What is the number?

[Rev. Rye]

A protest turned riot.is a riot.

Fuck their " good cause".

Says the man who looks for any excuse to dismiss the BLM protests last year as just riots, but also goes out of his way to create exacting standards so he can avoid doing the same to the storming of the Capitol.

[brewer]

Bad comparison.

Edit: I found this, which may not be completely to the point, but can shed some light on political violence. : https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wi...-none-2020

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/o...rest-acled

They say otherwise.

Again, bad comparison. Different data collections, apples/oranges. I'm wondering if you even read the entire article.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The numbers are irrelevant. One was an attempt to overthrow the government and override a fair and free election based on a lie and the other was based on rage over the senseless murder of a black person. You can't even put them on the same scale. It would be as dumb as comparing the murders of Jack The Ripper to the causalities of the German sailors during the sinking of the Bismark by the British Navy then declaring Jack is less evil because he killed fewer people.

[Anomalocaris]

20-ish and 1, respectively.

I’m curious as to why you ask, because the comparison is essentially meaningless.

Boru

A protest turned riot.is a riot.

Fuck their " good cause".


It' s just like that dickdrip Rittenhouse - you KNOW it' s likely to turn to shit - so stay the fuck home
...

just like boston Tea party is nothing more than vandalism and riot, and yet deemed right to honor and celebrate.  

the cause makes all the difference, not the riot.

Some causes are amply worthy of one riot, or many.   The rioting is the necessary price to pay to overcome entrenched iniquitous barriers against remediating basic injustice. 

others causes essentially seek to perpetuate these iniquities and thus are such that even a single riot on its behalf is several too many and only serve to lends urgency to the suppression of  the cause.

[HappySkeptic]

Peaceful protests are a weird modern creation. The "power of the mob" in past history has meant the threat of riot.

We've decided that democracy requires an end to riots.

[Anomalocaris]

actually, democracies are often born in what it’s predecessors would call riots.

And less flawed iterations of democracies are often born in what previous iterations would initially call riots.

“we” have not decided democracy requires end of riots.   those on the beneficiary side of iniquity, and seeks to leverage the profit gained through iniquity into collateral  to perpetuate the iniquity and thus extend the run of their own good fortune, are the ones who sees rioting as something that must be wrong because it threaten their own, let’s not beat around the bush, inherited loot.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Peaceful protests are a weird modern creation. The "power of the mob" in past history has meant the threat of riot.

We've decided that democracy requires an end to riots.

Just about every Democracy has been founded on what modern law would be called a riot. The upper echelon rarely gives up power by choice.

[Anomalocaris]

The goal of democracy is to ensure people’s legitimate desire for fairness does not require rioting to pursue.    That is a always a worthy goal to pursue, yet experience shows that has never been a goal that could be consistently met over the long run by any practical system.     So From time to time any democracy would need rioting for its own good.

The longer any democracy, or for that matter any government, attempt to hide the fact that it is no longer possible for some legitimate desire for fairness to be pursued with any chance of success without rioting, the more violent the eventual inevitable riots will be.    Suppress the fact for long enough, and the eventual riot will be violent enough to upend the entire edifice.

Arguably other biggest fundamental survival advantage of democracy over autocracy is it is possible to accommodate a periodic moderate level of rioting in a democracy, leading to periodical beneficial change.   With autocracy any rioting is a direct threat to perceived power of the government, thus it is incapable of tolerating rioting calling for change and would thus suppress it forcefully for a long time.    So autocracy is more likely to fall cataclysmically when the pressure to riot can not longer be contained.

[The Architect Of Fate]

A protest turned riot.is a riot.

Fuck their " good cause".


It' s just like that dickdrip Rittenhouse - you KNOW it' s likely to turn to shit - so stay the fuck home
...

just like boston Tea party is nothing more than vandalism and riot, and yet deemed right to honor and celebrate.  

the cause makes all the difference, not the riot.

Some causes are amply worthy of one riot, or many.   The rioting is the necessary price to pay to overcome entrenched iniquitous barriers against remediating basic injustice. 

others causes essentially seek to perpetuate these iniquities and thus are such that even a single riot on its behalf is several too many and only serve to lends urgency to the suppression of  the cause.

I wonder if OLB would consider the riots that took place to protest the Stamp Act were wrong. Because after all, a riot is a riot.

[Nay_Sayer]

Too many, but do get to the infographic part, Those are always fun.