A cynical parallel between "Joker" and the riots that occurred at the BLM Protests

Disclaimer: It has been documented and proven in court that police where the instigators of BLM riots as well as white supremacists. This meme is meant to be a relatable parody. It is horrid that the violence occurred, and there are riots that were started by people who just wanted to mess things up. But true proponents of the movement did not sabotage the protests with rioting. What makes the notion that the riots were started by BLM is the association of the phrase "BLM Riots" instead of "BLM Protests." We cannot apply a minority of instances where riots occurred out of thousands of protests. In total, there were less than 500 incidents that devolved into riots out of the 10,400 total protests. Thus, making them mostly peaceful.

For example, if we apply the same Right-Wing logic that there is no such thing as "mostly peaceful," we can infer the same logic to demographics and behavioral patterns. For instance, the odds that white folk are more likely to be pedophiles than black folk would imply that we could say that whites are pedophiles. But, with our rational thinking we recognize that white folk are mostly non-predatory. There are some who are, but not all of us.

It is with the lazy intellect of the right-wing that uses this propaganda and embraces it that allows them to make such hasty generalizations. Mind you, not all right-wing accept such nonsense as the propaganda that had been played out by Trump and his administration. Quite a lot of damage has been done, and it's going to take a while to repair it.

We need to stop playing by their rules and call the protests for what they were: Protests. As such, we should say "Riots that occurred during the BLM Protests." Not "BLM Riots."

That said, people can definitely relate to the Joker in what he said here if you look at the original quote.

*over 500, not less than 500 violent incidents

Do you have the number?

Found it

While the US has long been home to a vibrant protest environment, demonstrations surged to new levels in 2020. Between 24 May and 22 August, ACLED records more than 10,600 demonstration events across the country. Over 10,100 of these — or nearly 95% — involve peaceful protesters. Fewer than 570 — or approximately 5% — involve demonstrators engaging in violence. Well over 80% of all demonstrations are connected to the Black

I'm not sure why they would be different but the MCCA reports 574 riots.

Technicalities perhaps

Yeah, probably just differences in what defines a true riot but whatever

According to what I'm gleaning from the documentation that I have, it seems that it would be less what is classified as a riot, but rather who considers who the riot pertains to. Not all riots/protests were related to George Floyd in 2020. There were COVID protests/riots as well.

Ah, my mistake the supporting data to the classroom was inaccurate but the claim that the protests were mostly peaceful is still true

Yes, as a percentage the vast majority are peaceful but when there was over 10,600 demonstrations, even just 5% being violent has resulted in the most destructive round of riots in US history.

Which were largely started by police and white Supremacists.

Source?

"LEAKED DOCUMENTS SHOW POLICE KNEW FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISTS WERE THE REAL THREAT AT PROTESTS, NOT “ANTIFA”"(2020)
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/

FBI warned of white supremacists in law enforcement 10 years ago. Has anything changed? (2016)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement

Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists (2020)
https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right-infiltrators-and-agitators-in-george-floyd-protests-indicators-of-white-supremacists/

FBI chief says U.S. 'Antifa' demonstrators are targets of multiple probes (2020)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-threats/fbi-chief-says-u-s-antifa-demonstrators-are-targets-of-multiple-probes-idUSKCN26F3C2

3 with ties to white extremism accused of plotting mayhem at protests (2020)
https://www.ajc.com/news/with-ties-white-extremism-accused-plotting-mayhem-protests/GdtpTjwVaapgVZihVtNWeI/

Police: Richmond riots instigated by white supremacists disguised as Black Lives Matter (2020)
https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/07/27/police-richmond-riots-instigated-by-white-supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/

DHS draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236

Independent BLM Protest Study: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

This video is of particular note as these videos were taken before the escalations really started kicking off in July. This is taken before the first of June, which is quite telling of what happened during the riots. You had police blatantly violating the first amendment by assaulting the press which is a clear dereliction to their duty to protect the laws set forth by our constitutions. Further, highlighting the uses of excessive force where police are seen hitting people who are down, not resisting, or otherwise peacefully leaving the area. There are some instances where you need to see more footage than what is provided to get the whole picture, but the pattern of behavior settles that issue. Also the notion of police paintballing people with mace on their own patios after only 2-3 seconds from initial prompt, no warning of being shot at
40+ New Police Brutality videos emerge during the George Floyd Prot...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp2b9Qo88UI

Kamala Harris expressed support for a nonprofit called the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which pays criminal bail and encouraged her supporters to donate to it to bail out rioters.

