I participated at the G-20 protests in Toronto. I saw first hand the tactics used by the government. I also participated at the Wetʼsuwetʼen railway protest and saw how they tried, along with the media, to take over and change the narrative of the protests.
In my experience those who scream conspiracy are the ones we should be worried about, inadvertently they are helping those who are acting to undermine organized protest.
I remember the Montebello accusations. Plain clothed police officers are in every organized crowd here and I believe the police side of this story instead of the protesters. The reasoning is quite simple, if they were there to incite riots, those actions would have been caught on camera before they were approached. The protesters just felt violated that they were being watched from the inside. But those cops aren't there to spy, they are there to protect and to stop senseless acts like a guy just walking around breaking windows with a hammer.
The first story you posted from wsws has the same narrative. The cops were there but weren't doing anything until they were approached and accosted by other protesters.
~~
And since you brought them up, might as well go a little more in depth with it since a controversial deal has been struck:
Wet'suwet'en railway protest wasn't a protest. It was an act of civil disobedience because they knew they could get away with it. It's all outlined here.: Before coronavirus, this was costing people their jobs and had zero to do with what was happening in BC. Blocking the railways in Ontario and Manitoba had nothing to do with what was happening in BC. I never buy the solidary argument. I will say it did bring more exposure to the conflict happening in BC, however, that exposure IMO backfired. Here's why:
This isn't to be confused with the legal battle Wet'suwet'en were fighting for (something I already covered in this thread). It should also be noted that this is actually an internal dispute between elected Wet'suwet'en officials and the Heredity Chiefs who just inherit the chief title. The elected officials actually supported the pipeline and hammered out a deal. The heredity chiefs disputed the deal because of being "forcibly removed" from their territories. The thing is, they weren't forced. The elected chiefs signed the deal and the tribe still has full access to the land. A person can debate the environmental impacts that might arise, but not how either GasLinks, the BC or Canadian government handled the proposal up to that point.
GasLinks played along at first and met with the heredity chiefs to see if a working compromise could be figured out. The heredity chiefs weren't looking to compromise and did not take any of GasLinks concerns seriously. Only then were the courts and RCMP began to be involved. GasLinks had the upperhand (and the chiefs knew it) because they had elected officials signatures on an agreement that they were allowed on the land to construct the pipeline and that is when the coverage of the protest started (and other bands stuck their noses into the conflict).
Onto the closed negotiations the heredity chiefs (the ones who were making all the noise) and the BC and Canadian government. Well they quietly (quietly since coronavirus has taken over everyone worries) hammered out a deal two weeks ago.
The memorandum does not address Wet'suwet'en opposition to the pipeline, which is part of a $40-billion liquefied natural gas export terminal project in Kitimat, on B.C.'s northern coast. But it states that the federal and B.C. governments recognize Wet'suwet'en rights and title are held under their system of governance.
It also places timelines over a 12-month period on negotiations affecting jurisdiction over land-use planning, resources, water, wildlife, fish, and child and family wellness, among other things.
Hereditary Chief Dini'ze Woos said in a statement the agreement starts work towards building better understanding and stronger relationships between the Wet'suwet'en, Canada and B.C.
"Wet'suwet'en people, regardless of political views and opinions can now visualize certainty," said Woos.
Sounds great right? Well not if you consider that the elected officials who signed the pipeline deal to begin with, were not part of this negotiating process. Basically the federal and BC government said they will negotiate only with the heredity chiefs (read as monarchs) and not the elected officials (read as democracy). It was pitiful appeasement that is starting to backfire, because remember, this whole protest started as an internal power struggle between elected chiefs and heredity chiefs.
The elected chiefs are now fighting back. They are calling for the resignation of Carolyn Bennett, federal Indigenous-Crown relations minister. And are also working internally to prevent the heredity chiefs from enacting this agreement as this article this article this article states:
"(Dan) George (chief of Ts'il Kaz Koh) said elected band councils plan to issue band council resolutions (BCRs) denying the authority of chiefs with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en (OW) to sign the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on behalf of all 3,000 members of the Wet'swuwet'en.
"We're all going to do BCRs on a no-confidence vote in the Office of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs out of Smithers," George said."
And if that fails, the elected chiefs could bring the federal government to court over their exclusion from the negotiations under constitutional grounds.
If any of these two things are successful, expect to heredity chiefs to spin some other fanciful whoah-is-us help us protest this atrocity movement in the future.
It was a muddy situation before this agreement and all the federal government was able to do was to throw more mud into the water with this hastily signed document that doesn't even address what the chiefs were protesting to begin with.
Not just I, the revolution needed to cure Humanity.
For these protesters to target CNN.... they know whats up.
I think this is......pretty accurate. When I said this morning that the police and public officials had lost legitimacy, I didn't realize how widespread it would get. I didn't expect this tonight. But here we are:
The world is burning, it has happened before. It should eventually tilt back to the sane and humane. What really bothers me is that the “presumed”, “so called” leader of the free world is pour... okay no, dumping gas on the fire. What the absolute fuck?!
I participated at the G-20 protests in Toronto. I saw first hand the tactics used by the government. I also participated at the Wetʼsuwetʼen railway protest and saw how they tried, along with the media, to take over and change the narrative of the protests.
In my experience those who scream conspiracy are the ones we should be worried about, inadvertently they are helping those who are acting to undermine organized protest.
I remember the Montebello accusations. Plain clothed police officers are in every organized crowd here and I believe the police side of this story instead of the protesters. The reasoning is quite simple, if they were there to incite riots, those actions would have been caught on camera before they were approached. The protesters just felt violated that they were being watched from the inside. But those cops aren't there to spy, they are there to protect and to stop senseless acts like a guy just walking around breaking windows with a hammer.
The first story you posted from wsws has the same narrative. The cops were there but weren't doing anything until they were approached and accosted by other protesters.
~~
And since you brought them up, might as well go a little more in depth with it since a controversial deal has been struck:
Wet'suwet'en railway protest wasn't a protest. It was an act of civil disobedience because they knew they could get away with it. It's all outlined here.: Before coronavirus, this was costing people their jobs and had zero to do with what was happening in BC. Blocking the railways in Ontario and Manitoba had nothing to do with what was happening in BC. I never buy the solidary argument. I will say it did bring more exposure to the conflict happening in BC, however, that exposure IMO backfired. Here's why:
This isn't to be confused with the legal battle Wet'suwet'en were fighting for (something I already covered in this thread). It should also be noted that this is actually an internal dispute between elected Wet'suwet'en officials and the Heredity Chiefs who just inherit the chief title. The elected officials actually supported the pipeline and hammered out a deal. The heredity chiefs disputed the deal because of being "forcibly removed" from their territories. The thing is, they weren't forced. The elected chiefs signed the deal and the tribe still has full access to the land. A person can debate the environmental impacts that might arise, but not how either GasLinks, the BC or Canadian government handled the proposal up to that point.
