General Politics Thread

[Farm Boy]

Fraser years. Now all I can think of is radio hosts.

 

[Samson]

Muqtada al-Sadr set to claim victory in Iraqi elections

The results have been announced Monday for the 10 following provinces: Diyala, Muthanna, Missan, Wasit, Dohuk, Salahiddin, Karbala, Najaf and Erbil. The other 9 will be announced tomorrow.

Although it is too early to know the exact numbers of seats for each party, it is very clear that Muqtada al-Sadr has made a remarkable victory with almost 80 seats.

The Sadr list will be followed by Muhammad Halbousi’s Taqaddom party and Masoud Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, with above 30 seats.
Nouri Maliki's State of Law got above 30 seats as well, which is a big increase comparing to 2018 elections that he had about 20 seats.
The most significant loss is the Fatah bloc affiliated with Popular Mobilization Units, reduced to about 20 seats from 34 in the previous parliament.
​

As I understand it, the Sadrist Movement is pretty anti both US and Iranian involvement in Iraq, and is into a very political version of Shia Islam that involves violence, and emphasises Iraqi nationalism and rights of the poor.

 

[r16]

making a deal with the US , Sadr works against lranian militias and stuff , who were boycotting because the elections would go against them , and the guy's father was pretty much the same , Shia but not lranian proxy . Because Sadrists always vote (whaf Sadr decides them to vote) their power would be even greater if ghe voting percentage had gone below 41% something as it was the case in this elections .

 

[Drakle]

There is endless talk of riots and violence, and magnification of outliers by propagandists but the actual data is that the BLM Protests were abnormally peaceful.

Here’s how we did our research

Since 2017, we have been collecting data on political crowds in the United States, including the protests that surged during the summer. We have almost finished collecting data from May to June, having already documented 7,305 events in thousands of towns and cities in all 50 states and D.C., involving millions of attendees. Because most of the missing data are from small towns and cities, we do not expect the overall proportions to change significantly once we complete the data collection.

We make two assumptions. First, when politicians and officials categorize the protests as violent, they are usually envisioning property destruction or interpersonal violence in which they infer that BLM protesters are attacking police, bystanders and property.

Second, using several measures to evaluate protest behavior offers a better assessment than the blanket term “violence.” For example, we disaggregate property destruction from interpersonal violence. We analyze separately the number of injuries or deaths among protesters and police. And we are thinking about how gathering even finer-grained data in the future could help further assign precise responsibility for violent acts.

The data on those protests shows very little violence

Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.

First, police made arrests in 5 percent of the protest events, with over 8,500 reported arrests (or possibly more). Police used tear gas or related chemical substances in 2.5 percent of these events.

Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.

Police were reported injured in 1 percent of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters. The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests.

Only 3.7 percent of the protests involved property damage or vandalism. Some portion of these involved neither police nor protesters, but people engaging in vandalism or looting alongside the protests.

In short, our data suggest that 96.3 percent of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police.

These figures should correct the narrative that the protests were overtaken by rioting and vandalism or violence. Such claims are false. Incidents in which there was protester violence or property destruction should be regarded as exceptional — and not representative of the uprising as a whole.

In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence, but some observers nevertheless blame the protesters. The claim that the protests are violent — even when the police started the violence — can help local, state and federal forces justify intentionally beating, gassing or kettling the people marching, or reinforces politicians’ calls for “law and order.”

Given that protesters were objecting to extrajudicial police killings of Black citizens, protesters displayed an extraordinary level of nonviolent discipline, particularly for a campaign involving hundreds of documented incidents of apparent police brutality. The protests were extraordinarily nonviolent, and extraordinarily nondestructive, given the unprecedented size of the movement’s participation and geographic scope.

This particular segment is of particular note of course.

Why this matters

How the news media frame protests influences how the public perceives them. Ambiguous framings — such as those describing “clashes” between protesters and police — can convey false information about which side is violent. For instance, an extensive archive reveals that police themselves allegedly instigated a number of reported “clashes,” which also likely led to more arrests, participant injuries and possibly even property damage.

This is important because public perceptions of the legitimacy of protests vs. policing have had fairly immediate effects on election outcomes and public policy. Those perceptions affect public attitudes toward movements for years.

Further, authoritarian leaders almost always try to treat protesters as criminals and to delegitimize their claims by exaggerating any incidents of violence and property destruction. These narrative techniques shore up support for broad-based repression against these groups, at little political cost to the autocrat.