Chris Cuomo: “Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.” In the constitution.

Nancy Pelosi: “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.”
“You have to be ready to throw a punch.”

Jon Tester: “…and Donald Trump, I think you have to go back and punch him in the face.”

Corey Booker: “I feel like punching him”

Joe Biden: “If we were in high school I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.”

Johnny Depp: “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?”

MSNBC guest: “They’re still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump.”

Madonna @ Women’s march: “I have thought a lot about blowing up the White House.”

Denis McDonough: “I’m a fighter and I’m relentless.”
“I will fight like hell”

Elizabeth Warren: “We stand up and we fight back. We do not back down and we do not compromise”
“We will use that vision to make sure that we fight harder, we fight tougher, and we fight more passionately than ever.”
“Use every tool possible to fight this change.”

Alex Padilla: “And you gotta be fierce in fighting back”

“There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives.” -MSNBC Guest

https://www.insider.com/man-who-started-black-lives-matter-riot-pleaded-guilty-2021-2

https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MCCA-Report-on-the-2020-Protest-and-Civil-Unrest.pdf

https://youtu.be/a-hZg6p79NQ

https://youtu.be/KaMVvJ4mwKE

"Chris Cuomo: “Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.” In the constitution."

This red-herring implies that protests have to be physically violent. Protests do not have to be peaceful, but they don't have to be violent either. They can be tumultuous, they can be disorderly, they can be agitated, they can be turbulent, they can even be disturbing, but that doesn't mean they HAVE to be violent, if not peaceful.

Nancy Pelosi: “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.”
“You have to be ready to throw a punch.”

Again a red-herring at taking what she was speaking about out of context. Uprisings, she was talking about protests. A punch, meaning that you have to strike back at the heart of tyranny which was being witnessed from the law enforcement agencies attacking the press, violating the first amendment to the constitution.

"Jon Tester: “…and Donald Trump, I think you have to go back and punch him in the face.”"

I don't know this person and am unfamiliar with the context. But, so? Are you taking away his right of self expression? I agree, someone should punch that f**ker in the face. Doesn't mean that it *has* to be done. It just means that he is deserving of it.

So, I read the rest of the quotes... and I just have to ask you one question...

Do you think these people should be held accountable for their speech?

“Do you think these people should be held accountable for their speech?”
On some of them, yes. Chris Cuomo is 100% in the wrong, for example. But I stuck the rest on there to show a blatant double standard in Democrats. Saying “let’s fight” or “It makes me want to punch him” are both obviously hyperbolic. There’s no reason to pretend to be an idiot and think they mean it literally. And yet, that is precisely what Democrats and media have done with Trump’s speech where he makes vague comments about fighting (in context he even specifies he’s talking about primaries and other legitimate legal ways) then follows it up with saying to do so peacefully. The left then took this and made up massive amounts of bullshit to call it inciting an insurrection. The worst of what Trump says is “fight like hell”, which is the exact same phrase Denis McDonough used on another occasion, free from outrage from Democrats.
On normal circumstances I wouldn’t even be bringing up most of those quotes but if the left wants to insist that just throwing in the word fight in a speech means actual fighting, worthy of impeachment, treason charges, and removal from social media then they have to be consistent.

Interesting though, because many of those comments were controversial before Don's speech. So how is it hypocritical if Don went ahead and did what the right disagreed with? He echoed their points, knew it would be a loaded gun based on the precedent, and did it anyway. That's the hypocrisy.

Democrats pressed charges against him as he used his office to push such narrative with the lie of the election and convinced people to rise up and attack the seat of our government. Not stores or random buildings, not to occupy a street, but to seek out specific people and end their lives. In this, Democrats sought to hold him accountable. It is obvious that Trump knew what he was doing. "Well, if they can do it, so should I." Seeing the damage such speech caused, however incorrect, he did it anyway and had much more serious potential for consequences regarding our functioning government.

