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

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

You want to believe BLM is a great and virtuous movement, drive on with that. I do not.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

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.

I've already said I do not condone violence, looting, or that any such activities would be acceptable in the form of some sort of reparations.

I've said that anyone committing such acts should be identified and prosecuted.

What was addressed to me was that the BLM movement was based on advocating for these activities. I refuted that directly, and showed how it was unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

You don't want a discussion, you want acceptance of a selective narrative. How else should I have shown I disagreed with the narrative being put forward, other than how I did.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I've already said I do not condone violence, looting, or that any such activities would be acceptable in the form of some sort of reparations.

You've been justifying it here for ages..

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

I've already said I do not condone violence, looting, or that any such activities would be acceptable in the form of some sort of reparations.

I've said that anyone committing such acts should be identified and prosecuted.

What was addressed to me was that the BLM movement was based on advocating for these activities. I refuted that directly, and showed how it was unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

You don't want a discussion, you want acceptance of a selective narrative. How else should I have shown I disagreed with the narrative being put forward, other than how I did.

You have repeatedly backed anything put forward by BLM supporters (last night you were backing the notion that Ireland has an issue with endemic police brutality). If there's an SJW bandwagon going through town you're invariably hanging off the back of it.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

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

'There's good people on all sides' Said by the President after a White Supremacist rally

'I want him as President' Said by Ann Coulter about Kyle Riffenhouse after he killed two people.

“We are just going to go out and start slaughtering them f

---

n

---

,” said by an active cop, in a patrol car, this summer.

That's what the cops, politicians and right wing media commentators are coming out with.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

You've been justifying it here for ages..

Link please.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

You have repeatedly backed anything put forward by BLM supporters (last night you were backing the notion that Ireland has an issue with endemic police brutality). If there's an SJW bandwagon going through town you're invariably hanging off the back of it.

Leaving aside that I didn't in any way suggest Ireland has an issue with endemic police brutality (I provided a single link in response to a poster who asked for a single link), again the use of the term SJW is revealing.

Said with venom by the Status quo fab club members, petrified that an improvement in someone elses situation will mean they lose out.

And around and around we go, I don't care, I'm just not leaving ye to spout this BS unchallenged.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Link please.

There's 29 pages of your posts on this thread..I have too much white privilege to trawl through them..But you'd agree you've take a side..You haven't really condemned it, have you?..

gozunda

Foxtrol wrote: »

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

Still not "MY' dictionary . Or is that difficult to understand :pac:

Or do you think I wrote the contents of the entire site. Chrxst you'd argue with a signpost and insist you'd know better lol.

Accept you've been a.whipped and move on friend :

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

There's 29 pages of your posts on this thread..I have too much white privilege to trawl through them..But you'd agree you've take a side..You haven't really condemned it, have you?..

Apart from here

Tell me how wrote: »

They should all be prosecuted.

Where did you get that BLM condones and encourages this?

And here,

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

And once more here,

Tell me how wrote: »

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?

They're from just the last couple of hours.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Leaving aside that I didn't in any way suggest Ireland has an issue with endemic police brutality (I provided a single link in response to a poster who asked for a single link), again the use of the term SJW is revealing.

Said with venom by the Status quo fab club members, petrified that an improvement in someone elses situation will mean they lose out.

And around and around we go, I don't care, I'm just not leaving ye to spout this BS unchallenged.

I requested that evidence that Ireland has an issue with endemic police brutality and as you said you provided a link that proved that police brutality in Ireland is not endemic and is dealt with properly. Was your intention to prove my point for me?

As for not allowing me to "spout BS unchallenged", the pot and the kettle comes to mind.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

They're from just the last couple of hours.

Well, It appears the entire democratic party has changed their tune in the last couple of days..

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

I requested that evidence that Ireland has an issue with endemic police brutality and as you said you provided a link that proved that police brutality in Ireland is not endemic and is dealt with properly. Was your intention to prove my point for me?

As for not allowing me to "spout BS unchallenged", the pot and the kettle comes to mind.

This is what you asked for, and got.

nullzero wrote: »

Your link didn't show one credible source of evidence supporting the idea that police brutality even exists in Ireland.