In the case of Black Lives Matter, such claims are not only cynical, they are false.

We all know which posters and people, in general, are engaging in this propaganda.

Modern BLM protests were even more peaceful and less destructive than Civil Rights Era Protests. And that's with modern right false flags, which I don't think was really done in the Civil Right Era (but I could be wrong)



But that certainly isn't the narrative you hear about BLM race riots that razed cities.

 

[Naskra]

Demobot spam in Very Large Font is so educational, don't you think?

 

[Berzerker]

BLM 500, MAGA 1

If I went to a protest and it turned violent and I saw news of other protests turning violent, I wouldn't keep attending protests. I'd feel I was providing cover for criminals taking advantage while I distracted police. No amount of 'mostly peaceful' can wash that sin away.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, there is no washing away the violent hate of the Trump assault on the Capitol on Jan 6.

 

[Farm Boy]

True. And as always the criminals should be tracked down by the police and punished accordingly. Here, at "accordingly," it gets hard; some numbnuts always go HAM being psychos about punishment.

 

[Drakle]

Demobot spam in Very Large Font is so educational, don't you think?

Notice how you don't even make an argument? It's because your position is based on nothing but emotional appeals and propaganda, while I actually have facts and reason to support my position. I mean seriously how do you even self justify, having a position so hollow and empty? Doesn't it eat at you, the fact that your open political positions are so brazenly wrong? I think the real 'bot' is someone who can't even internally self justify.

BLM 500, MAGA 1

If I went to a protest and it turned violent and I saw news of other protests turning violent, I wouldn't keep attending protests. I'd feel I was providing cover for criminals taking advantage while I distracted police. No amount of 'mostly peaceful' can wash that sin away.

Back to the old bad faith Berzerker double back. Every time an argument or a piece of information is presented to you, you 'forget' it immediately to make the same inane points again and again.

But firstly. You don't think it is worth protesting police brutality? You saw the murder of George Floyd right? And then the police responded to initial protests by engaging in more brutality. Your line of reasoning literally disallows any protest movement. Since the Civil rights era, while still overwhelmingly peaceful had violence.

Do you think the civil rights movement shouldn't have happened? After all, if I went to a protest and it turned violent, I wouldn't keep attending protests is literally the argument that conservatives made back then.

Now your responses are to
-remain consistent in your arguments, which makes you opposed to the civil rights movement. In which case you are just an open racist reactionary.
-engage in special pleading, about how the civil rights era doesn't count, but the even more peaceful BLM does deserve to be tarred with violence and thus justifies violently breaking up. In which case you are just a racist reactionary that can't engage in good faith arguments. This is the more standard conservative response, because while against the progress of the civil rights era, they can't be publicly against it, so they have to rewrite history and make fallacious arguments about why they oppose modern civil rights movements, and how their attempts to roll back civil rights progress aren't flying in the face of the historical one.
-admit that you just made a terrible argument and examine your thoughts and positions.

But back to the bad faith. You literally just responded to a post giving you statistical information. Here it is again.

In short, our data suggest that 96.3 percent of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police.

So the reality is, that people went to a protest that wasn't violent, and saw news of other protests that weren't violent, but the police counter-response was violent. So they went again, and the protest was again peaceful.

The violent protests were a minority. And of the ones who were violent. A great deal was started by the police. Many other incidents were started by right-wing agitators.

-In California, there were two separate ambush attacks by boogaloo's in Oakland and Ben Lomond, killing a Federal Protective Service Officer and a Santa Cruz County sheriff deputy. The boogaloo's deliberately staged their killings to look like BLM, specifically to inflame tensions and cause a race war. And of course, right-wing propaganda did so, blaming it on BLM.

Other boogaloo incidents include shooting up a police station, planning to throw molotovs at a Floyd protest (their previous plan was bombing an electrical substation) among others

I just reposted incidents of right-wing agitators smashing shops and deliberately encouraging looting up thread.

There was Rittenhouse killing multiple people in Kenosha

etc.

Meanwhile, there was plenty of violence at Trump rallies. Why doesn't your standard apply there? Trump continually encouraged violence, and look what happened. Jan6.

 

[Naskra]

etc.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Berzerker]

Back to the old bad faith Berzerker double back. Every time an argument or a piece of information is presented to you, you 'forget' it immediately to make the same inane points again and again.

