(11-02-2022 09:11 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 08:24 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Call it what it is. Stochastic Terrorism. This is what the republican party of today is

Call it what it likely is, a false flag, a lie, a hoax. This is what the democrat part of today is.

it's past time for GTS to create the 'juicy jussie smoothie' emoji...

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 08:24 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Call it what it is. Stochastic Terrorism. This is what the republican party of today is

Weren't you on here just the other day talking about having more serious and in depth discussions? Quick search shows a slew of articles about GOP campaign HQs across the country being vandalized - by "Democrat Domestic Terrorists" no doubt...

I think it's a joke to see the Dems most recent playbook to call out GOP for incendiary rhetoric. Dems have been doing this for a very long time now.

Have the larger conversation about political violence, but don't paint one side as the personification of evil and ignore the other side.

You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

I can't believe ya engaged ... I can't wait to see how this plays out...

(11-02-2022 08:24 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Call it what it is. Stochastic Terrorism. This is what the republican party of today is

What makes you think this has anything to do with republicans? Please don't say you are just regurgitating what you've seen reported. We all know how that usually plays out.

(11-02-2022 01:45 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Here's a good starting point to the claim I am trying to make:

Link


Does any of the above sound ridiculous?

Okay. Where can I find the data they used so that I can see what these violent acts were? I want specifics on this.

You do realize that someone could take this exact same approach and study crimes and how they relate to the demographic attributes of the ones committing the crimes. In light of this, is this analysis still sound?

Also on the graphic, it appears like the "Far Right" is group term that can be subdivided. The other lines appear like they should all be reclassified under "Far Left". That's suspicious.

The article cites This Database

I looked up the U.S. and wanted to see the most recent data they had on file - which goes up to Dec 2020. There are a lot of 'unknown' for the classifications. It seems likely that the majority of these unknowns are left leaning to progressives. I didn't look at every issue in great detail, but I don't see any of the riots in 2020 showing up in the database. That seems to be a pretty big omission if that's true.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Res...ults-table

Where do you draw the line between lawfully protesting and terrorism? You seem to be under the assumption that the riots of 2020 were mostly violent when 94% of BLM protests were peaceful.

Quote:The BLM movement has remained overwhelmingly non-violent.

Approximately 94% of all pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, with 6% involving reports of violence, clashes with police, vandalism, looting, or other destructive activity.
In the remaining 6%, it is not clear who instigated the violent or destructive activity. While some cases of violence or looting have been provoked by demonstrators, other events have escalated as a result of aggressive government action, intervention from right-wing groups or individual assailants, and car-ramming attacks.
In contrast, demonstrations involving right-wing militias or militant social movements have turned violent or destructive over twice as often, or nearly 14% of the time.

That 6% sure did cost a lot of money in damages.

(11-02-2022 01:56 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:26 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 09:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 08:24 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Call it what it is. Stochastic Terrorism. This is what the republican party of today is

Weren't you on here just the other day talking about having more serious and in depth discussions? Quick search shows a slew of articles about GOP campaign HQs across the country being vandalized - by "Democrat Domestic Terrorists" no doubt...

I think it's a joke to see the Dems most recent playbook to call out GOP for incendiary rhetoric. Dems have been doing this for a very long time now.

Have the larger conversation about political violence, but don't paint one side as the personification of evil and ignore the other side.

You guys keep claiming that left wing violence is rampant and therefore justifies right wing violence in return.

If you want to have a serious discussion, and make this worth my while, can you please gather information that objectively compares violence attributed to left wing politics vs. Violence attributed to right wing? Cause from where I'm standing, one side is clearly worse than the other historically, but from past experiences on this board, my evidence will most certainly be dismissed

Ah - historically. What does all that entail? How far back would we go and how wide do you want to cast the net?

I can't believe ya engaged ... I can't wait to see how this plays out...

lmmfao ... XACLY! as expected .... bwahahahahahahaha

Miko 1 Khrushchev 0 - (acknowledgement to Ollie-son for the muh USSR cold war ref.)

(11-02-2022 10:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

Who does the classification for the data underlying that graph, and what are their methodology and assumptions?

Anybody can draw lines on a piece of paper. Figuring out whether they are meaningful is another matter.

(11-02-2022 01:45 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:18 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Here's a good starting point to the claim I am trying to make:

Link


Does any of the above sound ridiculous?

Okay. Where can I find the data they used so that I can see what these violent acts were? I want specifics on this.