GasLinks played along at first and met with the heredity chiefs to see if a working compromise could be figured out. The heredity chiefs weren't looking to compromise and did not take any of GasLinks concerns seriously. Only then were the courts and RCMP began to be involved. GasLinks had the upperhand (and the chiefs knew it) because they had elected officials signatures on an agreement that they were allowed on the land to construct the pipeline and that is when the coverage of the protest started (and other bands stuck their noses into the conflict).
Onto the closed negotiations the heredity chiefs (the ones who were making all the noise) and the BC and Canadian government. Well they quietly (quietly since coronavirus has taken over everyone worries) hammered out a deal two weeks ago.
The memorandum does not address Wet'suwet'en opposition to the pipeline, which is part of a $40-billion liquefied natural gas export terminal project in Kitimat, on B.C.'s northern coast. But it states that the federal and B.C. governments recognize Wet'suwet'en rights and title are held under their system of governance.
It also places timelines over a 12-month period on negotiations affecting jurisdiction over land-use planning, resources, water, wildlife, fish, and child and family wellness, among other things.
Hereditary Chief Dini'ze Woos said in a statement the agreement starts work towards building better understanding and stronger relationships between the Wet'suwet'en, Canada and B.C.
"Wet'suwet'en people, regardless of political views and opinions can now visualize certainty," said Woos.
Sounds great right? Well not if you consider that the elected officials who signed the pipeline deal to begin with, were not part of this negotiating process. Basically the federal and BC government said they will negotiate only with the heredity chiefs (read as monarchs) and not the elected officials (read as democracy). It was pitiful appeasement that is starting to backfire, because remember, this whole protest started as an internal power struggle between elected chiefs and heredity chiefs.
The elected chiefs are now fighting back. They are calling for the resignation of Carolyn Bennett, federal Indigenous-Crown relations minister. And are also working internally to prevent the heredity chiefs from enacting this agreement as this article this article this article states:
"(Dan) George (chief of Ts'il Kaz Koh) said elected band councils plan to issue band council resolutions (BCRs) denying the authority of chiefs with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en (OW) to sign the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on behalf of all 3,000 members of the Wet'swuwet'en.
"We're all going to do BCRs on a no-confidence vote in the Office of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs out of Smithers," George said."
And if that fails, the elected chiefs could bring the federal government to court over their exclusion from the negotiations under constitutional grounds.
If any of these two things are successful, expect to heredity chiefs to spin some other fanciful whoah-is-us help us protest this atrocity movement in the future.
It was a muddy situation before this agreement and all the federal government was able to do was to throw more mud into the water with this hastily signed document that doesn't even address what the chiefs were protesting to begin with.
I added the video of Montebello, which plain clothes officers do you see in it?
Now we have video of a cop in Louisville pelting a female reporter live on air with rubber bullets. Cop in New York City opening his car door while driving at a good rate of speed to clip protesters. The cops have acted like they were at war for the last 30 years when they weren't. Now they have a real one on their hands. Meanwhile, on FOX News tonight they have brought on (wait for it).........Mark Fuhrman to discuss the situation. The fucking patient zero of racist cops.
I participated at the G-20 protests in Toronto. I saw first hand the tactics used by the government. I also participated at the Wetʼsuwetʼen railway protest and saw how they tried, along with the media, to take over and change the narrative of the protests.
In my experience those who scream conspiracy are the ones we should be worried about, inadvertently they are helping those who are acting to undermine organized protest.
I remember the Montebello accusations. Plain clothed police officers are in every organized crowd here and I believe the police side of this story instead of the protesters. The reasoning is quite simple, if they were there to incite riots, those actions would have been caught on camera before they were approached. The protesters just felt violated that they were being watched from the inside. But those cops aren't there to spy, they are there to protect and to stop senseless acts like a guy just walking around breaking windows with a hammer.
The first story you posted from wsws has the same narrative. The cops were there but weren't doing anything until they were approached and accosted by other protesters.
I don't know about the other protests, but there have been problems with undercover police in the UK. I don't think those have been a deliberate result of policy though, but rather reflect a couple of things. In some cases, particularly when new to a role, undercover operatives may behave more aggressively in order to give themselves street credibility or to improve their disguise. When people play a role for a long time, they may also get too absorbed in it and forget their intended job is to monitor and start acting as an agent provocateur.
The report about an MP witnessing untoward undercover police tactics in 2009 led to a select Committee investigation in 2011 and in turn to the closure or restructuring of undercover police special units to try and improve the accountability of officers involved in these units. Following a number of further press revelations, particularly about undercover police having liaisons with women as part of their role, in 2015 an independent public inquiry was opened to review the policy and practice of undercover policing and provide recommendations to improve that - the inquiry is still going on.
I think this is......pretty accurate. When I said this morning that the police and public officials had lost legitimacy, I didn't realize how widespread it would get. I didn't expect this tonight. But here we are:
I disagree strongly here. I'm not seeing a fundamental questioning of greater power structures uniting the protests. Rather it really is just about the police. And just about the different policing certain people in the US get.
What's different about these protests now is the 15% unemployment, not to mention the other greater numbers of people working less or just not captured by the official figure. People simply did not have the freedom to protest en masse during previous outrageous shootings or killings. I hope that doesn't sound like a cynical take, I think protesters were as sincere in the past as they are now.
I think the prosecutor in Minneapolis badly underestimated the reaction here, given the current economic situation.
Edit to add: Last time we saw mass protests after all, was 2008, 2009. Also a period of high unemployment.
I added the video of Montebello, which plain clothes officers do you see in it?
Plain clothes = not in uniform.
I saw that video before. Please tell me how that video proves the cops were provoking the crowd? The cops did literally nothing until they were accosted by the guy in the suit. Its a public place. Anyone can stand where ever they want to stand as long as it doesn't infringe on the safety of others. Now some police forces may take that excuse to an extreme, but that is another debate. The protestors can assume that they were there to provoke them, but they have zero proof of that even though they have enough video. The union leader is just making an us vs them argument to rile up the people there.
Are you insinuating that I don't know what Plain clothes means? this is the second time I have received this treatment from you. I am formally asking you to stop it.
