comment: >
  
  Worse is relative.
  The riots were not an organized event across every city, they were independent events/groups all acting independently (even within a single city). Most BLM riots don't even have an agenda... or a leadership- they're just a group of frustrated individuals. Hard to say the BLM riot that happened in Boston was worse than Jan 6th. You can't really look at things as a collective when they're not.
  The difference for Jan 6th was that it had a singular purpose and a core figurehead.
  If/when a BLM riot was successful, it resulted in arson and theft.
  If Jan 6th was successful, it would result in a power struggle within the highest level of government (and potentially far more losses if the protestors barricaded themselves inside).
context: To /u/Landonia, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
  In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
  
  Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
  Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
  Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
  Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
  
  Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >
  
  
  the blm riots killed 19 people (even if you dont include the boogaloo killings which were done by a pro BLM boogaloo group) while January 6 only killed 5 people of which 2 died from a heart attack
  
  This sort of thing gets claimed a lot, can I ask you to provide your source? Because basically every time it comes up, what you see is a bunch of right wing assholes killing people that somehow become 'blm killings' as though they are responsible for their own murders.
  
  I am not defending what happened on January 6 I am just putting the events into context
  
  The context is bad, though.
  Jan 6th isn't bad because people broke windows in congress, nor even because people died. Jan 6th is bad because it was an attempt at a coup on the US government provoked by the president and his supporters.
  That is, in fact, incredibly bad.
  And now, before you say "Well it didn't work" I want you to understand that a lot of times the first attempt doesn't. The nazis famously attempted what was known as the Beer Hall Putsch, as their first attempt to seize democratic power. Lesser known today, Napoleon's heir (Napoleon III) made two failed attempts at seizing power before eventually succeeding.
  Trying to overthrow the government, to the point that rioters are within visual distance of members of congress who they desire to murder, is a big fucking deal. It is far, far more damaging to the democratic process and thus far worse than any riots.
  There is also the sad fact that the BLMers had a point. The US has a long history of racial injustice, and when that goes ignored, you get riots. By contrast, the Jan 6ers lost an election then got lied to about it. >
  
  well lets take the boogaloo killings, there are different boogaloo groups some of whom are pro BLM and some are anti BLM although the 2 police officers killed by those boogaloo members were part of a Pro BLM boogaloo group and they literally admitted to doing it because of BLM. I blame that on BLM. >
  
  There are no BLM boogaloo boys. The very concept of 'boogaloo' is a white supremacist 'civil war 2: Electric boogaloo' meme.
  That said, if you want to dick measure over right wing violence vs left wing violence, boy howdy is it going to come up short. >
  
  this is just reality denial, the boogaloo members who killed that cop support the BLM movement. also the boogaloo boys are not white supremacist your probably confusing them with another group, they are retards who think a civil war is gonna happen tho. >
  
  Can you link to the specific case rather than just talking around it?
  Because I can easily point to evidence of Boogaloo being a right wing movement. >
  
  ok? how about cmv on this subjects, not the other ones. >
  
  Sorry, u/Wyattpeterson9 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: 
  
  Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.  
  
  If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. 
  Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards. >
  
  The January 6 insurrection's goal was to overturn a democratic election.
  BLM's goal is to get cops to stop killing black people.
  That difference matters. >
  
  january 6 rioters were not planned and organized so they couldnt do that and most of them didnt want to either they clashed with police yes but that isnt a coup attempt. >
  
  the fbi legit said they found no evidence of it being planned and I dont see how that is evidence of planning. >
  
  Can you advise the standard of evidence? Its easier to provide if you set the bar. >
  
  something better then "a bunch of terminally online people made a sweatshirt" >
  
  What's the standard you would accept? >
  
  give me a few options >
  
  It's your view. I don't give you opinions. What's your view about it being pre-planned. What's the evidence required for your view to be changed? >
  
  it was not pre planned and idfk give me some options of evidence. >
  
  They were far less bad in terms of what mattered about Jan 6: our democracy.  The BLM riots weren’t trying to overturn our democracy. Jan 6 riot was. 
  Which makes it worse when it comes to the threat to our democracy.
  You gotta state the measuring stick for us to say what was worse or not. And you didn’t do that. So I defined one for you. >
  
  
  They were far less bad in terms of what mattered about Jan 6: our democracy.
  
  what was the end result tho? was there any damage or even delay in our democracy? was there ever any possibility of harming or changing anything? no, there was not. 
  
  The BLM riots weren’t trying to overturn our democracy
  
  they kind of were, given that they refused to accept government control or regulation, outcomes they didn't like, or anything else. multiple government buildings were attacked, and as op said billions were caused in damage and looting. 
  
  You gotta state the measuring stick for us to say what was worse or not
  
  actual negative outcome is the measuring stick. jan6 had essentially none outside of the "combatants" whereas blm riots harmed almost exclusively third parties and other minorities. >
  
  You can talk price tags all you want, but the real issue here is the core ethos of why these happened.
  Why did BLM and it’s adjacent movements come to be? Something that, regardless of how you feel about the means that protestors took afterwards, should be considered a bad thing: police violence and brutality. 
  Why did January 6th occur? 
  Their guy lost and they didn’t like it. It was a direct affront to the senses of a democratic nation. 
  January 6th had a far, far greater impact on the national consciousness as a single event than most protests or riots ever could have, positive or negative.
  EDIT: your post history claiming to be a “race realist” (dogwhistling white supremacy) leads me to believe you aren’t posting this in good faith. Prove me wrong, OP! >
  
  
  Why did BLM and it’s adjacent movements come to be?
  
  to allow the indiscriminate murder of anyone that isn't black. A black thug started beating a Hispanic man to death for no reason, the Hispanic man was on the ground bleeding out of the back of his head from this senseless case of attempted murder, and he defended himself. In response people started screaming that Black Lives Matter more than his did and that black people are inherently superior to anyone of any other race >
  
  Just… no. >
  
  Then why was BLM founded? >
  
  If you truly subscribe to your pretty far-out reasoning, I don’t think a random redditor, even in this subreddit, can change your mind. Not in a comment thread, anyways. >
  
  ...this isn't far-right reasoning, this is objective history >
  
  I’m pretty sure this is just tapping into the microcosm that is the “different realities” approach to the political spectrum. You’re clearly right-wing, I’m clearly left-wing, and we clearly see entirely different realities. 
  I have seen nothing in my entire life and several years of participating in (peaceful) BLM protests anything remotely close to what you suggest, but you, through your set of beliefs, have. 
  This conversation is not going to lead anywhere for anyone. >
  
  
  I have seen nothing in my entire life and several years of participating in (peaceful) BLM protests anything remotely close to what you suggest, but you, through your set of beliefs, have.
  
  Why was BLM founded then? It is a simple question. >
  
  I answered this before you even replied in the second paragraph of my first comment. >
  
  And it is objectively wrong, considering the event it was founded over didn't involve police. It was when Trayvon Martin walked up behind a 27 year old insurance salesman, started screaming at him, then attempted to beat him to death