I am real. What percentage of the protests were actually violent? What percentage of the protesters? Where was the encouragement of violence? The idea of trying to demonize one side as being violent and supporting violence isn't accurate and is an effort to divide.
I was in Portland during part of the "riots". It wasn't at all like the right tried to portray them. I had no problems missing them at all, getting around safely, getting food, walking about, or any of that.
Lefty marches? There are two types of people who riot or instigate riots in marches for causes like Black activism or marches against police brutality. 1. Bad faith instigators like Proud Boys and Boogaloo boys who come into these protests to instigate by going in all kitted out like they are about to be helo dropped into Helmand Province in Afghanistan. 2. Poor Black folks within the poor community who have life long issues going in and out of the criminal justice system due to poor upbringing due to factors such as poverty and a lack of resources where these people have little positive outlook in life and use moments like marches and protests to unleash their frustrations with riots or take advantage with looting. If you think these people are reading Jacobin and watching the Young Turks on YouTube, you are incredibly naive. In fact these people probably don't vote. They don't even know who AOC is. In fact the more involved a protestor for these causes are in the poltical process such as actually reading political sources, voting etc the less likely they would be involved in some riot. Calling the looter and rioters "leftist" is hilarious as you are calling people who are apoltical leftists. That is completely different with the Capitol riot as those people weren't frustrated because of genuine qualms like racism, police brutality etc that they face on the daily in their lives. They were motivated by fake news on social media and right wing news outlets about election fraud and their motivation stemmed enitrely around a single cult of personality. Those people were not apoltical. They do read poltical sources and their actions are inspired by those political sources.
Just because you avoided the bad areas doesn't mean the violence and destruction didn't occur. In LA92, I had family that lived in Fontana, they weren't affected, guess that means the riots weren't so bad.
How does Google searches for yard signs have any relevance to actual yard signs? I barely even know how a Biden Yard sign looks like therefore it would make more sense for me to Google what a Biden Yard sign looks like. I love in one of the most left states in the Union and anyone who loves in Mass will tell you they physically see far more Trump signage. And my point is that Trump supporters and the modern conservative is far more boisterous about their views. They want to be the center of attention more. How many Biden hats have you seen? How many Biden flags waving on a lifted Truck have you seen? Boistiorus people are more likely to cause a scene.
I'm not saying that riots were okay or didn't exist. I'm applying context. You mentioned asking the cities. Most of the cities were okay. There was support for the protests and not the riots in them. It belies your claim that one party was supporting wide spread violence during the protests.
You didn't answer the question. He said "riots are the land of the unheard" and he said that answering a reporter about riots that were happening. So riots were happening. So was MLK supporting riots?
When you don't have any actual points to make you just take generic statements dismissing everything somewhat typed.
If he constantly advocated for peace, which was always one of his key tenets, then that means he did not support violence, no? Stop trying to take my deposition and focus on the points being made. You'll learn more that way.
You take one quote from a politician and say they advocate violence without any regard for context. I chose MLK as a prime example of a Black activist who was hated and labeled a communist and who's image amongst white people reformed after his assasination years later where now conservative white folks use him as some crutch of an ideal black activist. Do you know why he said "riots are the language of the unheard"? What would make him say that? Can you explain MLK's rationality behind that statement? Because if you can explain why he said that, you might have some better insight on black activism and the history of protests and riots amongst oppressed groups of people.
I used one quote just as an example, I'm not going to sit here and line up 50 quotes for you, even though there that many, and much more. I wish I could write a dissertation for you to support an entire pattern of conduct from the Left as it related to the summer of 2020, but I ain't got that kind of time. You either get it or you don't. I'm not here to change minds, just offer a different perspective. Some of your responses pinball off topic so much I don't even know where to start. I criticized Abbott in another thread, go in there and have some fun.
So what did MLK mean when he said "riots are the language of the unheard"? Do you disagree with him? The answer to why he said that and what he meant is precisely why people have more sympathy for activism for Black causes vs the causes for the riots at the Capitol. The meaning behind that quote is literally at the crux of the main differences between the two causes and the varying levels of sympathy while understanding that rioting and looting doesn't help a cause. I just want to see you naturally come up with the the meaning behind the quote on your own. I don't know what Abbot has to do with this.
For starters, this is a thread about TX lifting the mask mandate two months ago, and now somehow you are lecturing me on Dr. Martin Luther the King. You are a professional topic changer and whatabout artist.
I said right wingers make scenes about masks(relevant to the thread title) and then you brought up "left wing" protests. So I responded in kind. There your doing and you only resort to b****ing about a conversation not marching the thread title when you ran out of relevant talking points. So what did MLK mean?
You have a tendency to think you run the board and can ask the same questions (again and again, and then again and again) even after they are answered until you think you get the answer you want to hear. I made my point, disagree if you will but I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
So what do you think MLK meant when he said "riots are the language of the unheard"? You actually didn't make any point on that quote. You.made no comment on it and now seem to go out of your way to avoid answering what you think that quote means. For the life of me I don't know why.