You do realize that someone could take this exact same approach and study crimes and how they relate to the demographic attributes of the ones committing the crimes. In light of this, is this analysis still sound?

Also on the graphic, it appears like the "Far Right" is group term that can be subdivided. The other lines appear like they should all be reclassified under "Far Left". That's suspicious.

The article cites This Database

I looked up the U.S. and wanted to see the most recent data they had on file - which goes up to Dec 2020. There are a lot of 'unknown' for the classifications. It seems likely that the majority of these unknowns are left leaning to progressives. I didn't look at every issue in great detail, but I don't see any of the riots in 2020 showing up in the database. That seems to be a pretty big omission if that's true.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Res...ults-table

Where do you draw the line between lawfully protesting and terrorism? You seem to be under the assumption that the riots of 2020 were mostly violent when 94% of BLM protests were peaceful.

Quote:The BLM movement has remained overwhelmingly non-violent.

Approximately 94% of all pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, with 6% involving reports of violence, clashes with police, vandalism, looting, or other destructive activity.
In the remaining 6%, it is not clear who instigated the violent or destructive activity. While some cases of violence or looting have been provoked by demonstrators, other events have escalated as a result of aggressive government action, intervention from right-wing groups or individual assailants, and car-ramming attacks.
In contrast, demonstrations involving right-wing militias or militant social movements have turned violent or destructive over twice as often, or nearly 14% of the time.

Cite the source claiming this. Besides, I clicked a handful of the links in the data set and the vast majority of them seem to not involve any deaths or injuries. There are a lot of zeros under those columns. What would be interesting is to add a column that would tabulate the financial impacts of the property destruction.

Let's assume you're correct in that only 6% of the BLM protests were outright riots. The sheer volume of injuries, deaths and the like would dwarf any of the incidents I see in 2020 - and I'm not even factoring in destruction of property, theft and the like.

You can make data show all sorts of things. Frankly, if what we see in this data set is the price we would have to pay to ensure Free Speech - then it's a no brainer that you put up with this to safequard our most important freedom outlined in the BOR. Vast majority of these incidents are small, petty crimes. Again, it's quite telling that the ANTIFA (which never gets mentioned in the dataset...) and BLM riots are never mentioned. Curious, isn't it?

(11-02-2022 02:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:45 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Okay. Where can I find the data they used so that I can see what these violent acts were? I want specifics on this.

You do realize that someone could take this exact same approach and study crimes and how they relate to the demographic attributes of the ones committing the crimes. In light of this, is this analysis still sound?

Also on the graphic, it appears like the "Far Right" is group term that can be subdivided. The other lines appear like they should all be reclassified under "Far Left". That's suspicious.

The article cites This Database

I looked up the U.S. and wanted to see the most recent data they had on file - which goes up to Dec 2020. There are a lot of 'unknown' for the classifications. It seems likely that the majority of these unknowns are left leaning to progressives. I didn't look at every issue in great detail, but I don't see any of the riots in 2020 showing up in the database. That seems to be a pretty big omission if that's true.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Res...ults-table

Where do you draw the line between lawfully protesting and terrorism? You seem to be under the assumption that the riots of 2020 were mostly violent when 94% of BLM protests were peaceful.

Quote:The BLM movement has remained overwhelmingly non-violent.

Approximately 94% of all pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, with 6% involving reports of violence, clashes with police, vandalism, looting, or other destructive activity.
In the remaining 6%, it is not clear who instigated the violent or destructive activity. While some cases of violence or looting have been provoked by demonstrators, other events have escalated as a result of aggressive government action, intervention from right-wing groups or individual assailants, and car-ramming attacks.
In contrast, demonstrations involving right-wing militias or militant social movements have turned violent or destructive over twice as often, or nearly 14% of the time.

Cite the source claiming this. Besides, I clicked a handful of the links in the data set and the vast majority of them seem to not involve any deaths or injuries. There are a lot of zeros under those columns. What would be interesting is to add a column that would tabulate the financial impacts of the property destruction.

Let's assume you're correct in that only 6% of the BLM protests were outright riots. The sheer volume of injuries, deaths and the like would dwarf any of the incidents I see in 2020 - and I'm not even factoring in destruction of property, theft and the like.

You can make data show all sorts of things. Frankly, if what we see in this data set is the price we would have to pay to ensure Free Speech - then it's a no brainer that you put up with this to safequard our most important freedom outlined in the BOR. Vast majority of these incidents are small, petty crimes. Again, it's quite telling that the ANTIFA (which never gets mentioned in the dataset...) and BLM riots are never mentioned. Curious, isn't it?

