BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

TomTomTim

rossie1977 wrote: »

Since when has far left ideology been anti police.. the answer is never.

ACAB is an incredibly common slogan on the far left, you'll find it regularly used by hardcore Marxists. Are you really going to pretend that these types a pro police?

TomTomTim

https://www.reddit.com/search?q=ACAB

Here's many examples. Threads with thousands of upvotes.

ELM327

rossie1977 wrote: »

Since when has far left ideology been anti police.. the answer is never.

Anarchists are far left.


BLM are anti police.

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is really just an extension of their anti white sentiments.

Exactly.
It's not "anti racist" as they paint it, it's actually pro black and anti everyone else.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

Depends on what you consider far left. Typically it was anti-establishment which brought it into conflict with the police. Remove the police, and you weaken the establishment.

Pretty much everything from Bernie Sanders to Teresa May to Fine Gael to Angela Merkel has been described as far left either on this forum or Youtube. Right now anything left of Ted Cruz in the US is described as either left or far left..

Far left and far right have specific ideologies. Anti police is not one of them. Every single country that has adopted communism last 100 years from China, North Korea, USSR to all of Eastern Europe were police states.

ELM327

rossie1977 wrote: »

Pretty much everything from Bernie Sanders to Teresa May to Fine Gael to Angela Merkel has been described as far left either on this forum or Youtube. Right now anything left of Ted Cruz in the US is described as either left or far left..

Far left and far right have specific ideologies. Anti police is not one of them. Every single country that has adopted communism last 100 years from China, North Korea, USSR to all of Eastern Europe were police states.

I don't think anyone would describe fine gael as left wing.


The left and right of the spectrum is not some notion you can randomly assign as you see fit. It's pretty well defined.


https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

rossie1977

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't think anyone would describe fine gael as left wing.

Plenty on this very forum have
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058047691

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055304154

yourdeadwright

rossie1977 wrote: »

Pretty much everything from Bernie Sanders to Teresa May to Fine Gael to Angela Merkel has been described as far left either on this forum or Youtube. Right now anything left of Ted Cruz in the US is described as either left or far left..

Far left and far right have specific ideologies. Anti police is not one of them. Every single country that has adopted communism last 100 years from China, North Korea, USSR to all of Eastern Europe were police states.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here

Its quite clear in THIS case the left wing has developed an idea of getting rid of the Police

Weather it has happened before or not is redundant ,

Are you trying to say because the Left now want to get rid of the police we should no longer refer to them as the left, or in your mind are they now the right ?

Tell me how

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here

Its quite clear in THIS case the left wing has developed an idea of getting rid of the Police

Weather it has happened before or not is redundant ,

Are you trying to say because the Left now want to get rid of the police we should no longer refer to them as the left, or in your mind are they now the right ?

Some on the left talk about getting rid of the police, but that does not mean that the left want to do so.

The majority of people who support BLM want a better allocation of funds which are currently going to police and are being spent on their militarization.

A society in which police forces frequently have war like weaponry while teachers and nurses are underfunded has its priorities wrong.

Tell me how

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't think anyone would describe fine gael as left wing.


The left and right of the spectrum is not some notion you can randomly assign as you see fit. It's pretty well defined.


https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

The definition might be clear. Assigning parties or individuals to somewhere within it, not so much.

TomTomTim

rossie1977 wrote: »

Far left and far right have specific ideologies. Anti police is not one of them. Every single country that has adopted communism last 100 years from China, North Korea, USSR to all of Eastern Europe were police states.

Your dishonesty continues. The far left hates the police because they view them as tools of the capitalist system. We live under capitalism, so they are anti police. http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2014/12/09/main-role-police-protecting-ca
https://www.leftvoice.org/the-fight-to-abolish-the-police-is-the-fight-to-abolish-capitalism
https://www.marxist.com/to-end-racism-and-police-brutality-end-capitalism.htm

Chris_Heilong

Deleted User wrote: »

This attitude makes me angry. There are things in the Daily mail and the guardian that are factually correct. Agreeing with them doesn't mean you subscribe to their worldview nor does it mean you agree with every opinion piece.

Make an argument don't shoot the messenger.

It means if you read them you are absorbing their political stance weather you know it or not, Even in headlines they have a horrible way of framing things and I am sure most of the staff have a picture of Lenin sitting somewhere at home.

Also some people mentioned marching for equal rights, all races in the west have equal rights already and as Obama proved equal opportunity if they apply themselves, I do think racial profiling is an issue with the American police force but we seem to be beyond that in the conversation already.

Mr. Karate

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't think anyone would describe fine gael as left wing.


The left and right of the spectrum is not some notion you can randomly assign as you see fit. It's pretty well defined.


https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

They certainly have swung left. Micheal Martin himself said that Nationalism was a backwards notion. Certainly not a right wing sentiment.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/2016/11/21/news/michea-l-martin-accuses-britain-of-backward-looking-nationalism-with-brexit-vote-792709/

The idea that FF/FG have swung left didn't come out of thin air. Both support mass immigration and surrendering sovereignty to the EU. hardly right wing stances.