But firstly. You don't think it is worth protesting police brutality? You saw the murder of George Floyd right? And then the police responded to initial protests by engaging in more brutality. Your line of reasoning literally disallows any protest movement. Since the Civil rights era, while still overwhelmingly peaceful had violence.

Do you think the civil rights movement shouldn't have happened? After all, if I went to a protest and it turned violent, I wouldn't keep attending protests is literally the argument that conservatives made back then.

How many riots would you be willing to attend?

Now your responses are to
-remain consistent in your arguments, which makes you opposed to the civil rights movement. In which case you are just an open racist reactionary.
-engage in special pleading, about how the civil rights era doesn't count, but the even more peaceful BLM does deserve to be tarred with violence and thus justifies violently breaking up. In which case you are just a racist reactionary that can't engage in good faith arguments. This is the more standard conservative response, because while against the progress of the civil rights era, they can't be publicly against it, so they have to rewrite history and make fallacious arguments about why they oppose modern civil rights movements, and how their attempts to roll back civil rights progress aren't flying in the face of the historical one.
-admit that you just made a terrible argument and examine your thoughts and positions.

I'm opposed to rioting... BLM 500, MAGA 1 - punish them all. If my protest interferes with the cop's ability to protect the neighborhood and bad stuff happens I share in the blame and wont be returning for day 2. Democrats cry police brutality, so vote for Joe! The guy who put 100k cops on the street to enforce a vast expansion of the drug war largely in black and brown communities. But hey, you aint votin for Joe you aint black.

But back to the bad faith. You literally just responded to a post giving you statistical information. Here it is again.

So the reality is, that people went to a protest that wasn't violent, and saw news of other protests that weren't violent, but the police counter-response was violent. So they went again, and the protest was again peaceful.

The violent protests were a minority. And of the ones who were violent. A great deal was started by the police. Many other incidents were started by right-wing agitators.

Then my protest provided cover for right wing agitators, that doesn't absolve me. I read your post, thats about 500 riots. Look at the fuss over 1 by MAGA.

Meanwhile, there was plenty of violence at Trump rallies. Why doesn't your standard apply there? Trump continually encouraged violence, and look what happened. Jan6.

Why doesn't my standard apply there? Did I argue MAGA should be allowed to riot? If MAGA spent months before an election rioting to bring down their opponent I wouldn't be giving them a thumbs up for 'mostly peaceful' protests.

 

[Drakle]

How many riots would you be willing to attend?

I'm opposed to rioting... BLM 500, MAGA 1 - punish them all. If my protest interferes with the cop's ability to protect the neighborhood and bad stuff happens I share in the blame and wont be returning for day 2. Democrats cry police brutality, so vote for Joe! The guy who put 100k cops on the street to enforce a vast expansion of the drug war largely in black and brown communities. But hey, you aint votin for Joe you aint black.

Then my protest provided cover for right wing agitators, that doesn't absolve me. I read your post, thats about 500 riots. Look at the fuss over 1 by MAGA.

Why doesn't my standard apply there? Did I argue MAGA should be allowed to riot? If MAGA spent months before an election rioting to bring down their opponent I wouldn't be giving them a thumbs up for 'mostly peaceful' protests.

You've literally spent months downplaying the Jan 6 Insurrection. We aren't stupid, and we don't pretend to be mind-wiped after every post like you do. That's why two people both responded with Jan 6 to you. You don't get to pull this 'lock them both up' spiel, after you spent all this time crying and equivocating about Jan 6.

And you still won’t answer my direct questions. I asked you multiple questions, and you properly engaged with ... none of them.

But the most pertinent.

Do you think the civil rights movement shouldn't have happened? After all, if I went to a protest and it turned violent, I wouldn't keep attending protests is literally the argument that conservatives made back then.

Yes or no, are you for the Civil Rights Movement. In which case you gotta answer my point about the paths that leave you, with the position you took.

And these protests, are because the Police aren't protecting the neighborhood, and are openly sympathetic with violent right-wing extremists. At every turn, the Trump administration, and the Police inflamed the protests, instead of trying to calm them down. They weren't 'rioting' to tip the election. They were protesting an openly racist and corrupt regime, that responded to protests with escalating crackdowns. We all know how this would be reported if the US were a foreign country. 'State police forces brutally crackdown on ethnic minority'.

A decentralized protest movement, staying as peaceful as the BLM marches did is noteworthy. That's just a fact. If you say, no even that is too 'violent' and deserves to be brutally crushed. You flat out just don't want protests (or protests that don't agree with you). You are just a reactionary.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You've literally spent months downplaying the Jan 6 Insurrection.

