top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Makes me think of the UK:

Extinction Rebellion and just stop oil did a load of stunts that didn't do any real harm and the press treated like they burnt a city down.

Literal Nazis committed programs and riots in the streets and the press said they had "legitimate concerns".

They only have an issue with disruption when it's the left.

  • source
  • [–] 94 points 4 days ago (38 children)

    Always with the "liberals".

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Usually for posts like these I assume they're talking about the unfortunately large group of milquetoast left-leaning Americans who think the system destroying their livelihoods can be reasoned with, as if the people stepping on our necks are just unaware of their actions, and would feel really bad if we wrote them a letter explaining the situation. They're certainly better than the neck-steppers themselves, but neither will ever actually fight to improve the situation we're in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (30 replies)
    [–] 29 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 child)

    Hate to break it to you but the same is true in France. Media coverage here has focused almost exclusively on small shops being looted. The human brain has a much easier time focusing on individual tragedies rather than systemic issues, and the government and its cronies (and the local versions of fox news) are taking full advantage of that bias.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Keep in mind, the property damage after the murder of George Floyd was started by a white supremacist, too. "Umbrella man" smashed windows on an auto zone and spray painted it "free shit zone," it would later be set on fire. Out of 20 people charged in Minnesota for rioting, only 4 were actually local to the state.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    it ain't the same guys saying both.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Um, all BLM has to do is wear merch and hold up a sign and the police start lobbing CS grenades.

    The point of protest isn't to riot, but to get the state to over-respond, brutally. Its why the entire world knows about and sympathizes with the BLM cause.

    At least that's the game, according to COIN. Hearts and minds. Though in the Civil Rights movement, we added lawsuits.

    And Trump and the red states are quick with their riot squads. Left wing movements just have to represent and make booga-booga faces to trigger anti-riot shooting civilians with rubber bullets. (They're plastic and steel, actually.)

    And then two years later, the victims are awarded millions from the districts or the US treasury, depending on the department of the officer who decided it was time to bust heads.

    Law enforcement in the US has already lost its legitimacy in the public eye, worldwide. We know they're just thugs of the state, and their response to protest, especially minority protest, especially black protest, figures largely into that paradigm shift.

    So, just because protesters in the US still carry signs instead of molotovs, doesn't mean the protests are weak. It means the state's responsers are incredibly easily trolled into initiating violence while camers are watching.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 4 days ago (14 children)

    To be fair, I've never met someone who doesn't either support or denounce violent protests in general - French or otherwise. This sounds like someone getting angry at the internet as a whole, without seeming to understand that it's made up of so many different people that it simultaneously holds all possible viewpoints at the same time.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

    The people that "denounce violent protest" are people that have never been to a protest that wasn't a planned parade. Violence is an inevitable result of protests because the state itself uses violence to stop the protest. No matter how peaceful its initial intentions of protest are.

    A "protest" that has a start and end date coordinated with the state is not a protest. It is a parade.

    The majority of what people call "violence" is property damage. Property damage is not violence. But somehow we convince everyone that broken windows are worse than broken bones.

    The same people that "denounce violent protest" also seem to have no problem with the use of chemical weapons on crowds of unarmed people. You go out to a protest, the first time your eyes are burning from tear gas you'll understand why any protest will fight back when violence is first placed on them by the state.

    Steps to make people watching on TV "denounce violent protest"

    (0) Society reaches a breaking point and protest form with the purpose to disrupt the ability of society to operate without acknowledging the injustice the protest is pointing towards. (1) Protest are labeled "violent" because of property damage. Usually with less property damage than the aftermath of the average football match "celebration" results in. But these initially small acts of property damage are the focus of the media. Very little is said about why the protest started to begin with. (2) Police use chemical weapons (banned in warfare) on their own citizens. Rubber bullets, flash bangs, hoses, etc. All acts of actual violence. Don't believe me? Take a rubber bullet to the head and tell me it's not violence. (3) Protesters respond to violence with self defense measures. Kick back tear gas canisters, using leaf blowers, and becoming more defensive in body armor and gas masks to maintain the disruption the protest is meant to create. Yes. The goal of a protest is to disrupt society and inconvenience you. That's the whole point. Stop saying "it makes me not support them when they block the road". Dude, they are blocking the road because you weren't supporting them. Protest is the voice of the unheard. (4) Police work to escalate violence through plain clothes officers working to increase property damage and get crowds of people to reach levels of property damage not intended by the protest. An individual act of violence of a single protestor or act of property damage can be used as justification to use violence on to a larger degree on the crowd. The police goal is not to keep the protest peaceful. The goal is to escalate the violence so they can justify their own levels of violence. (5) Media covers the protest primarily on the property damage and violence of the protesters. The violence of the police is not spoken about. The violence of the police is treated as "keeping order" when it is doing the opposite. All the time we watch media people on the ground not "afraid of the violent protesters" but are literally running away from tear gas and flash bangs themselves. Next time you watch media coverage, watch how the media acts, it's far more telling than how the media speaks. (6) The protest either dies out due to people not wanting to risk their lives as the violence is escalated by the police. OR the protests continue and are primarily maintained by those willing to use violence in self defense.

