[nobody9999]

>this was excused all the while by the group's leaders and other "peaceful" supporters

Who? Specifically. This is important. AFAIK, no reasonable, law-abiding people advocated for or excused violence and destruction.

In fact, such violence was roundly criticized and there were calls from all quarters for the apprehension and prosecution of anyone committing violent acts.

I've heard the same refrain over and over again. But no one ever actually names names. So. Who are these people who actually advocated for violence and destruction during the protests last summer?

That isn't a rhetorical question, friend.

[wl]

I posted a status update the morning after a major riot happened in my neighborhood that consisted of a short summary of what happened, a statement that I was ok, and essentially "fuck the rioters." I could name names of friends who, in response, insisted on "people > property", "fuck the racist capitalist system", "rioting is language of the unheard", "looting is reparations," and "don't tell black people how to protest." I'm sure you can find examples of this on twitter and reddit if you look—it was unavoidable for a time.

Since I'm not willing to out my friends or comb through old social media, have an example from local media instead: https://www.wbez.org/stories/winning-has-come-through-revolt...

Also, an image macro posted to my wall, representative of the kinds of stuff I was seeing at the time: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnCI4_9W4AAAxDf.jpg

[nobody9999]

>I could name names of friends who, in response, insisted on "people > property", "fuck the racist capitalist system"

How many of those friends are elected or appointed public officials?

And what political power/social clout does Ariel Atkins[0] have? Especially given that over 100 arrests were made and as the mayor of Chicago said[0]:

"This is not legitimate First Amendment-protected speech. … This was straight-up felony, criminal conduct"

So some of your friends and an "activist" made incendiary comments.

No one with any real power or media reach condoned or encouraged violence during the BLM protests. Not one.

If a bunch of randos mouthing off is a huge problem, how much of a problem do you consider the statements encouraging violence by some folks with real power and media reach[1][2][3][4]?

[0] https://www.wbez.org/stories/winning-has-come-through-revolt...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz-zWeqtVo8&feature=youtu.be

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/01/02/gop-r...

[3] https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/die-for-something-arizo...

[4] https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/461498-why-are-we-t...

[wl]

You asked someone to explain their comment about the "group's leaders and other 'peaceful' supporters." I gave you an example of both. If you want more, they're not hard to find by searching for the slogans I recited.

I am thankful that government officials and more respectable media outlets with significant reach have tended to condemn the BLM rioting. Outright endorsements probably would have made the situation worse. And even tacit support can have disastrous consequences, as we saw at the Capitol. But they're not activists and they don't speak for the movement (although who can?).

[nobody9999]

>But they're not activists and they don't speak for the movement (although who can?).

Exactly. Given the decentralized nature of BLM (dozens if not more local and regional groups), I don't think anyone can reasonably say that any one person or group speaks for the BLM movement as a whole.

As such, making the assumption that a few loud voices are representative of millions of people seems inaccurate at best, and an effort to discredit millions of people who desire positive change in the methods, focus and biases of US law enforcement, based on the violence and hyperbole of a tiny minority at worst.

And the same can be said of the vast majority of those who, however misguided, protested in support of the specious claims of a "stolen" election.

A vanishingly small minority of those people committed acts of violence and destruction too. And the millions who supported that point of view shouldn't be tarred with the same, broad brush as those who committed acts of violence and insurrection.

Both of those tiny groups should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The difference between those two groups is that the public/elected officials who supported the BLM protestors right to exercise their First Amendment rights overwhelmingly condemned and decried the violence committed alongside those legal, lawful protests.

While many public/elected officials decried and condemned the violence and insurrection at the Capitol, a non-trivial number of public/elected officials who supported the Big Lie[0][1] of a rigged election encouraged violent action, and some may[2] have even knowingly conspired with violent factions to facilitate their insurrection.

That's a big difference. And we should acknowledge that. Not because it's a partisan thing, but because we're supposed to be a nation of laws -- and when those who are elected/appointed to make and enforce those laws actively work against our constitutional order, they must be dealt with directly and strongly -- or we risk the basis of our societal order.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

[1] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/the-capitol-mob-was-on...

[2] It's important to note that no elected officials have been charged with aiding the insurrectionists, there are indications that a few may have done so. Investigations should continue and anyone who provably (and that's a critical point) aided and assisted the violent scum who tried to subvert our constitutional government must be vigorously prosecuted -- but only if there is sufficient evidence. We are, after all, a nation of laws.