aka its manipulated statistics
How did they define "protest?"
What if it was a protest in the same city? when is a protest connected to another protest?
do you really lack understanding of statistics? what you cite does not mean anything except deliberate narrative manipulation
Not sure why it even matters I could make the same argument about the people attending trump's speech does that make what happened less bad?
>aka its manipulated statistics
How did I know you were going to yell "fake news" at information that disagreed with your worldview. Do you have any proof that its manipulated?
>do you really lack understanding of statistics?
You haven't made any claims specific to the data I cited. All you've done is said "what if they're wrong about this thing?" and then used this as evidence to completely dismiss all of the findings. It isn't good enough to just wildly speculate that the study might have gotten information wrong. You actually have to prove it.
>what you cite does not mean anything except deliberate narrative manipulation
Prove it. Go to their website, read their methodology and prove that their data collection method is flawed. So far you've done nothing but vaguely gesture at conspiracy without providing any evidence that their data is manipulated.
I highly suspect you aren't going to do any of this because your bias is so incredibly obvious. You don't have any proof that this study is fake - you just FEEL like its fake because you've been so brainwashed by propaganda that the statistical information just doesn't align with what you want to believe is true. This is the most common kind of anti-intellectualism propagated in conservative circles - anything that doesn't "feel" right to you is automatically fake and you'll die on that hill because admitting you were wrong is too threatening to your predetermined bias.
I'm just responding to the user who asked for the source of the 7% figure.
7% was 14,000
It's orders of magnitudes greater than jan6
Let me alter this-- 14,000 was the number arrested. 7% is probably a larger number than this, assuming the 7% number is accurate and that the police were not able to arrest 100% of those responsoble for crime
If police did achieve 100% arrested of those responsoble for crime, ie 7%=14,000 then it is about an order of magnitude greater than Jan 6
>no links
Oh I have no doubt that's what his study determined.
The question is the final percentage, but what is a demonstration?
What a much more telling study would have been is if it analyzed demonstrations of several hundred people or larger.
Analyzing 7,700 demonstrations is easy when you consider two college kids hanging out on the street corner with a BLM sign as a demonstration.
I mean yeah, that's a demonstration no doubt. but if we extend our analysis of demonstrations to small groups such as this analysis becomes much less telling.
Not even local newspapers would consider two people on a street corner holding signs as rioting under the context of a movement.
I would be much more interested in knowing the percentage of violence that occurred with demonstrations above 500 people.
>Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project
>acleddata.com
This ultra-woke website would include a gathering of a couple people on a random street corner as a "demonstration". As woke as it is, it's like police investigating themselves and finding that they did nothing wrong. It's retardedly biased.
The statistic is misleading, because most of the major protests (the ones with hundreds of people marching) inevitably turned violent - and if you deny this fact then you deny the leftist claim that police tend to escalate protests.
The "93% peaceful" myth is a conveniently misleading statistic, just like the idiotic "70 cents on the dollar" feminists have been screeching about - but woke ass morons like you latch onto it unquestioningly because it confirms what you want to believe.
It’s a manipulated stat, a lie, propaganda and i don’t care if you don’t see it, all you have to do is find out is look at the study and see if you can find the answer to my questions.
You are dumb, lack critical thinking, not truth seeking but a drone of the permanent class machine. You’re not interesting because there’s nothing you say I couldn’t of heard from corporate talking heads
>It’s a manipulated stat, a lie, propaganda
what do you base that claim on?