The people that were on the ground had filed complaints that the police did provoke and use unnecessary force on protesters. The Antifa/Anarchist groups that were there had also complained about unnecessary force from officers and task force. Just because it didn't happen on video or because we have a bias opinion about unions, doesn't make it less true.
These type of undercover blend in and entice tactics are real. I totally understand if some don't believe in them because they have never been in a protest, they have never been in a group that has taken street level action to try to bring in change. They have never marched.
I put most of the blame on social media. In my opinion it has given the attention seeking coward a way to toss out their biased opinions to get that phat like or retweet but when push comes to shove, they sink into their couches and gather as many throws and pillows to hide under they can.
In conclusion, those people who are not in the front lines and organizing, trying to bring positive change should get the fuck out of the way. They should stop taking social praise from their peers for the real work done by others. My opinion of course.
Are you insinuating that I don't know what Plain clothes means? this is the second time I have received this treatment from you. I am formally asking you to stop it.
I apologize, but you asked a question and I actually quickly edited my post to supply an answer to that question instead of rambling on about the cops doing nothing wrong in the video. Since you already knew the history of this case, and knew that the 3 guys were police officers and that the police admitted as much, I assumed that you thought them dressing like protestors wasn't considered plain clothes. Yes they were easily spotted because of their boots. But their bulky vests, suggesting protective clothing was also a give away IMO.
The bulkiness is usually a good away in other types of crowds such as public gatherings and festivities. Lose looking long sleeved plaid shirts in the summer time is another dead giveaway as well as the person just standing there alone not communicating and just scanning the crowd. Lose, long clothing hides radio equipment they use to 'call in' other officers if they spot something like open liquor, a person in distress or other minor things.
Spotting them is a fun game to play.
edit: you also changed the video and provided one with commentary. Here is commentary of my own. The cops cover were blown, they needed to push past the police line to be "arrested" and were attempting to do that safely as possible without others attempting to follow them all while being assaulted by the union leader (and only the union leader for that matter. Everyone else was keeping their distance). The union leader was causing a scene because the cops were already "outed" by the crowd as shown in the first video you posted.
Holding a rock isn't a crime. If these three were indeed the ones throwing the rocks all they had to do was wait for them to throw the other one and they have it on tape. Instead this "reporter" goes into wild speculation territory to fit the narrative he wanted to tell. The police showed up in riot gear. Anyone who is antipolice at that gathering could have picked up a rock and threw it. Blaming it on the cops is just a conspiracy with zero proof.
The people that were on the ground had filed complaints that the police did provoke and use unnecessary force on protesters. The Antifa/Anarchist groups that were there had also complained about unnecessary force from officers and task force. Just because it didn't happen on video or because we have a bias opinion about unions, doesn't make it less true.
Yes, yes... the rough tactics like tackling a person to the ground is 'unnecessary force.' And without evidence, people can say whatever the hell they want to say and it will go no where and the more people do it, the more it will be this person is just crying wolf.
But this is also why I am strongly for police body cameras. A person launches a complaint about an officer, it would have been recorded. If the police officer is on duty, the cameras remains on at all times. Turning off ones camera for any reason is grounds for termination. If they are forcing cab drivers to install cameras, then I don't see why they can't do that to police officers.
These type of undercover blend in and entice tactics are real. I totally understand if some don't believe in them because they have never been in a protest, they have never been in a group that has taken street level action to try to bring in change. They have never marched.
They don't exist. Let's scratch that. There is a possibility that they do exist. I would take odds of that idiot with the umbrella breaking glass was a cop who was off duty at the time attempting to cause a riot. I will even buy into what @Grond0 was saying that undercover officers sometimes take their roles too far. But if an undercover officer incites you to throw a rock it's entrapment. So they might exist, but not every undercover cop in the crowd is attempting to incite a riot. I'd place this actually happening in the minority (at least here in Canada).
I put most of the blame on social media. In my opinion it has given the attention seeking coward a way to toss out their biased opinions to get that phat like or retweet but when push comes to shove, they sink into their couches and gather as many throws and pillows to hide under they can.
In conclusion, those people who are not in the front lines and organizing, trying to bring positive change should get the fuck out of the way. My opinion of course.
What's positive for one person isn't necessarily positive for another. Let's actually take Montebello as an example.
The reasons for the protests was due to it being secretive. The three world leaders met over two days with about 30 business executives but what they were discussing was never made public before hand.
This summit was beneficial for businesses who work across borders (automotive being one of the most popular). Businesses equal jobs which equals a stronger economy. In my opinion, there is nothing to protest. Everything sounds positive knowing that nothing concrete would actually come from the meeting, only a suggestive guidance where elected officials get to debate about the pros and cons of that direction once they are made public. It's how democracy works.
That doesn't mean I don't understand some of the protests, such as bicycling from Ottawa to Montebello because the US and Canada aren't doing enough about climate change and they should be meeting with environmentalist instead of business leaders if the summit is actually to "protect the environment, combat infectious diseases and ensure a safe food and energy supply" like the website actually read at the time. (side note. I posted before that GWB was working on a plan to combat the next pandemic before it happened - I wonder if what he heard from this summit, seeing how its in this statement - was the catalyst for him to do so. Another potential positive that happened out of this secretive meeting).
Or protesting that governments shouldn't be meeting with businesses in secret in the first place, but that doesn't get fixed by protests, that gets fixed by legislation.
But others such as the de-regulate talk was utter nonsense. Or the Green party accusing the PC of formulating a plan to sell Canada's fresh water. Neither of those were a possibility of coming to fruition during this summit so why protest? To me, it just shows the lack of understanding of how things operate.
Are you insinuating that I don't know what Plain clothes means? this is the second time I have received this treatment from you. I am formally asking you to stop it.
I apologize, but you asked a question and I actually quickly edited my post to supply an answer to that question instead of rambling on about the cops doing nothing wrong in the video. Since you already knew the history of this case, and knew that the 3 guys were police officers and that the police admitted as much, I assumed that you thought them dressing like protestors wasn't considered plain clothes. Yes they were easily spotted because of their boots. But their bulky vests, suggesting protective clothing was also a give away IMO.
The bulkiness is usually a good away in other types of crowds such as public gatherings and festivities. Lose looking long sleeved plaid shirts in the summer time is another dead giveaway as well as the person just standing there alone not communicating and just scanning the crowd. Lose, long clothing hides radio equipment they use to 'call in' other officers if they spot something like open liquor, a person in distress or other minor things.
Spotting them is a fun game to play.
The people that were on the ground had filed complaints that the police did provoke and use unnecessary force on protesters. The Antifa/Anarchist groups that were there had also complained about unnecessary force from officers and task force. Just because it didn't happen on video or because we have a bias opinion about unions, doesn't make it less true.
