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

Tell me how

BattleCorp wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not against the aims of the BLM movement. I'm just against how they are going about achieving their aims.

I'm going Yes 100% on all three of your questions.

What specifically are you against?

Let me go ahead and say my piece that I am against violence, looting or the idea that such is in any way appropriate for compensation for injustices they as a community previously suffered.

But, I think that the BLM movement is overwhelmingly focused on improving the US system of policing (including diverting resources so that the community is better served) and that the vast majority of those in support of the movement, or those attending the protests are not engaging in violence or looting.

Tell me how

Harry lyme wrote: »

More deflection from you.

The head of BLM in Chicago (3rd biggest city in USA) is spouting the reparations line, it's some minor member of the organisation who's doing it.

A lot of people didn't think the organisation had merit due to it's Marxist leanings and they've really haven't helped convince those people that they were wrong to think that. Part of political change is convincing people who don't agree with you initially to change their minds.

Can you stop with accusing me of deflecting or moving goalposts because I refute your arguments with comparable examples or situations. If you want to take a position on something, you can't just do so in isolation. Well, you can, but lets be clear that that is what you are doing.

'Due to it's Marxist leanings'? Now we are getting somewhere, that is indeed why so many are against this. They think the idea of fair treatment for someone else, will ultimately mean that they will lose out.

I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, particularly those who have made it clear they will not be convinced, no matter the evidence.
I am not giving such posters a free reign to undermine a cause which is aiming for a better society for all just because they are afraid of some sort of status quo which they are comfortable with possibly changing.

BattleCorp

Tell me how wrote: »

What specifically are you against?

You know, the looting, the rioting, the burning of buildings, the intimidation etc.

Let me go ahead and say my piece that I am against violence, looting or the idea that such is in any way appropriate for compensation for injustices they as a community previously suffered.

Glad to hear it. Sadly there are many in the BLM who don't echo your sentiments.

But, I think that the BLM movement is overwhelmingly focused on improving the US system of policing (including diverting resources so that the community is better served) and that the vast majority of those in support of the movement, or those attending the protests are not engaging in violence or looting.

Here's the think. How is it going to improve the US system of policing if members keep on rioting/looting/burning/hitting whitey with a brick from behind etc. I put it to you that you can't riot your way to a better police force. That carry on only alienates people and turns them against your cause.

Tell me how

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the think. How is it going to improve the US system of policing if members keep on rioting/looting/burning/hitting whitey with a brick from behind etc. I put it to you that you can't riot your way to a better police force. That carry on only alienates people and turns them against your cause.

Because the vast amount of protesters are behaving peacefully and in at least some cases, there is evidence that looting was instigated by subversives looking to incite.

I'm absolutely not absolving everyone in the movement, but as stated before, the ratio of peaceful protesters to non-peaceful seems to be at a ratio of about 2000:1

If this is the case, is it fair to suggest the BLM movement is a violent one? If there were ten times more violent people within the BLM movement, and the ratio was 200:1, it would still mean that 99.5% of people were peaceful. In such a scenario, would it be accurate to say it is a violently motivated movement?

Carfacemandog

Harry lyme wrote: »

More deflection from you........

Man, are you guys made in a production line of something? You've always got such remarkably similar posting styles and typically low post totals. As well as that weird habit of stopping posting after a hundred or so posts in a matter of days, only to be replaced by yet another identical posting style pretty much immediately. I'd swear it's like there's a factory of this specific type of poster or somethingm

gozunda

Foxtrol wrote: »

Despite the utter rubbish the sanitised 'your dictionary' biography you linked states, MLK actually faced the exact same kind of complaints by older members of his community regarding the tactics he and his fellow protesters took at the time. He also strongly called out those that claimed to support their protest and yet moaned about their methods

*Despite it being repeated ad nauseam here as a fact, I've yet to see any evidence of BLM movement organisers supporting 'violence'* any more than Trump/GOP/Right Wing media do. For the most part the BLM organisers are far quicker to condemn the violent actions of protesters than the other side are.

