What I've snipped from the post is a list of splashy gory fringe cases, which is why I'm glad this 'citizen journalist' is no longer active. What a journalist chooses to put the magnifying glass on, is what they want the world to focus on, to see exclusively, to highlight as the most important part. The demonstrators are right to be upset, because when you run a magnifying glass over the little bit that you want the world to think is important, it blocks from view the rest of it. Protesters are the most important part of a protest, not rioters, not vandals, not even mobs. But what bleeds, leads, so the images of people holding signs are too boring to compete with broken windows and blood on the sidewalk. Someone into sensational journalism, only caring about the violent bits, is more harm than help.
Ironic, because a fair number of the police-reform demonstrators here in Portland are doing precisely what you claim to object to. You don't see it, because you don't live here. The truth is that you don't have the faintest clue as to what percentage of the demonstrators here are destructive. They could be almost entirely destructive; or almost entirely peaceful and you'd personally still be here chanting the same tired old tune. I don't personally know - and I do live here. I do have the perception that a comparatively small but very active number are focused on (or willing to engage in) destruction for what it's worth...any other resident-posters here care to agree or disagree?
What I do know is that:
1) There are groups actively organizing destructive terror campaigns - and I don't say this lightly; I've posted links to their social media upthread.
2) Tribalistic sentiments have lead untold numbers of people into blindly defending or enabling these groups without any sort of critical thought process; or just plain denying acts of violence committed by people with congruent sociopolitical views.
This is how I took the post as well. But s/he has clarified in that last post, so...eh, time to move on.
I've gone back and looked again, but I still stand by my original reaction.
Yeah, not so fast, kid(s). That's precisely the sort of unreasoning tribalism that is causing problems here. Just a hint of someone having different viewpoints and you completely ignore the context or anything else being said. That is exactly the sort of sentiment leading people to whitewash the violence committed by their favored faction.
Couple things about Portland specifically:
* From the outset, there has been a general consensus that there is at least room for improvement with respect to the policing, racism, and violence. Even amongst the local police department (the PPB).
* Yes, the major local police union (the PPA) has been a malign force that has stifled police accountability in Portland for many years.
* Both the governor, Kate Brown, and the Portland city council passed reform bills shortly after the unrest over George Floyd began.
* The major point of contention has been what precisely constitutes appropriate and effective reforms. Some percentage of the proposals had been already been enacted before this mess even began unbeknownst to demonstrators. Some percentage are things the population will never agree to, such as completely abolishing the police. Some are lip-service changes designed to allay public concern over policing without instituting any effective changes. A percentage would be acceptable to all (or most) parties if anyone seriously considered them. I've seen precious little actual public dialogue and debate over appropriate policy between groups with different ideas. Maybe it's out there but I've just been missing it.
* Both the state of Oregon, and the city of Portland have robust and frequently used mechanisms by which people can democratically introduce legislation that could alter funding or reform policing. If the sponsors can find enough registered voters to sign petitions. A group of several hundred people individually talking to people and politely asking them to sign petitions would do a metric ****ton more toward effecting actual change than a crowd of several hundred angrily blocking traffic and shouting slogans in the night.
The violence and destruction are not helping anyone or anything. It will not convince the general population to accept removing police or prisons. The likes of Andy Ngo, Fox News, and the Trump campaign are salivating at the prospect of using footage of it to hammer and discredit the national BLM movement with it; as well as using it against Biden/Harris this year. It WILL come up during the presidential campaign.
I don't think you read Delphic Oracle's post all the way through. It might be worth taking a look at his last couple of sentences and reconsidering your interpretation.