I would be willing to bet that the BLM "stats" he is citing are from a BLM site.

(11-02-2022 02:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:45 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Okay. Where can I find the data they used so that I can see what these violent acts were? I want specifics on this.

You do realize that someone could take this exact same approach and study crimes and how they relate to the demographic attributes of the ones committing the crimes. In light of this, is this analysis still sound?

Also on the graphic, it appears like the "Far Right" is group term that can be subdivided. The other lines appear like they should all be reclassified under "Far Left". That's suspicious.

The article cites This Database

I looked up the U.S. and wanted to see the most recent data they had on file - which goes up to Dec 2020. There are a lot of 'unknown' for the classifications. It seems likely that the majority of these unknowns are left leaning to progressives. I didn't look at every issue in great detail, but I don't see any of the riots in 2020 showing up in the database. That seems to be a pretty big omission if that's true.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Res...ults-table

Where do you draw the line between lawfully protesting and terrorism? You seem to be under the assumption that the riots of 2020 were mostly violent when 94% of BLM protests were peaceful.

Quote:The BLM movement has remained overwhelmingly non-violent.

Approximately 94% of all pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, with 6% involving reports of violence, clashes with police, vandalism, looting, or other destructive activity.
In the remaining 6%, it is not clear who instigated the violent or destructive activity. While some cases of violence or looting have been provoked by demonstrators, other events have escalated as a result of aggressive government action, intervention from right-wing groups or individual assailants, and car-ramming attacks.
In contrast, demonstrations involving right-wing militias or militant social movements have turned violent or destructive over twice as often, or nearly 14% of the time.

Cite the source claiming this. Besides, I clicked a handful of the links in the data set and the vast majority of them seem to not involve any deaths or injuries. There are a lot of zeros under those columns. What would be interesting is to add a column that would tabulate the financial impacts of the property destruction.

are you claiming terrorism is only terrorism if someone is physically harmed?

Let's assume you're correct in that only 6% of the BLM protests were outright riots. The sheer volume of injuries, deaths and the like would dwarf any of the incidents I see in 2020 - and I'm not even factoring in destruction of property, theft and the like.

I've backed up my claims with evidence to this point, now I need you to present a reputable, quantifiable number on what injuries, deaths, destruction of property, and theft can be attributed to the BLM movement, as you put it, and how that invalidates the claim I was originally trying to make: that on the whole, those that associate with modern right wing beliefs are responsible for far more acts of terrorism and violence in this country, than those that associate with modern left wing politics.

You can make data show all sorts of things. Frankly, if what we see in this data set is the price we would have to pay to ensure Free Speech - then it's a no brainer that you put up with this to safequard our most important freedom outlined in the BOR. Vast majority of these incidents are small, petty crimes. Again, it's quite telling that the ANTIFA (which never gets mentioned in the dataset...) and BLM riots are never mentioned. Curious, isn't it?

Again, of anyone in this thread that has made any sort of claim, I'm the only one to attempt to back that claim up with actual data. At this point, I have nothing further to add to this until someone attempts to do the same.

(11-02-2022 03:21 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 02:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:45 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  The article cites This Database

I looked up the U.S. and wanted to see the most recent data they had on file - which goes up to Dec 2020. There are a lot of 'unknown' for the classifications. It seems likely that the majority of these unknowns are left leaning to progressives. I didn't look at every issue in great detail, but I don't see any of the riots in 2020 showing up in the database. That seems to be a pretty big omission if that's true.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Res...ults-table

Where do you draw the line between lawfully protesting and terrorism? You seem to be under the assumption that the riots of 2020 were mostly violent when 94% of BLM protests were peaceful.

Quote:The BLM movement has remained overwhelmingly non-violent.

Approximately 94% of all pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, with 6% involving reports of violence, clashes with police, vandalism, looting, or other destructive activity.
In the remaining 6%, it is not clear who instigated the violent or destructive activity. While some cases of violence or looting have been provoked by demonstrators, other events have escalated as a result of aggressive government action, intervention from right-wing groups or individual assailants, and car-ramming attacks.
In contrast, demonstrations involving right-wing militias or militant social movements have turned violent or destructive over twice as often, or nearly 14% of the time.

Cite the source claiming this. Besides, I clicked a handful of the links in the data set and the vast majority of them seem to not involve any deaths or injuries. There are a lot of zeros under those columns. What would be interesting is to add a column that would tabulate the financial impacts of the property destruction.

are you claiming terrorism is only terrorism if someone is physically harmed?