Yes, yes... the rough tactics like tackling a person to the ground is 'unnecessary force.' And without evidence, people can say whatever the hell they want to say and it will go no where and the more people do it, the more it will be this person is just crying wolf.
But this is also why I am strongly for police body cameras. A person launches a complaint about an officer, it would have been recorded. If the police officer is on duty, the cameras remains on at all times. Turning off ones camera for any reason is grounds for termination. If they are forcing cab drivers to install cameras, then I don't see why they can't do that to police officers.
These type of undercover blend in and entice tactics are real. I totally understand if some don't believe in them because they have never been in a protest, they have never been in a group that has taken street level action to try to bring in change. They have never marched.
They don't exist. Let's scratch that. There is a possibility that they do exist. I would take odds of that idiot with the umbrella breaking glass was a cop who was off duty at the time attempting to cause a riot. I will even buy into what @Grond0 was saying that undercover officers sometimes take their roles too far. But if an undercover officer incites you to throw a rock it's entrapment. So they might exist, but not every undercover cop in the crowd is attempting to incite a riot. I'd place this actually happening in the minority (at least here in Canada).
I put most of the blame on social media. In my opinion it has given the attention seeking coward a way to toss out their biased opinions to get that phat like or retweet but when push comes to shove, they sink into their couches and gather as many throws and pillows to hide under they can.
In conclusion, those people who are not in the front lines and organizing, trying to bring positive change should get the fuck out of the way. My opinion of course.
What's positive for one person isn't necessarily positive for another. Let's actually take Montebello as an example.
The reasons for the protests was due to it being secretive. The three world leaders met over two days with about 30 business executives but what they were discussing was never made public before hand.
This summit was beneficial for businesses who work across borders (automotive being one of the most popular). Businesses equal jobs which equals a stronger economy. In my opinion, there is nothing to protest. Everything sounds positive knowing that nothing concrete would actually come from the meeting, only a suggestive guidance where elected officials get to debate about the pros and cons of that direction once they are made public. It's how democracy works.
That doesn't mean I don't understand some of the protests, such as bicycling from Ottawa to Montebello because the US and Canada aren't doing enough about climate change and they should be meeting with environmentalist instead of business leaders if the summit is actually to "protect the environment, combat infectious diseases and ensure a safe food and energy supply" like the website actually read at the time. (side note. I posted before that GWB was working on a plan to combat the next pandemic before it happened - I wonder if what he heard from this summit, seeing how its in this statement - was the catalyst for him to do so. Another potential positive that happened out of this secretive meeting).
Or protesting that governments shouldn't be meeting with businesses in secret in the first place, but that doesn't get fixed by protests, that gets fixed by legislation.
But others such as the de-regulate talk was utter nonsense. Or the Green party accusing the PC of formulating a plan to sell Canada's fresh water. Neither of those were a possibility of coming to fruition during this summit so why protest? To me, it just shows the lack of understanding of how things operate.
I think some of this does fit in with the possibility the protests are being partly fuelled by wider grievances than just the police. I suspect that the protests at Montebello were largely a result of the plans for cross-border business cooperation. I think international links are a good thing for many reasons, only one of which is that they are able to generate more wealth. However, one problem is that increases in wealth will not necessarily be fairly distributed. In the US the huge increases in income inequality in recent years are partly the result of such links (and the lack of political will to do anything about that). It's clear that has been a source of frustration for many for some time and one reason for the increasing partisanship in society.
In the context of a president actively sowing discontent and distrust, the fear of contagion, the growth of unemployment and disruption of normal life patterns, I think it would be a surprise if old sources of frustration were not now bubbling to the surface. In that sense the protests about police treatment can be seen as a trigger for wider concerns to be expressed.
The same sort of process was seen not long ago in France with the 'yellow vest' protests. Initially those were specifically about fuel tax rises, but very quickly all sorts of other concerns and causes got lumped into the mix - though the main thread of protest remained as being against economic injustices of various sorts.
I've been told I have a sick sense of humour, sometimes. I always think that we have to laugh things off. Keeps the mind sane. If you don't want to laugh right now don't watch it.
And there seems to be a pattern in the destruction in alot of these cities. White anarchists or agent provocateurs are showing up and causing chaos, then bailing and leaving the black protesters to deal with the repercussions from the cops in riot gear. Those people are just another version of Amy Cooper:
The problem is the situations are so chaotic and so fast moving with so many people that 99/100 people who are simply trying to cause violent confrontations are just going to slip away. Once the first rubber bullet and tear gas canister flies, a protest becomes a riot pretty quick. One person can easily alter the trajectory of the entire thing.
It's also worth noting that although what he did is really a culmination of decades of abuse, it's hard to think of a person who has single-handedly caused a bigger shit-storm than Derek Chauvin. His knee basically lit the country on fire in the middle of a pandemic. Apparently his wife has filed for divorce. My guess is that has alot to do with protecting whatever assets the family has.
The problem is the situations are so chaotic and so fast moving with so many people that 99/100 people who are simply trying to cause violent confrontations are just going to slip away. Once the first rubber bullet and tear gas canister flies, a protest becomes a riot pretty quick. One person can easily alter the trajectory of the entire thing.
It's also worth noting that although what he did is really a culmination of decades of abuse, it's hard to think of a person who has single-handedly caused a bigger shit-storm than Derek Chauvin. His knee basically lit the country on fire in the middle of a pandemic. Apparently his wife has filed for divorce. My guess is that has alot to do with protecting whatever assets the family has.
The issue with this argument is that no one is suggesting it is impossible for people to manipulate a protest to their own ends. It would be absurd to think this couldn’t happen.
It’s a conspiracy theory when someone tries to suggest a particular event (such as the man in black in MN breaking windows being a police officer) was done without any supporting evidence.
In the abstract - I have no issue with Trevor Noah’s point. If he tried to suggest that this happened by a particular person at a particular event without evidence - I would want him to cite his evidence or stop repeating a baseless theory.
There is some seriously shady shit going down. The protests here in Fargo were peaceful ALL DAY (you can even see photos of the protesters with law enforcement higher-ups outside the police station holding signs together). As soon as the sun went down, a group of people moved in and started instigating confrontations with the cops. These people are NOT the same. It was absolutely deliberate. My aunt was watching live on the news a few minutes ago and said she heard some guy in the background yell "fuck the left, fuck the left". Make of it what you will. My guess is 4chan will show you the tracks.