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Pretty much everything from Bernie Sanders to Teresa May to Fine Gael to Angela Merkel has been described as far left either on this forum or Youtube. Right now anything left of Ted Cruz in the US is described as either left or far left..

Far left and far right have specific ideologies. Anti police is not one of them. Every single country that has adopted communism last 100 years from China, North Korea, USSR to all of Eastern Europe were police states.

You're simply talking politics.

BLM is a peoples/social movement, just are most far left movements. Don't confuse left politics with social movements. There're not the same thing. They might have some crossover at times, but for the most part, they operate in very different environments.

ELM327

rossie1977 wrote: »

Plenty on this very forum have
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058047691

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055304154

Incorrectly.

ELM327

Mr. Karate wrote: »

They certainly have swung left. Micheal Martin himself said that Nationalism was a backwards notion. Certainly not a right wing sentiment.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/2016/11/21/news/michea-l-martin-accuses-britain-of-backward-looking-nationalism-with-brexit-vote-792709/

The idea that FF/FG have swung left didn't come out of thin air. Both support mass immigration and surrendering sovereignty to the EU. hardly right wing stances.

Irish nationalism is generally left wing. Sinn Fein etc. A hangover from our colonial past.




Being pro EU is generally a right wing stance as it's pro big business.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't know what your child's skin colour has to do with whether white privilege constitutes racism or not.

Here is the definition of racism which google provided.



In what way, does white privilege, as you understand it, meet this definition?

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"

White privilege is prejudice. It is also almost exclusively used by people antagonistically and to dismiss peoples opinions based purely on their skin colour and not their character.

Just because in Ireland and america, white people may not be a minority, doesn't mean that they can't be marginalised.

So, pretty much in every way, the concept of white privilege is racist by your own definition.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You've really not addressed any the things I've said in relation to BLM. I brought the deaths of white people in relation to the police as a counter to the statement that they systematically racist. Something you've stated , without providing any support for. I posted previously a number of pieces that discuss it and lay out the facts to argue against that idea.

So you agree, people pointed that was an issue impacting black people and you asked 'what about white people'.

It's also demonstrably false to say that there is no accountability for police officers who've wrongfully killed someone, as quick google search would demonstrate.

A quick google will show you're talking nonsense.

99% of officers are never charged with a crime and even when they are a tiny fraction are convicted. All cops have to do is say they were feeling threatened and unless there is videotape proving otherwise they get off. For the Floyd death, all the cops lied about the situation initially and without the tape there is no chance they'd have been charged

Taking civil cases is then nearly impossible due to qualified immunity. If you feel officers can be held accountable with qualified immunity in place, do you want to roll it out to the rest of the public?

You're again not addressing the reasons I stated for not supporting BLM, or my criticisms of them. BLM go after the money, looking to garner as much as they can, as evidenced by the salaries they pay themselves. There's no money in poor black people, but plenty to be found from guilty and ashamed whites. Their organisation is full of professional victims.

Don't support or give money to the organization then.

Again, there are hundreds or thousands of groups that use the term BLM. They seem to be calling for the same thing you want. Rather than allying yourself with them to get the goals you want you'd rather not achieve them because you don't like them.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"

White privilege is prejudice. It is also almost exclusively used by people antagonistically and to dismiss peoples opinions based purely on their skin colour and not their character.

Just because in Ireland and america, white people may not be a minority, doesn't mean that they can't be marginalised.

So, pretty much in every way, the concept of white privilege is racist by your own definition.

Spot on.

If white privilege is accepted, then it gives grounds to provide extra benefits/advantages to other racial groups even should White people be a minority in an area.

Take Detroit for example, which has a majority population of Black people to all other racial groups, including White people. Should "White privilege" be accepted, then, that minority group could be discriminated against, simply because white people in other areas of the country are more successful than Black people. Limited jobs, limited resources, limited options.

Another further example would be the use of employment quotas to limit White people, assuming that white privilege would give white people other opportunities for employment (irrespective of skills/experience). Now should there be a recession or high competition for remaining jobs that places White people at a distinct disadvantage based entirely on their race... which would be racism.

White privilege sets the stage to discriminate against White people... it's reverse racism, and anyone who advocates in support of the idea is being racist.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

This attitude makes me angry. There are things in the Daily mail and the guardian that are factually correct. Agreeing with them doesn't mean you subscribe to their worldview nor does it mean you agree with every opinion piece.

Make an argument don't shoot the messenger.

This is great, can we now extend this thinking to BLM?

They make statements that are factually correct, agreeing with these statements doesn't mean you subscribe to every element of their worldview or opinion.

To some here you can't support their calls to reform policing without also being a Marxist

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"

White privilege is prejudice. It is also almost exclusively used by people antagonistically and to dismiss peoples opinions based purely on their skin colour and not their character.

Just because in Ireland and america, white people may not be a minority, doesn't mean that they can't be marginalised.

So, pretty much in every way, the concept of white privilege is racist by your own definition.

