US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread II

[Liriena]

I've learned to expect puddle-deep, barely lukewarm takes from the right on complicated social issues.

Probably the same reason the protests about going back to work happened when the unemployment system collapsed.

People felt it was important enough to be worth the risk.

Yes. And, in both cases, a discussion can be had on the validity and veracity of the specific grievances at play, how sound the policies demanded to address them are, and the legitimacy of the underlying worldviews behind it all. You can ask about the class interests being reflected in those protests, the socioeconomic context, the history, the role of media...

[Liriena]

Vass means well but yeah, in this her and others have fallen into a trap. She'd have been better off rejecting the implicit or explicit premise that whether the protests spread covid or not is in any way relevant to the legitimacy of the causes they espouse.

Conservatives and reactionaries got the ball rolling by memeing about "oh when we brave patriots protest anti-covid policy it's bad and spread the fake virus but when the uppity blacks do it it's good and doesn't spread it huh?". The responsible thing to do would have been to reject that framing entirely, to not accept their pathetic, vague gestures at an imaginary hypocrisy as an invitation to defend their strawman.

Well, the hypocrisy wasn't really imaginary. There's plenty of hypocrisy along these lines. There was even before people started calling it out.

They called people starving wanting to go back to work so they could eat evil virus spreaders (i'm exaggerating slightly, but not much), while the BLM protests were made up of heroes protesting against racism and by the way they aren't even spreading the virus anyway so it doesn't count.

Your statement is arguably the correct individualist one - whether it spreads the virus or not is not relevant to the legitimacy of the cause. Therefore, both those protesting forced starvation and those protesting police brutality are in their perfect rights to do so.

There's also the other collectivist one - that neither one is their rights to do so because Greater Good.

But "Protest against starvation = evil virus spreaders" and "Protest against police brutality = good they don't even spread the virus" is a hypocritical position.

To be fair, there was waaaaaaay too much overlap in anti-lockdown "get back to work" protests between people who wanted to work (or others to work for them) and dangerously idiotic conspiracy theories about the pandemic. Not saying that those facing serious economic difficulties weren't right to be demanding some sort of response from the state, but I am saying that many were absolutely not struggling economically and were motivated by blatantly dangerous ideology. Mind you, I don't think that this would have justified repressing those protests. They did have a right to protest, and the rest of the world had a right to call many of them idiots for their specific reasons for protesting.

[Vassenor]

But "Protest against starvation = evil virus spreaders" and "Protest against police brutality = good they don't even spread the virus" is a hypocritical position.

I'm sure you won't have trouble showing people actually taking this position then.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Vass means well but yeah, in this her and others have fallen into a trap. She'd have been better off rejecting the implicit or explicit premise that whether the protests spread covid or not is in any way relevant to the legitimacy of the causes they espouse.

Conservatives and reactionaries got the ball rolling by memeing about "oh when we brave patriots protest anti-covid policy it's bad and spread the fake virus but when the uppity blacks do it it's good and doesn't spread it huh?". The responsible thing to do would have been to reject that framing entirely, to not accept their pathetic, vague gestures at an imaginary hypocrisy as an invitation to defend their strawman.

Well, the hypocrisy wasn't really imaginary. There's plenty of hypocrisy along these lines. There was even before people started calling it out.

They called people starving wanting to go back to work so they could eat evil virus spreaders (i'm exaggerating slightly, but not much), while the BLM protests were made up of heroes protesting against racism and by the way they aren't even spreading the virus anyway so it doesn't count.

Your statement is arguably the correct individualist one - whether it spreads the virus or not is not relevant to the legitimacy of the cause. Therefore, both those protesting forced starvation and those protesting police brutality are in their perfect rights to do so.

There's also the other collectivist one - that neither one is their rights to do so because Greater Good.

But "Protest against starvation = evil virus spreaders" and "Protest against police brutality = good they don't even spread the virus" is a hypocritical position.

The thing is most BLM protestors are doing their best to stay safe whereas there's quite a bit of overlap between anti-maskers and the people attending pig rallies .

[Fartsniffage]

Vass means well but yeah, in this her and others have fallen into a trap. She'd have been better off rejecting the implicit or explicit premise that whether the protests spread covid or not is in any way relevant to the legitimacy of the causes they espouse.

Conservatives and reactionaries got the ball rolling by memeing about "oh when we brave patriots protest anti-covid policy it's bad and spread the fake virus but when the uppity blacks do it it's good and doesn't spread it huh?". The responsible thing to do would have been to reject that framing entirely, to not accept their pathetic, vague gestures at an imaginary hypocrisy as an invitation to defend their strawman.