And THIS type of shit is exactly why this has escalated so much. This is just a battalion of cops marching down a suburban street where absolutely nothing is going on and launching rubber bullet rounds at people's front porches:
The issue with this argument is that no one is suggesting it is impossible for people to manipulate a protest to their own ends. It would be absurd to think this couldn’t happen.
It’s a conspiracy theory when someone tries to suggest a particular event (such as the man in black in MN breaking windows being a police officer) was done without any supporting evidence.
In the abstract - I have no issue with Trevor Noah’s point. If he tried to suggest that this happened by a particular person at a particular event without evidence - I would want him to cite his evidence or stop repeating a baseless theory.
I was being sarcastic. There is no argument. Anyone can believe what they wish too and can say and think in a way that makes them come to grips with the sheltered life they live. Again I blame social media for giving cowards that think they know better or think they have it figured out a voice. I say to these people... Get up and hit the streets, see things for yourselves and then come to a conclusion through first hand accounts. Waiting for the media or police to give us the "proof" is never gonna happen.
As I'm typing this Black Leaders are saying that Antifa and Anarchists are hijacking their protests in most cities. Are they being paid to do it? Who gave them their orders? The only way to find out and know is to be on the ground not on a couch with a laptop sippin a mockafrapacakalaka latte. Let's put on our boots and hit the pavement and SEE what is going on. Trevor Noah has my automatic respect because he has seen first hand how these provocateurs operate, just that he can't say too much or his handlers will get cross.
The man in black in MN was told to cause shit and that is exactly what he did. He knew exactly how to do it and how to hide from drones or news choppers. The only thing he didn't think would happen would be people calling him out and taking video of him. Again this is all coming from someone with a little experience with this kind of thing. I'm happy that since last night the conspiracy theory is slowly being proven to be fact over time with these riots. Now they have called in the Army to help, exactly what provocateurs are paid to do. Cause enough chaos so that the government has to take action against the unruly mobs and the civil protests get the shaft. The message is lost and the only thing seen are images of buildings on fire and property looted and damaged.
Governments know if you twist people too tightly they will go off, all they need is to be provoked and manipulated a certain way, this I will agree with, the youth in these riots are being manipulated very easily. Social media is serving its purpose and organizing the chaotically manipulated mobs to do the provocateurs bidding.
There is some seriously shady shit going down. The protests here in Fargo were peaceful ALL DAY (you can even see photos of the protesters with law enforcement higher-ups outside the police station holding signs together). As soon as the sun went down, a group of people moved in and started instigating confrontations with the cops. These people are NOT the same. It was absolutely deliberate. My aunt was watching live on the news a few minutes ago and said she heard some guy in the background yell "fuck the left, fuck the left". Make of it what you will. My guess is 4chan will show you the tracks.
And THIS type of shit is exactly why this has escalated so much. This is just a battalion of cops marching down a suburban street where absolutely nothing is going on and launching rubber bullet rounds at people's front porches:
The issue with this argument is that no one is suggesting it is impossible for people to manipulate a protest to their own ends. It would be absurd to think this couldn’t happen.
It’s a conspiracy theory when someone tries to suggest a particular event (such as the man in black in MN breaking windows being a police officer) was done without any supporting evidence.
In the abstract - I have no issue with Trevor Noah’s point. If he tried to suggest that this happened by a particular person at a particular event without evidence - I would want him to cite his evidence or stop repeating a baseless theory.
I was being sarcastic. There is no argument. Anyone can believe what they wish too and can say and think in a way that makes them come to grips with the sheltered life they live. Again I blame social media for giving cowards that think they know better or think they have it figured out a voice. I say to these people... Get up and hit the streets, see things for yourselves and then come to a conclusion through first hand accounts. Waiting for the media or police to give us the "proof" is never gonna happen.
As I'm typing this Black Leaders are saying that Antifa and Anarchists are hijacking their protests in most cities. Are they being paid to do it? Who gave them their orders? The only way to find out and know is to be on the ground not on a couch with a laptop sippin a mockafrapacakalaka latte. Let's put on our boots and hit the pavement and SEE what is going on. Trevor Noah has my automatic respect because he has seen first hand how these provocateurs operate, just that he can't say too much or his handlers will get cross.
The man in black in MN was told to cause shit and that is exactly what he did. He knew exactly how to do it and how to hide from drones or news choppers. The only thing he didn't think would happen would be people calling him out and taking video of him. Again this is all coming from someone with a little experience with this kind of thing. I'm happy that since last night the conspiracy theory is slowly being proven to be fact over time with these riots. Now they have called in the Army to help, exactly what provocateurs are paid to do. Cause enough chaos so that the government has to take action against the unruly mobs and the civil protests get the shaft. The message is lost and the only thing seen are images of buildings on fire and property looted and damaged.
Governments know if you twist people too tightly they will go off, all they need is to be provoked and manipulated a certain way, this I will agree with, the youth in these riots are being manipulated very easily. Social media is serving its purpose and organizing the chaotically manipulated mobs to do the provocateurs bidding.
I have no doubt anymore after seeing what happened in the city I live in tonight that the peaceful protests ARE being hijacked. It's impossible to say who or why it's happening, but it's absolutely taking place. I saw a video tonight of two young African-American men wondering why there is a pallet full of bricks sitting in the middle of a street where no construction is taking place. On top of this, police are proving exactly WHY this is happening with their borderline insane behavior, because after watching about two dozen videos of THEIR behavior, it's impossible not to conclude they WANT to escalate things so they can go in and knock heads. Nothing like this has taken place on this scale since the 1960s, if even then. When you are seeing riots in Salt Lake City and Fargo, some line has been crossed that we haven't seen before. There is basically a nationwide riot going on in EVERY major population center.
And I don't know why it hasn't been mentioned by pretty much anyone anywhere (besides the Atlanta mayor), but the spike in COVID-19 cases in 2-3 weeks is going to be astronomical. But frankly, this is a half-century of total injustice among police departments coming to a head with a once in a century plague and 25% unemployment. It's the ultimate tinder-box.
I was being sarcastic. There is no argument. Anyone can believe what they wish too and can say and think in a way that makes them come to grips with the sheltered life they live.
As I'm typing this Black Leaders are saying that Antifa and Anarchists are hijacking their protests in most cities. Are they being paid to do it? Who gave them their orders? The only way to find out and know is to be on the ground not on a couch with a laptop sippin a mockafrapacakalaka latte. Let's put on our boots and hit the pavement and SEE what is going on. Trevor Noah has my automatic respect because he has seen first hand how these provocateurs operate, just that he can't say too much or his handlers will get cross.
... and then you make this argument.
A few things: First - You're hiding behind generalities. If you have any hard evidence to support your assertions, go ahead and make them.