Let's assume you're correct in that only 6% of the BLM protests were outright riots. The sheer volume of injuries, deaths and the like would dwarf any of the incidents I see in 2020 - and I'm not even factoring in destruction of property, theft and the like.

I've backed up my claims with evidence to this point, now I need you to present a reputable, quantifiable number on what injuries, deaths, destruction of property, and theft can be attributed to the BLM movement, as you put it, and how that invalidates the claim I was originally trying to make: that on the whole, those that associate with modern right wing beliefs are responsible for far more acts of terrorism and violence in this country, than those that associate with modern left wing politics.

You can make data show all sorts of things. Frankly, if what we see in this data set is the price we would have to pay to ensure Free Speech - then it's a no brainer that you put up with this to safequard our most important freedom outlined in the BOR. Vast majority of these incidents are small, petty crimes. Again, it's quite telling that the ANTIFA (which never gets mentioned in the dataset...) and BLM riots are never mentioned. Curious, isn't it?

Again, of anyone in this thread that has made any sort of claim, I'm the only one to attempt to back that claim up with actual data. At this point, I have nothing further to add to this until someone attempts to do the same.

You could have just started by saying you had nothing to add and saved yourself a lot of time and hot air.

Hey, they forgot to add that there was a garage door pull fashioned to be a noose.

(11-02-2022 03:21 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 02:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:45 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 01:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  The article cites This Database

I looked up the U.S. and wanted to see the most recent data they had on file - which goes up to Dec 2020. There are a lot of 'unknown' for the classifications. It seems likely that the majority of these unknowns are left leaning to progressives. I didn't look at every issue in great detail, but I don't see any of the riots in 2020 showing up in the database. That seems to be a pretty big omission if that's true.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Res...ults-table

Where do you draw the line between lawfully protesting and terrorism? You seem to be under the assumption that the riots of 2020 were mostly violent when 94% of BLM protests were peaceful.

Quote:The BLM movement has remained overwhelmingly non-violent.

Approximately 94% of all pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, with 6% involving reports of violence, clashes with police, vandalism, looting, or other destructive activity.
In the remaining 6%, it is not clear who instigated the violent or destructive activity. While some cases of violence or looting have been provoked by demonstrators, other events have escalated as a result of aggressive government action, intervention from right-wing groups or individual assailants, and car-ramming attacks.
In contrast, demonstrations involving right-wing militias or militant social movements have turned violent or destructive over twice as often, or nearly 14% of the time.

Cite the source claiming this. Besides, I clicked a handful of the links in the data set and the vast majority of them seem to not involve any deaths or injuries. There are a lot of zeros under those columns. What would be interesting is to add a column that would tabulate the financial impacts of the property destruction.

are you claiming terrorism is only terrorism if someone is physically harmed?

Let's assume you're correct in that only 6% of the BLM protests were outright riots. The sheer volume of injuries, deaths and the like would dwarf any of the incidents I see in 2020 - and I'm not even factoring in destruction of property, theft and the like.

I've backed up my claims with evidence to this point, now I need you to present a reputable, quantifiable number on what injuries, deaths, destruction of property, and theft can be attributed to the BLM movement, as you put it, and how that invalidates the claim I was originally trying to make: that on the whole, those that associate with modern right wing beliefs are responsible for far more acts of terrorism and violence in this country, than those that associate with modern left wing politics.

You can make data show all sorts of things. Frankly, if what we see in this data set is the price we would have to pay to ensure Free Speech - then it's a no brainer that you put up with this to safequard our most important freedom outlined in the BOR. Vast majority of these incidents are small, petty crimes. Again, it's quite telling that the ANTIFA (which never gets mentioned in the dataset...) and BLM riots are never mentioned. Curious, isn't it?

Again, of anyone in this thread that has made any sort of claim, I'm the only one to attempt to back that claim up with actual data. At this point, I have nothing further to add to this until someone attempts to do the same.

C’mon, you’re the one making the bold claim. You make the claim, you need to back it up with evidence. The data you provided is dubious IMHO. Most of the incidents are vandalism. A lot of the unknown crimes go in one direction, I.e. could have been classified as leftist crimes given what was attacked. Did you actually look at these incidents?

We saw BLM and ANTIFA damage on the news. Clearly a lot of destruction was seen in the news. To compare that to “bricks thrown thru windows” as the majority of the data seems to show is crazy.