Well, the hypocrisy wasn't really imaginary. There's plenty of hypocrisy along these lines. There was even before people started calling it out.

They called people starving wanting to go back to work so they could eat evil virus spreaders (i'm exaggerating slightly, but not much), while the BLM protests were made up of heroes protesting against racism and by the way they aren't even spreading the virus anyway so it doesn't count.

Your statement is arguably the correct individualist one - whether it spreads the virus or not is not relevant to the legitimacy of the cause. Therefore, both those protesting forced starvation and those protesting police brutality are in their perfect rights to do so.

There's also the other collectivist one - that neither one is their rights to do so because Greater Good.

But "Protest against starvation = evil virus spreaders" and "Protest against police brutality = good they don't even spread the virus" is a hypocritical position.

Given the BLM protests/riots don't seem to have lead to a spike in cases, perhaps we should looking into what effect tears gas and baton rounds have on the virus?

[Solvokina]

Well, the hypocrisy wasn't really imaginary. There's plenty of hypocrisy along these lines. There was even before people started calling it out.

They called people starving wanting to go back to work so they could eat evil virus spreaders (i'm exaggerating slightly, but not much), while the BLM protests were made up of heroes protesting against racism and by the way they aren't even spreading the virus anyway so it doesn't count.

Your statement is arguably the correct individualist one - whether it spreads the virus or not is not relevant to the legitimacy of the cause. Therefore, both those protesting forced starvation and those protesting police brutality are in their perfect rights to do so.

There's also the other collectivist one - that neither one is their rights to do so because Greater Good.

But "Protest against starvation = evil virus spreaders" and "Protest against police brutality = good they don't even spread the virus" is a hypocritical position.

Given the BLM protests/riots don't seem to have lead to a spike in cases, perhaps we should looking into what effect tears gas and baton rounds have on the virus?

Wanna get rid of the virus via gas? Use Chlorine, totally will work! But the thing is, the way the US Police deals with protests is they try to set up perimeters which they will attempt to either disperse, squeeze out or capture protestors. Shit way to stop protests which doesn't guarantee freedom of speech which is ironic since the 1st amendment exists. Could be worse, it could be my dad in the early 2000's who told me he was "ordered to clean up the protestors"

[Trollgaard]

Well, the hypocrisy wasn't really imaginary. There's plenty of hypocrisy along these lines. There was even before people started calling it out.

They called people starving wanting to go back to work so they could eat evil virus spreaders (i'm exaggerating slightly, but not much), while the BLM protests were made up of heroes protesting against racism and by the way they aren't even spreading the virus anyway so it doesn't count.

Your statement is arguably the correct individualist one - whether it spreads the virus or not is not relevant to the legitimacy of the cause. Therefore, both those protesting forced starvation and those protesting police brutality are in their perfect rights to do so.

There's also the other collectivist one - that neither one is their rights to do so because Greater Good.

But "Protest against starvation = evil virus spreaders" and "Protest against police brutality = good they don't even spread the virus" is a hypocritical position.

The thing is most BLM protestors are doing their best to stay safe whereas there's quite a bit of overlap between anti-maskers and the people attending pig rallies .

Pig rallies?

What a really great person you must be.

Not.

Typical commie.

[Alcala-Cordel]

The thing is most BLM protestors are doing their best to stay safe whereas there's quite a bit of overlap between anti-maskers and the people attending pig rallies .

Pig rallies?

What a really great person you must be.

Not.

Typical commie.

Can you at least be creative with your insults? I like a good insult, but this is just bland.

[Outer Acharet]

I don't think they meant "pig rallies" using pig as cops. I believe it's the right-wing rallies about opening things up, since "overlap between anti-maskers and pig rallies".

The thing is most BLM protestors are doing their best to stay safe whereas there's quite a bit of overlap between anti-maskers and the people attending pig rallies .

Two separate groups.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I don't think they meant "pig rallies" using pig as cops. I believe it's the right-wing rallies about opening things up, since "overlap between anti-maskers and pig rallies".

The thing is most BLM protestors are doing their best to stay safe whereas there's quite a bit of overlap between anti-maskers and the people attending pig rallies .

Two separate groups.

I was saying that there's an overlap between people who support the inherently racist institution of policing and anti-maskers.

[Solvokina]

The thing is most BLM protestors are doing their best to stay safe whereas there's quite a bit of overlap between anti-maskers and the people attending pig rallies .

