More severe police injuries and deaths on that one day of rampaging Trumpers than in five years of Anti-Police protests.
Nearly 140 officers were injured during pro-Trump extremists' Capitol siege \u2014 including officers who sustained brain injuries, smashed spinal discs, one who'll likely lose an eye, and another stabbed with a metal fence stake, the Capitol Police union said.https://t.co/D9jFSkKtJm
— NPR (@NPR) January 28, 2021
But they came to resist police.
Which is completely different.
Because one group is literally arguing for human dignity and the other glorifies violence.
Once you accept that... WHO is standing opposed to you doesn't matter much.
This stark difference in approaches to violence is not trivial.
This is different than violent rage consuming anything in its path.
The clashes are characterized by protesters attempting to stand ground against police assault.
Physical contact is generally unarmed
They came with an intent to intimidate, to kidnap, to kill, to destroy and to use violence to force a specific political outcome during a governmental process.
This is nothing like anti-Brutality protest.
They TOTALLY would.
But once inside, they'd sit around singing and making speeches until someone in Congress agreed to come and speak to them and hear them out.
They're two wholly different ideologies with completely different core values.
You have to do a lot of cynical acrobatics to say they're the same.
This doesn't pan out.
Anti-police protestors and BlueLivesMatter people aren't mirror images. They don't use the same tactics to reach different goals.
Similarly, Antifascism is seen as the mirror image of fascism, but none of this makes sense.
It's illogical and ridiculous.
But comforting.
People who are anti-Police brutality do not want citizens to be able to shoot cops at will.
They want nobody shooting people.
More from Legal
https://t.co/26N2YYXycn
Heart attacks can be dangerous
Changing of the Old Guard
Best of the Best
Battle of the Bulge
https://t.co/MpYwQFkhmy
Battle of the Bulge
— JeLove (@LovesTheLight) December 22, 2020
1226
44
101
BB https://t.co/NkaSAyGiCa
Thunder indicates a storm is
"You called down the thunder? Well now you got it."
— JeLove (@LovesTheLight) January 16, 2021
"You tell'em the laws coming....and hells coming with me"
Its a Day of Reckoning.
3:16
42https://t.co/ty1hgfL7iV pic.twitter.com/aczIsLUrX0
Silent Run'g ..... Can u hear him
You May Also Like
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.