And the media have spent months overplaying an event caused by the president who has pre-emptively undermined democracy in the US in order to cover up in the case he'd lose the election being directly responsible for 5 deaths during the Capitol Riots. 5 people dead is nothing for Trump, doesn't even register. A conservative estimation from November 2020 is that Trump's rallies caused 30.000 infections and 700 deaths by that time. Since he has had a lot more rallies since, that number is very outdated.

Stanford economists modeled President Trump’s rallies as superspreading events, estimating that 30,000 people contracted COVID-19 following the gatherings in a study released last week. Researchers said 18 of Trump’s September rallies alone have racked up a death toll of 700 people.
“Communities in which Trump rallies took place paid a high price in terms of disease and death,” the researchers concluded.
[...]
To arrive at their estimate of 30,000 infections and 700 deaths, the team turned to a three-pronged economic methodology: running a regression to identify the best COVID-19 predictors, comparing each Trump rally city with over 100 similar sister cities and verifying that their model would correctly dismiss placebo events.

MAGA 5, MAGA 700 (+30.000)

The media is just hyping the event because the president of the United States was directly responsible for the reason these people were there. As if the previous president of the United States can be blamed for that. It's like blaming a toddler for choking on a toy. It's what toddlers do. And this toddler is proud of choking on toys. He loved the Capitol Hill Riots. And he loved killing Americans during his rallies. During his campaign he regularly ridiculed Biden for staying in his basement instead of killing his supporters by packing them into stadiums. Basement Joe, lol, what a loser.

But, if you want to Make America Great Again, don't forget to donate just before you croak! You don't need money when you're dead, so donate to the extremely rich successful businessman. I mean he didn't want to get paid for the job, and only scammed 1.6 billion of the presidency. What a philanthrope!

 

[Samson]

How many riots would you be willing to attend?

What about you, if it was something you cared about, say in 1776?

 

[Farm Boy]

I do not even understand what is at debate. Legitimacy of tone in terms? Righteousness of tribe? Is anyone saying rioters should not be punished? You all look pretty law and order, minus the positioning along lines that seem to have been drawn by people with microphones.

There was a riot on Jan 6th, people seem to want them punished. We have lots of them on tape. The police did a good job that day.

There were violent riots elsewhere in the year, people seem to want rioters punished. We have some of them on tape. There movement itself was largely peaceful.

Is this particularly confusing?

 

[Samson]

I do not even understand what is at debate. Legitimacy of tone in terms? Righteousness of tribe? Is anyone saying rioters should not be punished? You all look pretty law and order, minus the positioning along lines that seem to have been drawn by people with microphones.

There was a riot on Jan 6th, people seem to want them punished. We have lots of them on tape. The police did a good job that day.

There were violent riots elsewhere in the year, people seem to want rioters punished. We have some of them on tape. There movement itself was largely peaceful.

Is this particularly confusing?

It seems to me a pretty core question about the morality of protest. The way I read Berzerker's post is that violence at a protest delegitimise's the cause, such that one should not attend further protests about the same issue. However this would rule out most societal change since states came into being, so I think is worth challenging.

 

[Farm Boy]

Violence is never morally legitimizing even if it is de facto empowering. There.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I do not even understand what is at debate. Legitimacy of tone in terms? Righteousness of tribe? Is anyone saying rioters should not be punished? You all look pretty law and order, minus the positioning along lines that seem to have been drawn by people with microphones.

There was a riot on Jan 6th, people seem to want them punished. We have lots of them on tape. The police did a good job that day.

There were violent riots elsewhere in the year, people seem to want rioters punished. We have some of them on tape. There movement itself was largely peaceful.

Is this particularly confusing?

Berserker seems to be saying that because violence occurred rarely at some BLM they should've given up protesting police violence which would virtually guarantee violence at protests since it would then be in the police interest to start the violence that would end the protest. he is also choosing to ignore evidence of right-wing agent provocateurs who encouraged violence. No surprise since he ignores Trump inciting violence.

 

[Samson]

Violence is never morally legitimizing even if it is de facto empowering. There.

The violence does not legitamise the cause, but the cause may legitamise the violence.

 

[Farm Boy]

No. Violence is always garbage. It spreads, like a pestilence, from the fleas on the rats to everywhere.

I get what you're saying, I think, but it's an incredibly weak use of "legitimate." Of course there is nothing more honorable than victory.