Pig rallies?

What a really great person you must be.

Not.

Typical commie.

AnCom's Typical

[Cannot think of a name]

Arguing whether the protests led to a spike in coronavirus cases feels kind of like a red herring to me, tbh. The question shouldn't be whether the protests are a public health hazard, but rather why people were willing to risk exactly that? What is going on that got so many people to take to the streets? If we obsess over whether cases spiked or not, we're adding another layer of pointless superficiality and irrelevancy to our understanding of these protests. At most, the only practical purpose of such a discussion is the same as that of the discussion on whether riots or blocking a street are "bad": it tries to coax us into engaging in a yes/no debate on whether the protests are acceptable in and of themselves. It's a debate which ultimately serves to justify the suppression of those same protests.

Oh, it was just the magic "protests against the lockdowns spread covid" but "protests about black lives matter didn't spread covid" thinking. Which we get a lot of here for some reason.

Like Covid is a liberal virus or something.

In point of fact, people like Vass are citing a study without reading it and want everyone else to do the same. No thanks.

Of course this ignores a substantial difference in the style and manner of the protests to make this smug and pointless point.

The lockdown protests were pointedly and purposeful defiances of the very measures meant to quell the spread of the disease so people would make a point of not social distancing or taking protective measures like wearing a mask whereas the BLM protests happened in spite of the pandemic and participants were encouraged to use safe as possible practices like like face masks and distancing and it was things like tear gassing and rushing protestors that countermanded that. Given the absolute size of the protests in order for the offset you keep running around and spiking to be significant to counteract the spread among the people in the street every other human being on the planet would have suddenly had to become Super Compliant. You're taking a factor and making it the cause in a lame attempt to dunk while ignoring a key difference in the very nature of the protests.

But, since you're like a dog with a bone you'll keep doing it. Carry on.

[Galloism]

Given the absolute size of the protests in order for the offset you keep running around and spiking to be significant to counteract the spread among the people in the street every other human being on the planet would have suddenly had to become Super Compliant.

I know you’d like to blame me for making this point, but it’s really not me. It’s the study that keeps getting linked. It even goes into the effects of violence and televised violence and how that impacted spread (noting explicitly more violence and more televised violence both were driving factors, with more violence equating to slower spread of the virus).

You're taking a factor and making it the cause in a lame attempt to dunk while ignoring a key difference in the very nature of the protests.

Yes, one was about starvation, and the other police brutality.

But, since you're like a dog with a bone you'll keep doing it. Carry on.

And as usual, you try to blame me for the crime of reading the linked study.

[Galloism]

Well, the hypocrisy wasn't really imaginary. There's plenty of hypocrisy along these lines. There was even before people started calling it out.

They called people starving wanting to go back to work so they could eat evil virus spreaders (i'm exaggerating slightly, but not much), while the BLM protests were made up of heroes protesting against racism and by the way they aren't even spreading the virus anyway so it doesn't count.

Your statement is arguably the correct individualist one - whether it spreads the virus or not is not relevant to the legitimacy of the cause. Therefore, both those protesting forced starvation and those protesting police brutality are in their perfect rights to do so.

There's also the other collectivist one - that neither one is their rights to do so because Greater Good.

But "Protest against starvation = evil virus spreaders" and "Protest against police brutality = good they don't even spread the virus" is a hypocritical position.

Given the BLM protests/riots don't seem to have lead to a spike in cases, perhaps we should looking into what effect tears gas and baton rounds have on the virus?

They studied this.

Basically, public violence slows the spread of the virus, as people stay home more.

[Cannot think of a name]

Given the BLM protests/riots don't seem to have lead to a spike in cases, perhaps we should looking into what effect tears gas and baton rounds have on the virus?

They studied this.

Basically, public violence slows the spread of the virus, as people stay home more.

Also, outdoors in the sun, high proportion of mask usage and a conscious effort to distance.

But apparently we just pick one factor that fits our narrative and pretend that's a point that will go fucking nowhere in this thread for eighteen pages.

[Galloism]

They studied this.

Basically, public violence slows the spread of the virus, as people stay home more.

Also, outdoors in the sun, high proportion of mask usage and a conscious effort to distance.

But apparently we just pick one factor that fits our narrative and pretend that's a point that will go fucking nowhere in this thread for eighteen pages.

That helps too of course, but multiple protests occurred at night and mask usage was not universal. So that doesn’t really explain it. It helps, but it still can’t be denied the blm protests that happened spread Covid. It’s just the violence reduced the spread.

