The protesters walked directly into a large group of police officials, four officers deep, around 7:30 p.m. The officers began to push them the other way and yelled, “Move back, move back.” Scuffles began to break out, and officers wearing helmets moved into the crowd.
A police supervisor eventually declared it an “unlawful assembly.”
“This is an unpermitted event,” a supervisor declared on a bullhorn. “I am giving you a lawful order to disperse. If you do not disperse, you will be placed into custody by the Chicago Police Department.”
A video showed officials trying to keep photographers and legal observers at bay while officers completed an arrest.
Seems like the police were the ones escalating things.
CPD classic, I still remember when Lori and them decided to raise the bridges downtown to trap protestors during the George Floyd protests. Then they played disperse messages and hit the protestors at the pinch points. Chicago is a great city but CPD is pretty icky, they even have a blacksite.
I mean, doesn’t everyone in Chicago have a basement? /s
Here’s some distressing reading if anyone wants to know more.
https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/lawrence-ralph-torture-letters-review/
Two officers were hurt in the fray,
An undercover cop saw a 31-year-old man chuck a water bottle at another officer. The bottle missed, but the officer was hit with an “unknown liquid,”
How many protesters were “hurt” then?
I’m sorry, media. It’s not going to be 1968. It’s just not.
First of all, fuck attacking reporters for just bringing us the fucking news, second of all that’s an incredibly fucking low bar to clear.
That said, I do think the Democratic party is handling this a lot better than they’ve handled dissent previously (e.g. giving the uncommitted delegates a panel to raise awareness about the Palestinian genocide was a step in the right direction), it’s just that cops are still prone to doing cop bullshit like this and there’s only so much they can do about that.
I’m not attacking any specific reporters, but you cannot deny that the media has literally spent weeks trying to hype this up as the next 1968.
Yeah, actually, I got slightly more angry there than you deserved and wish I had phrased the first part of the last comment differently, I’ve just got a lot of pent up frustration over seeing a lot of Messenger shooting recently.
But still, I don’t think The comparisons to or general discussion about 1968 is any kind of media hype. The fact is, when the Democratic party chooses to hold a convention in Chicago, and there’s controversial things going on overseas, and there’s a nominee change, that’s just way too many parallels for them not to pick up that thread
And it’s not like the comparisons to 1968 make the Democratic party look bad, they’ve come a long way and gotten a lot better. I don’t think that should be a determining factor and what the media does or doesn’t cover, but still.
I understand. I probably should have said I wasn’t referring to WBEZ specifically, just the overall “let’s turn everything into amazing breaking news you have to watch” attitude of this election. It’s been like that in previous elections too, but they’ve been turning it up to 11, hyping up the idea that the DNC will erupt in chaos and violence.
I don’t like what is happening here and I’m glad they’re reporting it. Heavy-handed police response to protests against genocide is not a good thing. But the media overall is still salivating over the idea that this will end in a massive brawl.
Even 1968 is overblown. There were more cops there than protesters. It was meant to be a series of concerts, but police violence shut it down almost immediately.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention_protests
Can you tell CPD that too?
Sorry… you think because this is nowhere near what was happening in 1968, that somehow excuses police actions? How did you even make that connection?
The point is that the media has been spending weeks hyping this up as though it is going to be just as tumultuous and it just hasn’t been. They wanted it to be so people would pay attention to the news and they’ve been pretty much disappointed that it isn’t happening. Some of them are angry it isn’t happening.
I think you need to go read up on what happened in 1968 at the DNC. It started with the cops murdering a teenager who was protesting. By the end, there were hundreds of people in hospitals.
I’m sorry, media. It’s not going to be 1968.
In 1968 protesters died because CPD killed them. I was drawing a through line from you saying it’s not 1968 to the current police violence, and asking those police to not act like the police did at the DNC in 1968
Again Squiddy, you’re being defensive and not asking for context but reacting to what you think I said.
You were reacting to something I said because you didn’t ask for the context and ended up talking about something other than the media. The thing I was talking about.
I’m sure you won’t be defensive about that though.
Wat? I was agreeing with you and made a joke in the spirit of your comment and you attacked me. Look at my other comments in this thread I don’t support police violence. Wtf are you talking about?
Yes, I totally attacked you. And I definitely didn’t ask for context either. I mean, if I had asked for context, I would have said something like:
Sorry… you think because this is nowhere near what was happening in 1968, that somehow excuses police actions? How did you even make that connection?
And then after that, I would have done something like explain my position. Maybe saying something like:
The point is that the media has been spending weeks hyping this up as though it is going to be just as tumultuous and it just hasn’t been. They wanted it to be so people would pay attention to the news and they’ve been pretty much disappointed that it isn’t happening. Some of them are angry it isn’t happening.
And then finally, I might have tried to explain why I thought you should be more informed:
I think you need to go read up on what happened in 1968 at the DNC. It started with the cops murdering a teenager who was protesting. By the end, there were hundreds of people in hospitals
But no, I just attacked you. You personally, not the things you said. Full-frontal attack with no explanation and no questions.
Removed by mod
This is me going to raise some hell downtown at the Chicago DNC: “wtf?? Cops?!?”
Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Internet Archive:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceWBEZ - NPR - Chicago - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for WBEZ - NPR - Chicago:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceWBEK - NPR - Kankakee - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for WBEK - NPR - Kankakee:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.wbez.org/government-politics/dnc-2024/2024/08/20/chicago-top-cop-police-ready-next-round-protests-israeli-consulate
https://web.archive.org/web/20240821114418/https://www.wbez.org/government-politics/dnc-2024/2024/08/20/chicago-top-cop-police-ready-next-round-protests-israeli-consulateIt’s truly fascinating to watch how the downvote tallies for the bot correlate to article subject.
Got any data on that correlation? I’m seeing it at negative points in every thread I see it in. Anecdotal against anecdotal doesn’t really solve anything. Looking through the post history of the bot it looks to be mostly at negative score as far as upvotes. I’ve only looked at the first few pages though.
Yes, the bots history page would be an excellent example of this data. If you’re asking if I’ve done anything with it like compile it into a convenient graph or something, no I have not. That would not be difficult to do if someone wanted though.
Also, I was not commenting on it having positive or negative scores, I would expect it to be regularly negative to keep it at the bottom of the comments section. That where I personally like it, at least. Instead, I was referring to the quantity of downvotes. So, 5 downvotes, or 10 downvotes or 50 downvotes would all be different values. We would then look at those quantities in relation to article subject.
Would quantity of negative votes not just be a function of user engagement for a set period of time?
I’m assuming here, but, the bot likely will not travel down the comments at the same rate everywhere. My thinking is that would be due to different instances having different polling rates to report votes from all the other instances that picked up the post. I hope that makes sense.
I think the behavior you’re referring to might be posts with few comments but a lot of engagement where the bot is still one of few posts so it stays within the height of the initial scroll?
My hypothesis is that it’s generally downvoted at the rate of initial engagement; not as a function of which community it’s in.
That is exactly the type of thing I am talking about, yes.
It’s a bot, his feelings aren’t hurt by imaginary internet points :)
There also isn’t like a critical mass of commenters on most topics, so down voting isn’t even suppressing points of view yet.
Sure. I’m not criticizing people downvoting the bot though, merely pointing out that if you observe for awhile, you’ll notice it sometimes picks up large numbers of downvotes and sometimes does not.
The number of votes it receives doesn’t appear to be correlated with how many people overall are participating in the thread, though, which is what one would expect. Instead it appears to relate most to what the article is about. This is interesting.