    All of this time. The protestors would leave and allow the disruption to end if even a fraction of their demands are met. Paris protest started because of a failure in the education system. The government would rather spend their money on a militarized police force than on education. That should tell you a lot about the reason why protest became necessary to begin with.

    TLDR: There are no "peaceful protest" that are capable of achieving the end results the protest itself is trying to achieve. The state will respond in violence to stop anything that actually has a chance of forcing change. There is no staying peaceful when chemical weapons and rubber bullets are introduced.

    How MLK was viewed at the time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 10 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    During the BLM demonstrations right wing provocatours deliberately caused damage to discredit the demonstrations. Two were caught and prosecuted in Cleveland where i live. Don't be a tool

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Yep. Pretty much all of the negative issues from the BLM protests were off duty cops or non-local white supremacists trying to provoke violence.

    Remember the conveniently placed pallets of bricks?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 38 points 4 days ago* (14 children)

    I wish people would realize that the ability to protest is directly tied to social safety net.

    You get beaten by a cop, you will get free healthcare that is not directly tied to your job. In the US, if you do have healthcare, it is tied to your job and your job can fire you for protesting if they want (unlike France we have no protection for being fired for political opinion).

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    Not just that, but US police are extraordinarily different from police in most of the world. They trace their roots back to organizations first formed to hunt escaped slaves. They are heavily militarized, almost never face any consequences for abusing their power, and are usually encouraged to use violence against left-wing protestors.

    At points during the BLM protests, Trump called in the National Guard, who proceeded shoot and kill both protestors and bystanders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 37 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    JK the French know how to protest

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 24 points 4 days ago (3 children)
    load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 16 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    My problem with rioting is it often seems to be the working class shitting on their own doorstep.. surely the most effective rioting would be to target parliament buildings, political party offices, banks and the properties of the very wealthy? Just my twopenn'orth.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 29 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Are the liberals in the room with us now

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 16 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    Americana’s will only do shit that doesn’t inconvenience them. Which pretty much rules out any and all meaningful protest. They’ll gather in streets, sure. But the moment it comes at a cost- they’re far too busy.

    This happens because they slept. And it got worse because they refused to wake up.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 22 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    Liberals didn't lose their minds.

    However, the media are owned and controlled by the billionaires. This allows them a lot of control of the narrative and your perception of events.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 5 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I see the problem. You heard something from leftists, and then brought up something said by liberals.

    Easy mistake in the bullshit US discourse

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago*

    Yeah the monolithing OP is doing is honestly impressive. Here, let me try another:

    "Americans say trans rights are human rights, but then they also say trans people should be banned from public restrooms. Wtf lol????"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    All these people saying that Americans can't protest forget that we literally host hometown hero Luigi. Arguably the best way to get the message across. Needs more consistency, but It's certainly effective.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    "Safe" protests won't accomplish a damn thing.

    I love the No Kings protests in Portland... congratulations, you're protesting for an audience who already 99% agrees with you.

    But that's protests in Portland in general, BLM, Occupy Wall Street, etc. etc.

    Want to make a real difference? Take that shit to D.C. and shut the city down for a month. That might move the needle.

    Preaching to the pre-converted? Pointless.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 9 points 4 days ago

    Exactly? People get a lot of shit here in europe too but you still do it. Thats exactly the point of a protest, to raise awareness

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 4 days ago (13 children)

    The 2020 BLM protests were hardly some small, isolated incident involving a little property damage. The unrest caused more than $2 billion in insured property losses across the United States, making it the costliest civil-disorder event in U.S. insurance history at the time. The unrest spread across more than 20 states and affected communities nationwide. Whatever your political position, pretending the damage was trivial or that this was some minor, localized event is simply ignoring the facts. That doesn't mean every protester was violent or that every demonstration was destructive, but the scale and financial cost of the unrest were substantial.

    Despite the scale of the 2020 BLM protests, the long-term results were mixed at best. They generated enormous public attention and prompted some policy changes, but they did not fundamentally transform the American political system or eliminate the racial inequalities that motivated the movement. In many respects, the country remains deeply divided, and racial hostility has become increasingly visible in our political discourse. Under the current administration, rhetoric surrounding race and immigration has only intensified those divisions. For all the protests, all the disruption, and all the money lost to property damage, the question remains: how much has actually changed for the better?