Not "MY" dictionary friend. Though good to see you claiming from the high horse you're riding that you know better and don't believe these civil right leaders and activists speaking out against the current violence they have had first hand experience of.

Highlighted bit* - read the previous dozen posts if you are really in any doubt. And you can drop the whataboutery you're using to sideline the extreme violence of the current movement

But the general problem with extremist screamers is that they believe what they do cannot be criticised by anyone. Thankfully some are now standing up against that.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You stated you could find no evidence of BLM condoning the attacks, I didn't go into spurious whataboutery. No one is denying Trump's actions. You can deflect all you want, but the evidence is clear.

The evidence is clear that you aren't able to finish reading a sentence. That isn't what I stated. For the 4th time it'll be posted again in this thread so you can try again.

If you say there is no denying Trump's actions, why are you more upset about the words of one of hundreds/thousands of protest organisers than the most powerful man in the world? Why are you holding her to a different standard?

Foxtrol wrote: »

Despite it being repeated ad nauseam here as a fact, I've yet to see any evidence of BLM movement organisers supporting 'violence' any more than Trump/GOP/Right Wing media do. For the most part the BLM organisers are far quicker to condemn the violent actions of protesters than the other side are.

Foxtrol

Harry lyme wrote: »

And why does that matter.2 wrongs don't make a right.

Nobody expects much from Trump because he's always been awful however for a while BLM and their supporters had some claim on moral superiority , unfortunately for the movements sake that is now gone when they could easily have claimed the moral high ground and held onto it and potentially made real progress by getting people who may have initially been suspicious of their motives to change their minds about them. BLM have let down the black community, Trump hasn't let down anybody because in truth nobody really expects anything from him.

All I'm seeing here is that you have double standards, though at least you're honest about it. You take offense from the words of one or two protest organisers out of hundreds/thousands and ignore all the ones that have come out to condemn violence/looting.

Political change is about convincing people you disagree with to see your side and change their views and BLM are not helping in this regarding with the violence associated with their protests and their nonsense about reparations.

Same sort of thing was said to MLK and civil rights protesters and they were much more unpopular than BLM protests are.

People that want to find a reason to complain about black people protesting will always find a way. See the abuse the basketball players got last week. There will never be a 'right' way to protest to them

Harry lyme

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Man, are you guys made in a production line of something? You've always got such remarkably similar posting styles and typically low post totals. As well as that weird habit of stopping posting after a hundred or so posts in a matter of days, only to be replaced by yet another identical posting style pretty much immediately. I'd swear it's like there's a factory of this specific type of poster or somethingm

But he was deflecting from criticism of BLM by using the old but Trump did something similar line.

Tell me how

Foxtrol wrote: »

There will never be a 'right' way to protest to them

Tipperary animal lover

Foxtrol wrote: »

I see you subscribe to the Ben Shapiro 'claim victory no matter how stupid you look' newsletter.

Stupid!!! Hmmmm Foxtrol pot kettel and all that .... mother of God lads ye really take the biscuit ... I've said before and say it again I couldnt give a shi#e about Trump, white supermacy, Ben Shapiro, any other throw away names ye have .... it's your flat out love for blm that we're trying to let ye know is just as bad as the names above, but let the riots continue and your fellow Americans be destroyed because I claim victory no matter stupid I look, smh, it's you're taxes gonna have to pay for this hope you have deep pockets ... am I stupid one really

Harry lyme

Foxtrol wrote: »

All I'm seeing here is that you have double standards, though at least you're honest about it. You take offense from the words of one or two protest organisers out of hundreds/thousands and ignore all the ones that have come out to condemn violence/looting.



Same sort of thing was said to MLK and civil rights protesters and they were much more unpopular than BLM protests are.

People that want to find a reason to complain about black people protesting will always find a way. See the abuse the basketball players got last week. There will never be a 'right' way to protest to them

She was the head of BLM in Chicago, she's not a minor member of the organisation.

It's perfectly legitimate criticise a BLM leader for talking nonsense about reparations and defending violent actions from protestors.

