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 24th 2021 at 8:54:57 AM

The problem with hypocrisy as a public line of attack is that it's a double-edged sword. For every hypocrisy, there is an equal and opposite hypocrisy.

You can say, "Why was it okay for Trump to use drone strikes but then you got all pissy when Obama used drone strikes?"

And they can say, "Why was it okay for Obama to use drone strikes but then you got all pissy when Trump used drone strikes?"

This is usually disingenuous. The details are a bit more complicated than "Our guy GOOD their guy BAD". In which case, you should be arguing those details. When your line of attack is just pointing the hypocrisy, they can just point out the hypocrisy right back at you. Wherever the Left can accuse the Right of a double standard, the Right can accuse the Left of the same double standard. If there wasn't a double standard, the Left wouldn't be making a big deal of it.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jan 24th 2021 at 9:00:41 AM

The point about trying to debate with Trumpists, or educate them, is that it's a total No-Sell precisely because the Trumpists already think they're the smartest people in the room, smarter than the brainwashed libs, and smart enough that they don't need no sissy education.

Note also that the right isn't afraid of looking bad. Tarring both sides with the same brush is one of their favorite tactics; they've got their voter base on lock, but they know liberals will throw up their arms and refuse to vote out of protest at the slightest provocation. Bothsiderism is one such provocation.

So when the left says, "Why is it okay for Republicans to eat babies but you get all mad about Democrats eating babies," the right simply smirks to the audience and goes, "So you admit that Democrats eat babies, then?"

Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

I...love that quote now. Did you make that?

The pig-wrestling bit? No, it's a famous quote I stole wholesale.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jan 24th 2021 at 9:31:08 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-reinstates-third-degree-murder-charge-against-ex-cop-charged-n1260662

Judge reinstates third-degree murder charge against ex-cop in George Floyd's death – Derek Chauvin is already charged with second-degree murder, which carries a maximum sentence of 40 years, as well as second-degree manslaughter.

Portland is experiencing unrest again. It seems to stem from:

Arguing with right-wingers is frustrating at best, because if they aren't arguing in good faith, it's impossible to make a point and have it stick. In most cases, when someone is being a troll, the best response is to ignore them. But sometimes that won't work—when hate speech is involved, when disinformation is being spread around, there could be significant consequences for someone. But the key here is: never attempt to sway the troll, sway the audience. Most people in the US aren't so set in their opinions, and millions of independent voters have open minds. If people are listening, or reading online, or will hear about what the other person is claiming, then providing an effective counter-narrative can be important.

The other thing to remember is that effective counter-narratives seldom rely heavily on facts. What you want to do is appeal to values that most Americans have in common. If you want to throw a right wing troll off their stride, start claiming that single mothers (or black people, or LGBTQ, or immigrants, or whoever) are virtuous people who work hard and obey the law. Share some personal anecdotes. Then start explaining that all hard working law abiding people deserve respect and protection from abuse, regardless of who they are. That should start them twitching. If they start yelling at you or interrupting, all the better. Be calm, act confident, and always speak respectfully.

That should get the audience on your side.

Also, never forget to post sources. As unbiased as you can find. Nothing makes white supremacist feel more powerful than posting things like crime statistics, so we might as well respond in kind. Not to mention people care more about what you have to say if you can back it up.

Well depending on where you are anyway. I've found that a few websites I visit are so deep in the red that you actually get attacked for having evidence of your claims.