If any Democrat should be held accountable for such speech, so should Trump as the cause and effect of his speech and the lies associated with it, brought the first attack on the capitol in over 150 years.

The difference is that Democrats never called their constituents weak. Never implied that they would lose their country. Never implied that they would lose their identity. Never implied since 2016 that the opposing party is a pact of satan-worshipping pedophiles who drink the blood of children, never implied that the opposing party seeks to impose a communist regime. These are all talking points of Don the Con. The man should have learned that in four years as President, public speaking was not his strong suit. He knew that he had Proud Boys "Standing Back and Standing By." That they were taking his word as doctrine and covenant. Yet, he did it anyway.

It wasn't an accident; Trump has no business being President.
If Trump didn't mean for this to happen, he has no business being President anyway as he clearly can't think things through.

I'm not buying what you're putting down

Further, you're citing what people are saying. Last I checked, the freedom of speech is something that we hold sacred.

The links that I provided were less about one's speech and more about the actions that have been taken against the security of our nation and law enforcement.

Sorry I didn’t respond yet, the past few days have been hectic for me.

Most of the information in your sources is true, the problem is that they still leave out the other half of necessary information. Left or right wing, I have yet to find a single source that tells everything.
We agree only around 5% of protests turned into riots, so we call the other 95% peaceful, but that’s false. Not being a riot doesn’t mean it’s peaceful. Around 40% of protests that weren’t full on riots were still unlawful, which included taking over roadways and blocking traffic, refusing to cooperate with lawful orders, disrupting dining and entertainment areas by trespassing onto private property, harassing patrons, and Seattle, where not only did many take over a section of the city and declare it autonomous but there was also an incident where BLM crowds marched through neighborhoods demanding that white people give up their homes. Law enforcement also reported 2,385 looting incidents.

Yes it is true that alt right groups like proud boys, boogaloo, Neo Nazis, and so on took the opportunity to add to violence to cast a worse light on BLM. However the problem comes when leftists try to pin all or most of the violence on the alt right, which is false. Be careful how much you try to blame everything on those darned right wingers, otherwise you’d be just as hypocritical as the morons who blamed January 6 on antifa. You must remember that BLM is founded by marxists, and thus attracts radical far leftists, the kind of believe that their goals can only be attained by a revolution. Also keep in mind that the violence was encouraged by Democrat media and politicians. (So far TYT is the only leftist media I’ve seen that denounced riots the way they should have.)

Lawful orders aren't always justified. Such as the example with the violin vigil for Elijah McLain where there was a park of peaceful protesters (no curfew) honoring his memory. The police marched in and started tear-gassing and macing the place.

Without having the resources to look at each individual "Unlawful protest" I question the validity of such claims given the questionable display of "law enforcement" with the vigil for Elijah McLain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4VRVuLSyJU. If MSNBC commentary bothers you, just mute it and watch the video footage.

That said, there were many riots in which police acted unlawfully. As I said, is it because such riots or unlawful behavior was spurred by their unconstitutional acts? Who's to say?

The point is, that this whole thing of calling them "BLM Riots" is a misleading title for what was really going on. True supporters of the cause of BLM were actually defending stores and holding people accountable. Those who were sabotaging the riots were anarchists, (ANTIFA is not an anarchist movement at its core, it is plausible that there were groups who had formed their own organization of extremists, but ANTIFA is hardly that as a whole. I am ANTIFA, I know this and am proof. My family is ANTIFA, our friends are ANTIFA.) There are documented cases of Proud Boys masquerading as ANTIFA/BLM sabotaging the riots, instigating violence. Within the links I supplied, there are also instances of police acting in bad faith as well. To reiterate, labeling these as "BLM riots" is grossly misleading and quite the scapegoat.

“That said, there were many riots in which police acted unlawfully. As I said, is it because such riots or unlawful behavior was spurred by their unconstitutional acts? Who's to say?”
When in doubt and when you can’t be sure just blame the police I guess!

Ah yes, ANTIFA. The group so misunderstood they beat the crap out of Andy Ngo in broad daylight just for recording them. There’s a difference between being against fascism and being a member of ANTIFA. I fully believe you, your family, and your friends are against fascism but I doubt you’re an ANTIFA member.