Foxtrol

gozunda wrote: »

Not "MY" dictionary friend. Though good to see you claiming from the high horse you're riding that you know better and don't believe these civil right leaders and activists speaking out against the current violence they have had first hand experience of.

But the general problem with extremist screamers is that they believe what they do cannot be criticised by anyone. Thankfully some are standing up against that.

Friend, the site you shared a link from way call 'yourdictionary.com'. :pac:

gozunda wrote: »

https://biography.yourdictionary.com/articles/martin-luther-king-progress-civil-rights-movement.html

Foxtrol

Harry lyme wrote: »

She was the head of BLM in Chicago, she's not a minor member of the organisation.

It's perfectly legitimate criticise a BLM leader for talking nonsense about reparations and defending violent actions from protestors.

Any evidence that she was the head of BLM Chicago? I can see nothing from a reputable source

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

The evidence is clear that you aren't able to finish reading a sentence. That isn't what I stated. For the 4th time it'll be posted again in this thread so you can try again.

If you say there is no denying Trump's actions, why are you more upset about the words of one of hundreds/thousands of protest organisers than the most powerful man in the world? Why are you holding her to a different standard?

She's a leader of BLM, an organisation that I don't support, because it pushes and supports racism against white people and tacitly condones and supports rioting and looting. That isn't holding her to a different standard, it's entirely consistent with my views towards Trump, who is a racist, corrupt individual, leading other such people.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She's a leader of BLM, an organisation that I don't support, because it pushes and supports racism against white people and tacitly condones and supports rioting and looting. That isn't holding her to a different standard, it's entirely consistent with my views towards Trump, who is a racist, corrupt individual, leading other such people.

The comparison wasn't between her and Trump, it was between her and Sheriff Todd Wright of Arkansas.

Anyone thinking about Ariel Atkins and the movement she is involved with, should equally think about the Sheriff and his organisation.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

The comparison wasn't between her and Trump, it was between her and Sheriff Todd Wright of Arkansas.

Anyone thinking about Ariel Atkins and the movement she is involved with, should equally think about the Sheriff and his organisation.

Once again, you lie and twist things. There was no comparison, the initial post was in relation to BLM supporting violence. In a classic bit of whataboutery, you posted the tweet of the sheriff, as per your usual efforts at deflection. The Sheriff isn't a prominent leader of a national level organisation, just a local podunk bigot.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Once again, you lie and twist things. There was no comparison, the initial post was in relation to BLM supporting violence. In a classic bit of whataboutery, you posted the tweet of the sheriff, as per your usual efforts at deflection. The Sheriff isn't a prominent leader of a national level organisation, just a local podunk bigot.

You can stop posting the bit in bold, I'll take it as a given whenever you post.

Ariel would be please to think that she is viewed as a prominent leader when no one heard of her in any context outside of these comments and these are alone are being used to bestow that status on her. Note, even the article which someone quoted here about her earlier, referred to her as an organizer which undermines the perception that she is in someway a nationwide voice or authority.

Either accept the Sherrifs words indicate an inherent racism within police forces in the US or recognize that Ariel is a single voice in an organisation with a flat hirearchy. You can't just call it deflection because you want to ignore this reality.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

The comparison wasn't between her and Trump, it was between her and Sheriff Todd Wright of Arkansas.

Anyone thinking about Ariel Atkins and the movement she is involved with, should equally think about the Sheriff and his organisation.

Talk about taking the discussion off topic and deflecting. I suppose it's hard to find new ways of defending the insane racist opinions of BLM officials in fairness to you. BLM seems so virtuous on the surface, such a pity about the truth behind it.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

Talk about taking the discussion off topic and deflecting. I suppose it's hard to find new ways of defending the insane racist opinions of BLM officials in fairness to you. BLM seems so virtuous on the surface, such a pity about the truth behind it.

I literally brought it back directly on topic, how is that confusing for you.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She's a leader of BLM, an organisation that I don't support, because it pushes and supports racism against white people and tacitly condones and supports rioting and looting. That isn't holding her to a different standard, it's entirely consistent with my views towards Trump, who is a racist, corrupt individual, leading other such people.