    This is exactly why memes like this are counterproductive. Rather than encourage an honest discussion about what happened, what it cost, and what the consequences were, they reduce complicated events to simplistic narratives designed to provoke anger and deepen divisions. Presenting misleading information to reinforce an existing political bias is propaganda, regardless of which side does it. It is the same kind of divisive political messaging that the current administration routinely uses to mobilize its supporters and discredit its opponents. When we substitute outrage and misinformation for facts, we make meaningful discussion impossible. That is a significant part of how we arrived at our current political climate, and continuing to circulate this material without questioning its accuracy only makes the problem worse.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    Measuring BLM in terms of insured property damage is probably a poor way to approach a movement addressing systemic bias and social awareness. It at least runs afoul of something to:

    reduce complicated events to simplistic narratives

    The impacts of BLM have been met with counteraction, which is neither new or unexpected, and no meme is going to be able to fully address a complicated anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (6 children)

    I love how there are multiple comments downplaying the $2 billion number.

    It just goes to show how brainwashed people really are when it comes to numbers like $2 billion.

    Of course, compare that number to Elon Musk’s wealth, and $2 billion doesn’t seem like all that much. Compare it to what I have, however, and the difference is almost incomprehensible. I make $80,000 a year. Even if I saved every single dollar I earned, it would take me 25,000 years to accumulate $2 billion. Let that sink in for a moment.

    $2 billion in insured property damage is an absolutely massive amount of damage caused by the BLM riots. However, that still doesn't change the point I'm making, which is that the meme is misinformation.

    Your argument is that memes don't tell the whole story and never can. That's a completely different argument, and it doesn't address my point.

    My point is that the meme is deliberately presenting a misleading picture of what happened. The fact that the damage amounted to $2 billion is directly relevant to that discussion.

    The meme implies that the BLM riots caused relatively little property damage. They did not. The estimated insured property damage was approximately $2 billion.

    Downplaying that figure to make the damage appear insignificant is textbook misinformation, particularly when it's being used to push a very specific political narrative.

    And let's be clear about something: my personal opinions on BLM and the riots are probably very different from what most people here assume. In fact, the person I originally responded to would probably disagree with a good deal of what I have to say about both BLM and the riots themselves.

    But that's beside the point.

    I am specifically and intentionally calling out the propaganda and misinformation presented in this meme. Nothing more, nothing less.

    You don't have to agree with my opinions about BLM to acknowledge that a meme misrepresenting the scale of property damage is misleading. Those are two entirely separate issues, and conflating them is exactly how political misinformation gets a free pass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (5 children)

    It's a $32 trillion economy, so I wouldn't consider it a stretch to say that BLM caused the slightest amount of property damage in a meme. The $2 billion figure doesn't seem significant or as relevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (4 children)

    You're comparing a $2 billion insurance loss to the entire American GDP?

    Jesus. Way to lose all context.

    Yes, of course. What's $2 billion compared to $32 TRILLION-ILLION-ILLION? Are you kidding me?!

    What exactly were you expecting from the protests? For people to scoop up the entire country and toss it in the fucking bin?

    I even made a point of comparing that $2 billion to Elon Musk's net worth. Compared to that, it's a tiny loss.

    But comparing a $2 billion loss from the BLM protests to the entire American economy is a completely useless comparison. It's like saying the distance to the Sun is tiny compared to the distance to the next galaxy. Technically true, but utterly meaningless without context.

    The American economy generates trillions of dollars in economic activity every year. Of course $2 billion is going to look insignificant when you compare it to a number that massive. That doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the actual scale of the losses.

    Christ. Calling a $2 billion loss negligible because it's a tiny fraction of America's GDP doesn't prove your point. It just demonstrates that you know how to divide two numbers without understanding what the comparison actually tells you.

    Context matters. Scale matters. And a loss doesn't stop being significant just because you can find a bigger number to compare it to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (3 children)

    The context being: insured property damage is probably not a good way to measure the influence of BLM protests when emotionally reacting to a meme.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

    It is actually and you don't understand the context. It's the largest loss in insurance history. How do you find that to be a meaningless metric.

    And again. The point of my response was to illustrate the misinformation. As much as you want to downplay it 2 billion is a noteworthy and significant loss.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    Insured property damage just wasn't the purpose or intent of BLM. Illustrating it as such works just as much towards misinformation as the offending meme, if not more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    It most certainly does. It demonstrates just how gargantuan these protests were. They resulted in the most costly protest-related property damage in American history.

    And no, it is not misinformation. It is an objectively verifiable fact.

    If people cannot comprehend the significance of $2 billion, there is not much I can do about that. That is a failure of our educational system, which is an entirely different issue in and of itself.

    But downplaying the damage is disingenuous at best and outright pandering at worst.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›