And people claiming otherwise haven’t read the study.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

They studied this.

Basically, public violence slows the spread of the virus, as people stay home more.

Also, outdoors in the sun, high proportion of mask usage and a conscious effort to distance.

But apparently we just pick one factor that fits our narrative and pretend that's a point that will go fucking nowhere in this thread for eighteen pages.

Google tracks people's movements via their phones. Maybe not all people, but millions across the cities, easily enough to draw broad conclusions like ... people stay home more in cities where there are protests. Many more stay home than actually protest, causing a positive overall effect on infection rates.

You're pushing back so hard because you don't like the implication that the protests scare a lot of people. Is that incomprehensible though?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Right, how dare the evidence show there's been no spikes from these protests.

"Evidence". If you learn how corona is spread you'd know public gatherings in this cesspool of protests is a bad idea.

inb4 "source", to that I say stop being a sheep to the media and learn to think for yourself

Since the time you posted this, it's been established that protests/riots actually reduce the rate of new infections in a city.

For bad reasons, which I expect wouldn't work if there were only protests and no riots. But noneless, you were wrong.

---

Providing a source is expected, if the information your argument relies on is not common knowledge. If asked for a source, it means the person doubts the precepts of your argument, and if you can't provide a source for that precept then your argument collapses.

"Thinking for yourself" without doing any research will very quickly lead you to believe things that are WRONG.

[Cannot think of a name]

Also, outdoors in the sun, high proportion of mask usage and a conscious effort to distance.

But apparently we just pick one factor that fits our narrative and pretend that's a point that will go fucking nowhere in this thread for eighteen pages.

Google tracks people's movements via their phones. Maybe not all people, but millions across the cities, easily enough to draw broad conclusions like ... people stay home more in cities where there are protests. Many more stay home than actually protest, causing a positive overall effect on infection rates.

You're pushing back so hard because you don't like the implication that the protests scare a lot of people. Is that incomprehensible though?

The only thing stupider than getting into debate about single factors being the sole cause is getting into a debate about true intentions. Super pass.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Google tracks people's movements via their phones. Maybe not all people, but millions across the cities, easily enough to draw broad conclusions like ... people stay home more in cities where there are protests. Many more stay home than actually protest, causing a positive overall effect on infection rates.

You're pushing back so hard because you don't like the implication that the protests scare a lot of people. Is that incomprehensible though?

The only thing stupider than getting into debate about single factors being the sole cause is getting into a debate about true intentions. Super pass.

Are you conceding that people staying indoors more because of protests/riots outside, IS a factor?

[Cannot think of a name]

The only thing stupider than getting into debate about single factors being the sole cause is getting into a debate about true intentions. Super pass.

Are you conceding that people staying indoors more because of protests/riots outside, IS a factor?

I never said it wasn't. Perhaps you should find someone who did to have your crusade.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Are you conceding that people staying indoors more because of protests/riots outside, IS a factor?

I never said it wasn't. Perhaps you should find someone who did to have your crusade.

That was not my "true intention". I did however read the whole exchange between you and Galloism and you seemed to be going to lengths to avoid admitting that people staying home might be a factor in lower covid transmission rates.

And you're still not admitting it.

[Cannot think of a name]

I never said it wasn't. Perhaps you should find someone who did to have your crusade.

That was not my "true intention". I did however read the whole exchange between you and Galloism and you seemed to be going to lengths to avoid admitting that people staying home might be a factor in lower covid transmission rates.

And you're still not admitting it.

I can't help you, dude. I'm not going to adopt a position and the concede it so you can get a win. You'll just have to live with disappointment.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That was not my "true intention". I did however read the whole exchange between you and Galloism and you seemed to be going to lengths to avoid admitting that people staying home might be a factor in lower covid transmission rates.

And you're still not admitting it.

I can't help you, dude. I'm not going to adopt a position and the concede it so you can get a win. You'll just have to live with disappointment.

You will not adopt a position either way on something you read the source for and then "debated" for a page.

I think we're done here.

[Cannot think of a name]

I can't help you, dude. I'm not going to adopt a position and the concede it so you can get a win. You'll just have to live with disappointment.

You will not adopt a position either way on something you read the source for and then "debated" for a page.

I think we're done here.

 
No dude, we were 'done' in my first post on the subject when I said this:

You're taking a factor and making it the cause in a lame attempt to dunk while ignoring a key difference in the very nature of the protests.

You just decided to drag dick through the thread anyway.