It links to primary sources on everything, so this seems to me more a distraction than a meaningful critique. The fact that this is all easily verifiable, yet hard to find compilations of, is a critique in the other direction.
I wasn't debating the facts of your argument. I was simply telling you that the debate is already lost as soon as you link to a site that still claims Obama wasn't born in the US. In many people's minds, it isn't worth the energy to dispute your point because you are already displaying symptoms of someone who lacks the critical thinking skills necessary to assess and process basic facts.
If the only important pieces of that article are the links to primary sources, you could have linked to them yourself. That has potential to make you sound like a conspiracy theorist tying photos on your wall together with red yarn. However that is still better than linking to a conspiracy theorist website that seemingly proves the same point.
I wasn't trying to direct that at you, personally and I do understand what you're saying. This instinct to discredit the source is literally what's killing the news right now. People gladly swallow outrage porn, but when they see a fact compilation, their first instinct is to evaluate the one who compiled it (who is irrelevant to said facts) instead of engaging with the facts themselves.
Even to the point of missing that it's an honest compilation and includes those killed by police during the protests. But he's the biased one here, right?
Besides, that's a silly shibboleth all told. I voted for Obama and I wouldn't have cared even if he was born in Kenya (he wasn't). McCain was born in Panama and I didn't care about that, either.
Facts generally need context. Are these deaths actually linked to protesters? Are they motivated in some way by the protests or is the connection coincidental? How do these number of deaths compare to other protests? How do they compare to times when there are no protest? Questions like that need to be answered for the facts to have value. Most of us don't trust whatever context is given by a source like the one you linked. That is why people attack the source. Because the story here is the context of the facts and not the facts themselves.
Mostly they were done by looters, a few by police. That's all shown in the linked articles, which give names and dates and locations.
> How do these number of deaths compare to other protests?
You remember that Charleston protest? One death. Number of unarmed black people killed by police in 2019? Ten. That's eleven too many, of course, but you wanted context and those are the most recent and closely related stats. Most protests are smaller scale and have few or no deaths, though, e.g. other big protests like the Women's March, March for Life, etc. don't normally involve looting or fatalities. Nobody died protesting Trump's inauguration, either, that I'm aware of.
> Questions like that need to be answered for the facts to have value.
They are answered, by the links to mostly local news stories where you can read all about David Dorn, a black cop murdered by looters. You can watch the video from the sister of the girl murdered outside of a Davenport, IA Wal-Mart. There's tons of context in the sources, that's just a convenient set of names and links.
> That is why people attack the source. Because the story here is the context of the facts and not the facts themselves.
The context is available to anyone capable of clicking two links. There are also names given which can be looked up to find sources you prefer. But maybe you're right that I should compile a giant list. I just feel that it's hard to justify it as worthwhile when people engage on a non-factual level. I can't take the beliefs of lazy thinkers seriously.
What is the difference between a "looter" and a "robber"? You can't simply link every death that happens during this time frame to the protests and if you do, you need to compare it to similar deaths that happened at other times.
>I just feel that it's hard to justify it as worthwhile when people engage on a non-factual level.
Which brings me back to the first reply to you. You are asking people to click through at least 3 level of links before we get to a non-biased source that can provide facts. People aren't going to think that effort is worthwhile if the first page they land on is a site founded on spreading conspiracy theories.
Also I quickly googled Dorn and you are fudging the facts a little. He is a 77 year old retired police officer. His death had nothing to do with him being a police officer. He was working as a security guard when he was killed. Coincidentally police have also recently killed an on-duty security guard[1]. Mentioning one and not the other can be an indication of bias.
Anyone can look and see the path of arson, robbery & destruction that is not a part of any normal crime pattern. When dozens of people rob & destroy a Wal-Mart, Target, etc. that's "looting" not mere robbery or such.
Insofar as you want to compare crime stats, CHAZ/CHOP is part of a huge % increase in crime. Even CHAZ "security" managed to shoot people.
I only said that Dorn was a cop, not that he was murdered for being a cop--you're putting words in my mouth. I believe I did mention that some of even the 17 had been shot by cops and there were more deaths after that.
I take making false claims about what I've said to be a red flag.
>Anyone can look and see the path of arson, robbery & destruction that is not a part of any normal crime pattern. When dozens of people rob & destroy a Wal-Mart, Target, etc. that's "looting" not mere robbery or such.
Once again more context you are expecting your reader to look up rather than have explained by an unbiased news source.
The question isn't whether looting happened. Of course it did. However there are also hundreds of thousands of robberies and millions of larcenies. Those don't just go away during times of civil unrest. How do you decide what is considered looting connected to the protests versus traditional robbery or larceny?
> How do you decide what is considered looting connected to the protests versus traditional robbery or larceny?
There's a video of the people looting the store and several arrests were made. But you know that because you reviewed all that context, right?
> There was no past tense on being a cop there.
You do realize that I mentioned that he's dead, right?
But let's humor this for a moment... the fact that he was an old retired cop trying to keep his friend from losing his income and ending up in the proverbial poorhouse somehow makes his murder less awful to you?
Of course, that would only last until you found out about Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller or Dave Patrick Underwood, one assumes. Or will I hear more complaints if I neglect to mention that neither is black and the second is more of a security guard than a cop?