Second - I have marched. You should stop condescending to everyone by suggesting that they are all entitled middle-class layabouts who have never participated in social activism.
There arent events in my town right now, and I'm fundamentally aware that the kind of grassroots activism of the nature we're seeing right now needs to be led by the community itself. The community in question have several apparatuses for organizing itself. Once that base starts organizing, I'll march if they want to march, or protest if they want to protest.
Lastly -the only ones I can find blaming Antifa for anything are the right wingers like Trump and right wing media. They blame every incident of civil dissent on Antifa, and never provide evidence. (Which is a conspiracy theory - unless you have evidence?)
Banks are starting to be set on fire now. Antifa/Anarchist calling card. If people think that Anifa or Anarchists are for Social justice or reform I got swamp land for ya. They are for out and out chaos. No government, no police just people policing themselves. No banking systems, no Patriarchy, no Matriarchy, no organized religion, no welfare (cause no monetary systems) no rules. Do as thou wilt.
Sounds like tribalism to me. Cult like even.
Those of us who want real change, social reforms, proper health care, gender equality, religious freedom, more LGBTQ+ rights, stop to racism, better welfare and wealth sharing are being drowned out by misfits and chaos creators. Violent protest for the sake of violence is not a movement. We must organize better and find ways to stop Anarchists from infecting those protests.
Don't forget, the media is a scripted program. Yes they do sprinkle the truth in...
Putting us down and making us feel like we are doing something wrong is mind control programing. Lording over us and scolding us for not being good citizens until they get caught.
Comments
I remember the Montebello accusations. Plain clothed police officers are in every organized crowd here and I believe the police side of this story instead of the protesters. The reasoning is quite simple, if they were there to incite riots, those actions would have been caught on camera before they were approached. The protesters just felt violated that they were being watched from the inside. But those cops aren't there to spy, they are there to protect and to stop senseless acts like a guy just walking around breaking windows with a hammer.
The first story you posted from wsws has the same narrative. The cops were there but weren't doing anything until they were approached and accosted by other protesters.
~~
And since you brought them up, might as well go a little more in depth with it since a controversial deal has been struck:
Wet'suwet'en railway protest wasn't a protest. It was an act of civil disobedience because they knew they could get away with it. It's all outlined here.: Before coronavirus, this was costing people their jobs and had zero to do with what was happening in BC. Blocking the railways in Ontario and Manitoba had nothing to do with what was happening in BC. I never buy the solidary argument. I will say it did bring more exposure to the conflict happening in BC, however, that exposure IMO backfired. Here's why:
This isn't to be confused with the legal battle Wet'suwet'en were fighting for (something I already covered in this thread). It should also be noted that this is actually an internal dispute between elected Wet'suwet'en officials and the Heredity Chiefs who just inherit the chief title. The elected officials actually supported the pipeline and hammered out a deal. The heredity chiefs disputed the deal because of being "forcibly removed" from their territories. The thing is, they weren't forced. The elected chiefs signed the deal and the tribe still has full access to the land. A person can debate the environmental impacts that might arise, but not how either GasLinks, the BC or Canadian government handled the proposal up to that point.
GasLinks played along at first and met with the heredity chiefs to see if a working compromise could be figured out. The heredity chiefs weren't looking to compromise and did not take any of GasLinks concerns seriously. Only then were the courts and RCMP began to be involved. GasLinks had the upperhand (and the chiefs knew it) because they had elected officials signatures on an agreement that they were allowed on the land to construct the pipeline and that is when the coverage of the protest started (and other bands stuck their noses into the conflict).
Onto the closed negotiations the heredity chiefs (the ones who were making all the noise) and the BC and Canadian government. Well they quietly (quietly since coronavirus has taken over everyone worries) hammered out a deal two weeks ago.
The memorandum does not address Wet'suwet'en opposition to the pipeline, which is part of a $40-billion liquefied natural gas export terminal project in Kitimat, on B.C.'s northern coast. But it states that the federal and B.C. governments recognize Wet'suwet'en rights and title are held under their system of governance.
It also places timelines over a 12-month period on negotiations affecting jurisdiction over land-use planning, resources, water, wildlife, fish, and child and family wellness, among other things.
Hereditary Chief Dini'ze Woos said in a statement the agreement starts work towards building better understanding and stronger relationships between the Wet'suwet'en, Canada and B.C.
"Wet'suwet'en people, regardless of political views and opinions can now visualize certainty," said Woos.
Sounds great right? Well not if you consider that the elected officials who signed the pipeline deal to begin with, were not part of this negotiating process. Basically the federal and BC government said they will negotiate only with the heredity chiefs (read as monarchs) and not the elected officials (read as democracy). It was pitiful appeasement that is starting to backfire, because remember, this whole protest started as an internal power struggle between elected chiefs and heredity chiefs.
The elected chiefs are now fighting back. They are calling for the resignation of Carolyn Bennett, federal Indigenous-Crown relations minister. And are also working internally to prevent the heredity chiefs from enacting this agreement as this article this article this article states:
"(Dan) George (chief of Ts'il Kaz Koh) said elected band councils plan to issue band council resolutions (BCRs) denying the authority of chiefs with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en (OW) to sign the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on behalf of all 3,000 members of the Wet'swuwet'en.
"We're all going to do BCRs on a no-confidence vote in the Office of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs out of Smithers," George said."
And if that fails, the elected chiefs could bring the federal government to court over their exclusion from the negotiations under constitutional grounds.
If any of these two things are successful, expect to heredity chiefs to spin some other fanciful whoah-is-us help us protest this atrocity movement in the future.
It was a muddy situation before this agreement and all the federal government was able to do was to throw more mud into the water with this hastily signed document that doesn't even address what the chiefs were protesting to begin with.
I think this is......pretty accurate. When I said this morning that the police and public officials had lost legitimacy, I didn't realize how widespread it would get. I didn't expect this tonight. But here we are:
and agree or disagree, this young lady has got some straight FIRE in her:
This shit is getting real:
Solidarity is real. And it is the only thing that can break power structures. Is it happening as we speak?? It might be.
I added the video of Montebello, which plain clothes officers do you see in it?
Edit: Good lord. What the actual fuck??:
I don't know about the other protests, but there have been problems with undercover police in the UK. I don't think those have been a deliberate result of policy though, but rather reflect a couple of things. In some cases, particularly when new to a role, undercover operatives may behave more aggressively in order to give themselves street credibility or to improve their disguise. When people play a role for a long time, they may also get too absorbed in it and forget their intended job is to monitor and start acting as an agent provocateur.