So now that you've finally read my full sentence you now agree with my post?

That from evidence provided people claiming to be speaking on behalf of BLM (even if you only select the most outrageous ones) are no worse regarding violence than Trump/GOP/Right wing media.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

So now that you've finally read my full sentence you now agree with my post?

That from evidence provided people speaking on behalf of BLM (even if you only select the most outrageous ones) are no worse than Trump/GOP/Right wing media.

Yeah, but the people wrecking the place and killing people on behalf of BLM are letting the side down..

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

I literally brought it back directly on topic, how is that confusing for you.

Hilarious. Yet again with the intellectual high ground grabbing response.

You began discussing something that was a total false equivalence which had no relation to the topic at hand.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

Hilarious. Yet again with the intellectual high ground grabbing response.

You began discussing something that was a total false equivalence and had to relation to the topic at hand.

The implication was that the BLM movement was inherently and fundamentally focused on looting and violence based on the words of a single person.

I highlighted the words of a person within a police force and asked if the logic being used in the first scenario, was applicable for the second. You couldn't really get a more comparable scenario, so again, calling it a false equivalence just says you want to be selective.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, but the people wrecking the place and killing people on behalf of BLM are letting the side down..

Agreed and similar statements of condemnation have been said by nearly everyone involved in the BLM movement. There is a tiny minority of protesters that are involved in those kind of activities though (which is why Fox News was caught using the same looting video a month after the incident).

Foxtrol

Tell me how wrote: »

The implication was that the BLM movement was inherently and fundamentally focused on looting and violence based on the words of a single person.

I highlighted the words of a person within a police force and asked if the logic being used in the scenario, was applicable for the second. You couldn't really get a more comparable scenario, so again, calling it a false equivalence just says you want to be selective.

At this stage it is obvious that they hold volunteers involved in BLM protests to a higher standard than they do salaried cops, politicians, and right wing media commentators.

They'll tie themselves in knots trying to justify it.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

Agreed and similar statements of condemnation have been said by nearly everyone involved in the BLM movement. There is a tiny minority of protesters that are involved in those kind of activities though (which is why Fox News was caught using the same looting video a month after the incident).

Dude, if you honestly believe that then fair enough..TBH I think the optics of the whole thing have gone way beyond anything that's justifiable..There's been lots of looting..there's been way too much threatening behaviour..It's at the stage where its in a dangerous realm..Once these things are unleashed, they don't just go back in the box..

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

The implication was that the BLM movement was inherently and fundamentally focused on looting and violence based on the words of a single person.

I highlighted the words of a person within a police force and asked if the logic being used in the first scenario, was applicable for the second. You couldn't really get a more comparable scenario, so again, calling it a false equivalence just says you want to be selective.

You yourself are being selective in what you're saying. Instead of directly addressing what is being put to you to instead reference something else entirely and completely evade the question. In the context of the discussion at hand what you posted was a false equivalence, it may have merit in another setting but you just employed it as a means of being evasive.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

You can stop posting the bit in bold, I'll take it as a given whenever you post.

Ariel would be please to think that she is viewed as a prominent leader when no one heard of her in any context outside of these comments and these are alone are being used to bestow that status on her. Note, even the article which someone quoted here about her earlier, referred to her as an organizer which undermines the perception that she is in someway a nationwide voice or authority.

Either accept the Sherrifs words indicate an inherent racism within police forces in the US or recognize that Ariel is a single voice in an organisation with a flat hirearchy. You can't just call it deflection because you want to ignore this reality.

You're dishonest, as has been shown here repeatedly throughout this thread and elsewhere.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

At this stage it is obvious that they hold volunteers involved in BLM protests to a higher standard than they do salaried cops, politicians, and right wing media commentators.

They'll tie themselves in knots trying to justify it.

Cops, politicians and right wing media commentators aren't engaged in peddling insane racist nonsense dressed as a movement for social change.