I tell you what, show me one example of a credible source displaying just one case of police brutality in Ireland.

I didn't shift the goalposts at all, I merely gave you some context of what the criminal justice system in this country is like. If you don't like me giving you this information that's too bad.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

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..

Agreed again. The problem is that it is a tiny minority that is doing those bad things you mentioned but Trump and the right wing media blow it completely out of proportion.

Peaceful protests don't drive ratings

gozunda

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

Lol. The whataboutism here is legendary! In the spirit of this newgame - Could you please link the video footage of the Trump/Gop/ right wing media looting and burning buildings. Thanks ...

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

This is what you asked for, and got.

I had previously asked for evidence that Ireland has a comparable issue with police brutality to that which America supposedly has(which is supposedly endemic). Incidentally I had asked this of someone else but you decided to interject.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You want to believe BLM is a great and virtuous movement, drive on with that. I do not.

For weeks I have stated I have issues with elements of the BLM organisation.

There is however a big difference between noting issues and making outlandish statements like you are, condemning everyone involved in protests due to certain individuals involved using the type of talk that is commonplace in politics and media right now

1800_Ladladlad

Just brilliant. I couldn't stop laughing at this.

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1301147448505765893

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

I know you are, or were, a soldier. Are you seriously telling me that your skill with a Colt, or a Glock or a Smith & Wesson is "equal" to that of, say, my 88 year old mother?
Would she have an equal chance of going up against you, or someone of less reputable character but with identical military training and experience, if you/they were both tooled up with similar weapons?

Manic Moran wrote: »

If I had to choose between a fight with your 88 year old mother with both of us armed, and one with both of us unarmed, I'm going to go unarmed every time. It doesn't take much strength to pull a trigger, and there are ample cases of septuagenarians-and-older successfully using firearms for defense in the US.

All you're saying there is that guns are indiscriminate, highly dangerous, and their operation is a lottery in which the only prize is a booby: somebody gets shot and probably killed.

You have completely debunked the oft quoted nonsense from Wayne La Pierre that "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".
You make it clear that the bad guy has every bit as much chance of shooting the good guy as vice versa.

If a Gulf War veteran like you doesn't feel confident in a mano a mano (with a gun in each mano) against my Old Ma then there is clearly no skill differential, no advantage to a Pistol Proficiency badge on your uniform, no benefit at all to carrying a gun for your own protection. All you are doing is giving yourself a 50% chance of being killed!!!
It's the equivalent of a penalty shoot out in soccer. The undeserving team frequently wins. About half the time, in fact.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Wait. What we're seeing on our TV screens, or on our Twitter/YouTube feeds is American society "working"?

As the great Groucho Marx might have said: "That's a new meaning of the word with which I'm not familiar"

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect to carriage of firearms over recent decades, yes. If you look at the homicide rates over the past few decades, the widespread proliferation in recent years of people lawfully carrying firearms has not stopped the continued decrease in murders at the macro level, whilst having a positive effect at the micro level. (Note what I am not saying: I am not saying that the recent proliferation of firearms has contributed to the decrease in murders, that's a different issue entirely which has no evidence to support it that I am aware of).

Are you weaseling again? For example, do any of the 1,000 or so fatal shootings by police in the US EVERY YEAR count as homicides, or are they just "cops doing their job"?

That figure is off the charts disgraceful for a supposed democracy. Fatal shootings by police in other advanced democracies are few and far between. In Ireland, there hasn't been one in nearly three years, and that was the only Garda fatal shooting that year. I can't remember when was the last one before that.

Each one of those 1000 shootings, or at least the overwhelming majority of them, were probably legal. Certainly the rabid tendency in American media and social media are quick to justify even the most outrageous examples of police "over enthusiasm".
But a society "working"? Hardly.
It's out and out dysfunctional.

Indeed this whole uprising is just a culmination of people getting sick to the back teeth of their friends and neighbours being killed with impunity by law enforcement and saying "**** this ****! It's gotta stop! We don't care how ****ing "legal" you think it all is. It's still WRONG!!!"