Elliot Broaster, Eli Aswan, Janice Wilbourn, and Lucy Hosley. Just 4 of many black businesses owners whose businesses were destroyed by Black Lives Matter protesters themselves.

Do you see how dumb that argument is when I flip the terms? You can’t just say “oh that wasn’t REAL blm” when you don’t like it, just like how I can’t say the unjustified force from Police wasn’t REAL law enforcement. Heck, I’m a Christian but I can’t say the Crusaders weren’t REAL Christians just because I don’t like them.

"Ah yes, ANTIFA. The group so misunderstood they beat the crap out of Andy Ngo in broad daylight just for recording them. There’s a difference between being against fascism and being a member of ANTIFA. I fully believe you, your family, and your friends are against fascism but I doubt you’re an ANTIFA member."

That's because officially, there is no organization.

"Elliot Broaster, Eli Aswan, Janice Wilbourn, and Lucy Hosley. Just 4 of many black businesses owners whose businesses were destroyed by Black Lives Matter protesters themselves." Are we sure that it was BLM protesters and not saboteurs? False flag operatives?

" I fully believe you, your family, and your friends are against fascism but I doubt you’re an ANTIFA member."
How could you tell me apart from another "ANTIFA member?" I wear black and facemasks with shades to protests. I don't want to be doxxed by the right. How can you tell who is a "member" versus who isn't? How does one gain membership to a movement/belief? No such thing exists in the official capacity. If it does, they do not represent people who support the movement/ideology of ANTIFA.

I'll tell you what, if Trump saw me and a "member of ANTIFA" standing next to eachother, he'd think I was the exact same as the other guy.

"Do you see how dumb that argument is when I flip the terms? You can’t just say “oh that wasn’t REAL blm” when you don’t like it, just like how I can’t say the unjustified force from Police wasn’t REAL law enforcement. Heck, I’m a Christian but I can’t say the Crusaders weren’t REAL Christians just because I don’t like them."

Yes, but the police officers were real police officers. As were the Crusaders, they were real Christians at the time of their existence. That said, how can you be sure that they weren't false flag operatives at the riots? There are confirmed reports of such scenarios occurring. Impersonating a police officer is obviously against the law and much easier to prosecute. False flags though? Little more tricky. Even if they believed they were actual BLM protesters, there's this wonderful thing called "denouncement." You officially say "I don't know you, I don't want to know you, I don't believe in what you are saying, I do not support you." Police don't have to worry about that though, because of their immunity clause. They usually get to walk due to "heat of the moment." and "stress."

Fortunately for Justice, it prevailed over Chauvin who had 9 minutes of "stress" and "heat of the moment."

“That's because officially, there is no organization.”
That’s why I said group, nor organization. Still, that doesn’t refute my point.

“Are we sure that it was BLM protesters and not saboteurs? False flag operatives?”
Unless there’s a bunch of white supremacists who also happen to be black, yes we can be sure. If you search up the video with Lucy Hosley you see she’s calling out the looters who she herself identified as BLM and they were chanting BLM. In fact, she says she recognized several of the 30 rioters who entered her store, but she said “I won’t turn you in, God will.”

“I'll tell you what, if Trump saw me and a "member of ANTIFA" standing next to eachother, he'd think I was the exact same as the other guy.”
Well yeah, after seeing the violence they’ve caused any reasonable person would be fearful of anybody who feels the need to hide their identity just to “peacefully protest”.

“how can you be sure that they weren't false flag operatives at the riots?”
I can be quite sure that most rioters are in fact BLM and not white supremacists if they’re making a black power sign, changing blm, and if they’re black themselves, stuff like that. I see you take every opportunity whenever the political beliefs of every single rioter aren’t made public to redeem BLM based on a pathetic “what if”.

Yes, justice did prevail in the end with Chauvin. He had something like 18 complaints of excessive force prior to killing Floyd so he should have been removed a LONG time ago but 22 years in prison now sounds about right.

Yeah on the other hand, with rhetoric like "the only good democrat is a dead Democrat" any rational person would protect their identity.

Looting is not the same as rioting and there's actually a good speech on looting. You're focusing on the what and not the why. If you care about the why I will link you the video with said said speech.

Pro parenting tip, if you keep punishing children for bad behavior without trying to rectify the problem, they will continue to repeat the behavior.