Deleted User wrote: »

Spot on.

If white privilege is accepted, then it gives grounds to provide extra benefits/advantages to other racial groups even should White people be a minority in an area.

Take Detroit for example, which has a majority population of Black people to all other racial groups, including White people. Should "White privilege" be accepted, then, that minority group could be discriminated against, simply because white people in other areas of the country are more successful than Black people. Limited jobs, limited resources, limited options.

Another further example would be the use of employment quotas to limit White people, assuming that white privilege would give white people other opportunities for employment (irrespective of skills/experience). Now should there be a recession or high competition for remaining jobs that places White people at a distinct disadvantage based entirely on their race... which would be racism.

White privilege sets the stage to discriminate against White people... it's reverse racism, and anyone who advocates in support of the idea is being racist.

White privilege is acknowledging that white people were not treated negatively solely because of assumptions made about them or directly because of their skin colour.

The evidence to support this has been documented from extreme cases, to more subjective examples. But there is no way that recognizing that this scenario existed (exists) for many is in and of itself racist.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Spot on.

If white privilege is accepted, then it gives grounds to provide extra benefits/advantages to other racial groups even should White people be a minority in an area.

Take Detroit for example, which has a majority population of Black people to all other racial groups, including White people. Should "White privilege" be accepted, then, that minority group could be discriminated against, simply because white people in other areas of the country are more successful than Black people. Limited jobs, limited resources, limited options.

Another further example would be the use of employment quotas to limit White people, assuming that white privilege would give white people other opportunities for employment (irrespective of skills/experience). Now should there be a recession or high competition for remaining jobs that places White people at a distinct disadvantage based entirely on their race... which would be racism.

White privilege sets the stage to discriminate against White people... it's reverse racism, and anyone who advocates in support of the idea is being racist.

Oh yeah, Detroit, where white folk just can't get a chance. 13 times the net wealth just isn't enough :rolleyes:

An analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from 2014 by the Pew Research Center found the median income of black households was $43,300 compared to $71,300 for whites. The study, released June 27, showed that in the same year black households with a college education earned significantly less —$82,300 — than their white counterparts who made $106,600.

The Pew research also revealed another set of data that showed that in 2013, the median net worth of white households was almost 13 times higher than that of blacks, at $144,200 for whites and $11,200 for blacks. The analysis also found, based on 2015 data, that 72 percent of white household heads owned a home compared with 43 percent for blacks.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/bankole-thompson/2016/07/06/bankole-income-wealth-gaps-remain-blacks/86789302/

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

White privilege is acknowledging that white people were not treated negatively solely because of assumptions made about them or directly because of their skin colour.

The evidence to support this has been documented from extreme cases, to more subjective examples. But there is no way that recognizing that this scenario existed (exists) for many is in and of itself racist.

White privilege IS being treated negatively solely because assumptions made about presumptions about them because of their skin colour.

How that blatant hypocrisy is not evident is astounding

OMM 0000

This is all too stupid.

Almost no one thinks black lives don't matter.

The problem is Black Lives Matter is an insane organisation which no normal person should support.

Unfortunately the world is full of stupid lazy people who want to virtue signal, so organisations like BLM will continue gaining power and wealth.

Mr. Karate

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is all too stupid.

Almost no one thinks black lives don't matter.

The problem is Black Lives Matter is an insane organisation which no normal person should support.

Unfortunately the world is full of stupid lazy people who want to virtue signal, so organisations like BLM will continue gaining power and wealth.

One of the leaders of BLM NY said live on the air that if they didn't get what they wanted they would burn everything down.

Such a peaceful organization.:rolleyes:

OMM 0000

Mr. Karate wrote: »

One of the leaders of BLM NY said live on the air that if they didn't get what they wanted they would burn everything down.

Such a peaceful organization.:rolleyes:

Isn't that literally terrorism?

terrorism
/ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

ELM327

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Isn't that literally terrorism?

terrorism
/ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

It is, but it's allowed because they are black

Mr. Karate

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Isn't that literally terrorism?

terrorism
/ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Yes it is.

President Trump plain as day called it terrorism. He's the only in DC with a backbone. The Democrats are cheerleading this while the rest of the GOP are hiding under their desks.

Foxtrol

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is all too stupid.

Almost no one thinks black lives don't matter.

The problem is Black Lives Matter is an insane organisation which no normal person should support.

Unfortunately the world is full of stupid lazy people who want to virtue signal, so organisations like BLM will continue gaining power and wealth.

Similarly, the world seems to be full of stupid/childish people that can't understand that you can support elements of an organizations aims without supporting every one of their philosophies.

Mr. Karate

Foxtrol wrote: »

Similarly, the world seems to be full of stupid/childish people that can't understand that you can support elements of an organizations aims without supporting every one of their philosophies.

I have yet to see/hear a BLM member or supporter come out and condemn those remarks. They love to use the "Silence= Complicity" against us so I'm happy to use it here against them. Their silence clearly shows that they support this mindset and have it themselves.