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Leaving aside that I didn't in any way suggest Ireland has an issue with endemic police brutality (I provided a single link in response to a poster who asked for a single link), again the use of the term SJW is revealing.

Said with venom by the Status quo fab club members, petrified that an improvement in someone elses situation will mean they lose out.

And around and around we go, I don't care, I'm just not leaving ye to spout this BS unchallenged.

Lol. I kid you not - the same mantra on every virtually every topic to date.

You do know that whilst you may hold various opinions - other posters hold their opinions with equal legitimacy yes? Theres nothing wrong with robust debate - just stop with the constant accussing others of character flaws because you disagree with them. Something you constantly do in your comments btw.

And just because someone may bizarely believe they are eternally on the right side (or is that the left? :pac:) of every argument does not mean that necessarily holds true by any stretch of logic.

If you can understand that- then such discussion stops being a personal crusade ...

Tipperary animal lover

You couldn't make it up, Portland mayor has moved from he's apartment because of the BLM crowd camped outside the building wanting him to resign and wrecked the area, he'd rather move than stop the riots, they want he's head on a platter and yet he still panders to the crowd!!! That is what your dealing with head up the ar@e and totally out of touch, those he think that moving they won't follow .... oh ya got to love Ted

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

I had previously asked for evidence that Ireland has a comparable issue with police brutality to that which America supposedly has(which is supposedly endemic). Incidentally I had asked this of someone else but you decided to interject.

You made a very specific requirement and received a very specific response.

And I'm the one who moves goalposts and deflects apparently

I'm not surprised. It's the 'accuse others of that which you are guilty' mantra beloved by many conservative commentators.

gozunda

Foxtrol wrote: »

For weeks I have stated I have issues with elements of the BLM organisation.

There is however a big difference between noting issues and making outlandish statements like you are, condemning everyone involved in protests due to certain individuals involved using the type of talk that is commonplace in politics and media right now

Well done. You've now arrived at level 1.1 comprehension and understanding of one of the core issues.

In this thread we've seen some repeatedly supporting BLMs condemnation of every member of the police. Of local government. Of 'white' people. Based exactly as you say on "condemning everyone ... due to certain individuals involved"

Horses for courses. Anyone supporting the idea - that the blm movement should not to be judged on the actions of rogue individuals ) whilst not acknowledging that at the same time the blm insists that the actions of rogue individuals means condeming everyone (whether that is is the police or whoever) - needs an urgent reality check for sure.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

You made a very specific requirement and received a very specific response.

And I'm the one who moves goalposts and deflects apparently

I'm not surprised. It's the 'accuse others of that which you are guilty' mantra beloved by many conservative commentators.

I made a specific request which you failed to comprehend correctly. I never said you were moving goalposts on this issue, I merely stated you got it the wrong way around but yeah continue with the nonsensical ramblings by all means.

Dr. Bre

All lives matter

LessOutragePlz

Dr. Bre wrote: »

All lives matter

Woah are you saying that black lives don't matter?

Biafranlivemat

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe, if he could have been expected to have been treated fairly with his case.

There's no dispute from the company that it happened.

The company did admit about the noose, but nobody said who put it there. It could easily have been the mass murderer who left it on his own locker, he was probably like Jussie Smollett.

Tell me how

Present Attorney General of the United States is basing his view on the Blake case on patently false information, and refuses to change his view when this is pointed out to him.

Shocking, but unsurprising in current climate.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1301291692331540480

Tell me how

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

The company did admit about the noose, but nobody said who put it there. It could easily have been the mass murderer who left it on his own locker, he was probably like Jussie Smollett.

You probably think Jacob Blake shot himself 7 times in the back as well.

mrkiscool2

Dr. Bre wrote: »

All lives matter

Yeah, but in some countries that's not the case. In some countries you can be killed for cheating, killed for being not straight or not the same gender as what is on your birth certificate. Same way in America POC are more likely, as a percentage, to be shot than white people are by police. All Lives Matter is only true when everyone is equal. If there is even one case of one group being targeted when others are, then not all lives matter, only certain lives.