The report about an MP witnessing untoward undercover police tactics in 2009 led to a select Committee investigation in 2011 and in turn to the closure or restructuring of undercover police special units to try and improve the accountability of officers involved in these units. Following a number of further press revelations, particularly about undercover police having liaisons with women as part of their role, in 2015 an independent public inquiry was opened to review the policy and practice of undercover policing and provide recommendations to improve that - the inquiry is still going on.
I disagree strongly here. I'm not seeing a fundamental questioning of greater power structures uniting the protests. Rather it really is just about the police. And just about the different policing certain people in the US get.
What's different about these protests now is the 15% unemployment, not to mention the other greater numbers of people working less or just not captured by the official figure. People simply did not have the freedom to protest en masse during previous outrageous shootings or killings. I hope that doesn't sound like a cynical take, I think protesters were as sincere in the past as they are now.
I think the prosecutor in Minneapolis badly underestimated the reaction here, given the current economic situation.
Edit to add: Last time we saw mass protests after all, was 2008, 2009. Also a period of high unemployment.
Plain clothes = not in uniform.
I saw that video before. Please tell me how that video proves the cops were provoking the crowd? The cops did literally nothing until they were accosted by the guy in the suit. Its a public place. Anyone can stand where ever they want to stand as long as it doesn't infringe on the safety of others. Now some police forces may take that excuse to an extreme, but that is another debate. The protestors can assume that they were there to provoke them, but they have zero proof of that even though they have enough video. The union leader is just making an us vs them argument to rile up the people there.
Are you insinuating that I don't know what Plain clothes means? this is the second time I have received this treatment from you. I am formally asking you to stop it.
The people that were on the ground had filed complaints that the police did provoke and use unnecessary force on protesters. The Antifa/Anarchist groups that were there had also complained about unnecessary force from officers and task force. Just because it didn't happen on video or because we have a bias opinion about unions, doesn't make it less true.
These type of undercover blend in and entice tactics are real. I totally understand if some don't believe in them because they have never been in a protest, they have never been in a group that has taken street level action to try to bring in change. They have never marched.
I put most of the blame on social media. In my opinion it has given the attention seeking coward a way to toss out their biased opinions to get that phat like or retweet but when push comes to shove, they sink into their couches and gather as many throws and pillows to hide under they can.
In conclusion, those people who are not in the front lines and organizing, trying to bring positive change should get the fuck out of the way. They should stop taking social praise from their peers for the real work done by others. My opinion of course.
I apologize, but you asked a question and I actually quickly edited my post to supply an answer to that question instead of rambling on about the cops doing nothing wrong in the video. Since you already knew the history of this case, and knew that the 3 guys were police officers and that the police admitted as much, I assumed that you thought them dressing like protestors wasn't considered plain clothes. Yes they were easily spotted because of their boots. But their bulky vests, suggesting protective clothing was also a give away IMO.
The bulkiness is usually a good away in other types of crowds such as public gatherings and festivities. Lose looking long sleeved plaid shirts in the summer time is another dead giveaway as well as the person just standing there alone not communicating and just scanning the crowd. Lose, long clothing hides radio equipment they use to 'call in' other officers if they spot something like open liquor, a person in distress or other minor things.
Spotting them is a fun game to play.
edit: you also changed the video and provided one with commentary. Here is commentary of my own. The cops cover were blown, they needed to push past the police line to be "arrested" and were attempting to do that safely as possible without others attempting to follow them all while being assaulted by the union leader (and only the union leader for that matter. Everyone else was keeping their distance). The union leader was causing a scene because the cops were already "outed" by the crowd as shown in the first video you posted.
Holding a rock isn't a crime. If these three were indeed the ones throwing the rocks all they had to do was wait for them to throw the other one and they have it on tape. Instead this "reporter" goes into wild speculation territory to fit the narrative he wanted to tell. The police showed up in riot gear. Anyone who is antipolice at that gathering could have picked up a rock and threw it. Blaming it on the cops is just a conspiracy with zero proof.
Yes, yes... the rough tactics like tackling a person to the ground is 'unnecessary force.' And without evidence, people can say whatever the hell they want to say and it will go no where and the more people do it, the more it will be this person is just crying wolf.
But this is also why I am strongly for police body cameras. A person launches a complaint about an officer, it would have been recorded. If the police officer is on duty, the cameras remains on at all times. Turning off ones camera for any reason is grounds for termination. If they are forcing cab drivers to install cameras, then I don't see why they can't do that to police officers.
They don't exist. Let's scratch that. There is a possibility that they do exist. I would take odds of that idiot with the umbrella breaking glass was a cop who was off duty at the time attempting to cause a riot. I will even buy into what @Grond0 was saying that undercover officers sometimes take their roles too far. But if an undercover officer incites you to throw a rock it's entrapment. So they might exist, but not every undercover cop in the crowd is attempting to incite a riot. I'd place this actually happening in the minority (at least here in Canada).
What's positive for one person isn't necessarily positive for another. Let's actually take Montebello as an example.
The reasons for the protests was due to it being secretive. The three world leaders met over two days with about 30 business executives but what they were discussing was never made public before hand.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/protests-begin-ahead-of-montebello-summit-1.253121
This summit was beneficial for businesses who work across borders (automotive being one of the most popular). Businesses equal jobs which equals a stronger economy. In my opinion, there is nothing to protest. Everything sounds positive knowing that nothing concrete would actually come from the meeting, only a suggestive guidance where elected officials get to debate about the pros and cons of that direction once they are made public. It's how democracy works.
That doesn't mean I don't understand some of the protests, such as bicycling from Ottawa to Montebello because the US and Canada aren't doing enough about climate change and they should be meeting with environmentalist instead of business leaders if the summit is actually to "protect the environment, combat infectious diseases and ensure a safe food and energy supply" like the website actually read at the time. (side note. I posted before that GWB was working on a plan to combat the next pandemic before it happened - I wonder if what he heard from this summit, seeing how its in this statement - was the catalyst for him to do so. Another potential positive that happened out of this secretive meeting).
Or protesting that governments shouldn't be meeting with businesses in secret in the first place, but that doesn't get fixed by protests, that gets fixed by legislation.
But others such as the de-regulate talk was utter nonsense. Or the Green party accusing the PC of formulating a plan to sell Canada's fresh water. Neither of those were a possibility of coming to fruition during this summit so why protest? To me, it just shows the lack of understanding of how things operate.
I think some of this does fit in with the possibility the protests are being partly fuelled by wider grievances than just the police. I suspect that the protests at Montebello were largely a result of the plans for cross-border business cooperation. I think international links are a good thing for many reasons, only one of which is that they are able to generate more wealth. However, one problem is that increases in wealth will not necessarily be fairly distributed. In the US the huge increases in income inequality in recent years are partly the result of such links (and the lack of political will to do anything about that). It's clear that has been a source of frustration for many for some time and one reason for the increasing partisanship in society.
In the context of a president actively sowing discontent and distrust, the fear of contagion, the growth of unemployment and disruption of normal life patterns, I think it would be a surprise if old sources of frustration were not now bubbling to the surface. In that sense the protests about police treatment can be seen as a trigger for wider concerns to be expressed.
The same sort of process was seen not long ago in France with the 'yellow vest' protests. Initially those were specifically about fuel tax rises, but very quickly all sorts of other concerns and causes got lumped into the mix - though the main thread of protest remained as being against economic injustices of various sorts.
Cat videos anyone?
And there seems to be a pattern in the destruction in alot of these cities. White anarchists or agent provocateurs are showing up and causing chaos, then bailing and leaving the black protesters to deal with the repercussions from the cops in riot gear. Those people are just another version of Amy Cooper:
Why is Trevor Noah pushing conspiracy theories? Someone fact check him.
The problem is the situations are so chaotic and so fast moving with so many people that 99/100 people who are simply trying to cause violent confrontations are just going to slip away. Once the first rubber bullet and tear gas canister flies, a protest becomes a riot pretty quick. One person can easily alter the trajectory of the entire thing.
It's also worth noting that although what he did is really a culmination of decades of abuse, it's hard to think of a person who has single-handedly caused a bigger shit-storm than Derek Chauvin. His knee basically lit the country on fire in the middle of a pandemic. Apparently his wife has filed for divorce. My guess is that has alot to do with protecting whatever assets the family has.
Agreed, I was being sarcastic.
The issue with this argument is that no one is suggesting it is impossible for people to manipulate a protest to their own ends. It would be absurd to think this couldn’t happen.
It’s a conspiracy theory when someone tries to suggest a particular event (such as the man in black in MN breaking windows being a police officer) was done without any supporting evidence.
In the abstract - I have no issue with Trevor Noah’s point. If he tried to suggest that this happened by a particular person at a particular event without evidence - I would want him to cite his evidence or stop repeating a baseless theory.
And THIS type of shit is exactly why this has escalated so much. This is just a battalion of cops marching down a suburban street where absolutely nothing is going on and launching rubber bullet rounds at people's front porches:
I was being sarcastic. There is no argument. Anyone can believe what they wish too and can say and think in a way that makes them come to grips with the sheltered life they live. Again I blame social media for giving cowards that think they know better or think they have it figured out a voice. I say to these people... Get up and hit the streets, see things for yourselves and then come to a conclusion through first hand accounts. Waiting for the media or police to give us the "proof" is never gonna happen.
As I'm typing this Black Leaders are saying that Antifa and Anarchists are hijacking their protests in most cities. Are they being paid to do it? Who gave them their orders? The only way to find out and know is to be on the ground not on a couch with a laptop sippin a mockafrapacakalaka latte. Let's put on our boots and hit the pavement and SEE what is going on. Trevor Noah has my automatic respect because he has seen first hand how these provocateurs operate, just that he can't say too much or his handlers will get cross.
The man in black in MN was told to cause shit and that is exactly what he did. He knew exactly how to do it and how to hide from drones or news choppers. The only thing he didn't think would happen would be people calling him out and taking video of him. Again this is all coming from someone with a little experience with this kind of thing. I'm happy that since last night the conspiracy theory is slowly being proven to be fact over time with these riots. Now they have called in the Army to help, exactly what provocateurs are paid to do. Cause enough chaos so that the government has to take action against the unruly mobs and the civil protests get the shaft. The message is lost and the only thing seen are images of buildings on fire and property looted and damaged.
Governments know if you twist people too tightly they will go off, all they need is to be provoked and manipulated a certain way, this I will agree with, the youth in these riots are being manipulated very easily. Social media is serving its purpose and organizing the chaotically manipulated mobs to do the provocateurs bidding.
This is fucked up, America... Fuck Yea!
I have no doubt anymore after seeing what happened in the city I live in tonight that the peaceful protests ARE being hijacked. It's impossible to say who or why it's happening, but it's absolutely taking place. I saw a video tonight of two young African-American men wondering why there is a pallet full of bricks sitting in the middle of a street where no construction is taking place. On top of this, police are proving exactly WHY this is happening with their borderline insane behavior, because after watching about two dozen videos of THEIR behavior, it's impossible not to conclude they WANT to escalate things so they can go in and knock heads. Nothing like this has taken place on this scale since the 1960s, if even then. When you are seeing riots in Salt Lake City and Fargo, some line has been crossed that we haven't seen before. There is basically a nationwide riot going on in EVERY major population center.
And I don't know why it hasn't been mentioned by pretty much anyone anywhere (besides the Atlanta mayor), but the spike in COVID-19 cases in 2-3 weeks is going to be astronomical. But frankly, this is a half-century of total injustice among police departments coming to a head with a once in a century plague and 25% unemployment. It's the ultimate tinder-box.
You say "There is no argument"
... and then you make this argument.
A few things: First - You're hiding behind generalities. If you have any hard evidence to support your assertions, go ahead and make them.
Second - I have marched. You should stop condescending to everyone by suggesting that they are all entitled middle-class layabouts who have never participated in social activism.
There arent events in my town right now, and I'm fundamentally aware that the kind of grassroots activism of the nature we're seeing right now needs to be led by the community itself. The community in question have several apparatuses for organizing itself. Once that base starts organizing, I'll march if they want to march, or protest if they want to protest.
Lastly -the only ones I can find blaming Antifa for anything are the right wingers like Trump and right wing media. They blame every incident of civil dissent on Antifa, and never provide evidence. (Which is a conspiracy theory - unless you have evidence?)
*Not worth my time. Comment retracted.
Sounds like tribalism to me. Cult like even.
Those of us who want real change, social reforms, proper health care, gender equality, religious freedom, more LGBTQ+ rights, stop to racism, better welfare and wealth sharing are being drowned out by misfits and chaos creators. Violent protest for the sake of violence is not a movement. We must organize better and find ways to stop Anarchists from infecting those protests.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/minnesota-governor-tim-walz-says-majority-of-protesters-are-outsiders/#x
Antifa/Anarchists are using the dark web to organize and mobilize.
Putting us down and making us feel like we are doing something wrong is mind control programing. Lording over us and scolding us for not being good citizens until they get caught.