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

Tell me how · 06-09-2020 3:42pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

ffs

That would be a no then, from this poster anyway.

Mr. Karate · 06-09-2020 3:48pm

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Earlier this week we had a elected Republican official with white supremacist ties who had to give up their job as a cop for assaulting a black person, threatening to murder people on Facebook

Now we have another openly encouraging people to burn down the houses of a tone supporting the BLM movement. Not the riots, not even the protests, just the general concept of Black Lives Matter.

Some businesses have put up signs saying that they support BLM in the hopes of their businesses being spared. And BLM burned them down anyway. So he is right in saying that having a pro-BLM sign up isn't going to guarantee you or businesses saftey.

I'm not even discuss the other stuff. Racist,White Supremacist, Nazi,etc are thrown around way too much to the point that they've lost their meaning.

Tell me how · 06-09-2020 3:52pm

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Some businesses have put up signs saying that they support BLM in the hopes of their businesses being spared. And BLM burned them down anyway. So he is right in saying that having a pro-BLM sign up isn't going to guarantee you or businesses saftey.

I'm not even discuss the other stuff. Racist,White Supremacist, Nazi,etc are thrown around way too much to the point that they've lost their meaning.

Any evidence of this bit in bold?

Also, I know you are well aware of the term racist and how it is appropriate to apply it to someone who holds prejudicial views on particular sectors of society.

06-09-2020 4:11pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you print or link the manifesto you are referring to?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

06-09-2020 4:13pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Any evidence of this bit in bold?

Also, I know you are well aware of the term racist and how it is appropriate to apply it to someone who holds prejudicial views on particular sectors of society.

Your constant and tiresome requests of proof for commonly known aspects of BLM is baffling.

And your definition of racist absolutely and unequivocally can be levelled against BLM.

TheBlackPill · 06-09-2020 4:31pm

LuasSimon wrote: »

Birmingham in England last night had a massive stabbing competition between rival gangs over drug distribution in the club area of Birmingham .
Where are the BLM protestors to see the carry on , one dead and 7 others serious stab wounds .

Bit out of date. Its now a lone knifeman who stabbed people at random. Eyewitness describing in detail. Looks like "mental illness", aka sudden jihad syndrome

RasTa · 06-09-2020 4:50pm

It was in the gay village but don't let that stop you from blaming BLM

Juza1973 · 06-09-2020 5:30pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why?

You might think it's obvious, but I'm missing your point.

BLM would not have had any traction of there was no reason to be unhappy, to prevent riots in the future something has to change. There was a reason why people who took their declared intentions at face value originally suported then

kildare lad · 06-09-2020 5:31pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Any evidence of this bit in bold?

Also, I know you are well aware of the term racist and how it is appropriate to apply it to someone who holds prejudicial views on particular sectors of society.

https://www.businessinsider.com/black-owned-businesses-put-up-signs-to-stop-looting-show-solidarity-2020-6

https://thecounter.org/blm-chicago-black-owned-business-signs-protests-george-floyd/

Seems a bit racist only destroying white business's.

Danzy · 06-09-2020 5:53pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Christ. Are RTE that desperate.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1302518218574135296

I don't understand the Blake thing. People should be celebrating that he is no longer a threat to women in Kenosha.

His own actions led to it.

Carfacemandog · 06-09-2020 6:07pm

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Some businesses have put up signs saying that they support BLM in the hopes of their businesses being spared. And BLM burned them down anyway. So he is right in saying that having a pro-BLM sign up isn't going to guarantee you or businesses saftey.

I'm not even discuss the other stuff. Racist,White Supremacist, Nazi,etc are thrown around way too much to the point that they've lost their meaning.

You've misread what he said. He said if people see a house with a BLM sign on the. "you're free to burn that house down". That is actively encouraging people to burn down houses for having BLM signs, which is very different to saying it won't guarantee them not being burned down.

The Three Percenters don't make much secret about being white supremacists by the way with events organised and headlined by people like Richard 'Heil Trump' Spencer and Tim Gionet/Baked Alaska, so you don't need to try and make that argument for them.

gozunda · 06-09-2020 6:17pm

Carfacemandog wrote: »

You've misread what he said. He said if people see a house with a BLM sign on the. "you're free to burn that house down". That is actively encouraging people to burn down houses for having BLM signs, which is very different to saying it won't guarantee them not being burned down.

The Three Percenters don't make much secret about being white supremacists by the way with events organised and headlined by people like Richard 'Heil Trump' Spencer and Tim Gionet/Baked Alaska, so you don't need to try and make that argument for them.

So pretty much what some blm protestors are doing to businesses even those with blm signs stuck up?

And no that doesn't make either bunch of eejits right.

Violence begets violence. Unfortunately it's ordinary people who end up paying for this type of mindset. Gob****es.

Carfacemandog · 06-09-2020 6:19pm

gozunda wrote: »

So pretty much what some blm protestors are doing to businesses even those with blm signs stuck up?

And no that doesn't make either bunch of eejits right.

Violence begets violence. Unfortunately it's ordinary people who end up paying for this type of mindset. Gob****es.

I never said either were right to burn down businesses or houses, I was pointing out to that poster what the elected politician was saying - to feel free to burn down the houses of anyone with a BLM sign outside of it.

gozunda · 06-09-2020 6:40pm

Burning, looting etc and and has been variously excused by some blm nutters because it is classed as "reparations". One popular promoter of this idea goes as far to suggest that any "ownership" (not slavery) —is “innately, structurally white supremacist".

Can't understand how anyone supports this **** tbh .

Carfacemandog · 06-09-2020 6:45pm

Indeed there are lunatics on either side, but different elected officials saying threatening to murder people and saying to "feel free" to burn down people's homes for having a BLM sign is pretty chilling stuff, and shouldn't be misunderstood as something entirely different as that poster appeared to make the mistake of.

gozunda · 06-09-2020 6:45pm

Carfacemandog wrote: »

I never said either were right to burn down businesses or houses, I was pointing out to that poster what the elected politician was saying - to feel free to burn down the houses of anyone with a BLM sign outside of it.

Because thats the point you've missed. Neither have any right or excuse to attack any ones home or business. Yet oddly blm have been being giving free reign to do so by some.

Tbh I find it strange that you keep highlighting random nutters making threats as opposed to the thousands of people whose place of work and homes which are being attacked on a daily basis.

Carfacemandog · 06-09-2020 7:08pm

gozunda wrote: »

Because thats the point you've missed. Neither have any right or excuse to attack any ones home or business. Yet oddly blm have been being giving free reign to do so by some.

Where did I miss that, given its literally what I said in the post you replied to?

Tbh I find it strange that you keep highlighting random nutters making threats as opposed to the thousands of people whose place of work and homes which are being attacked on a daily basis.

Because when you have elected officials (not 'random nutters' as you are trying to claim) pushing for things like murdering people and burning down houses based on a sign outside it, its asking for a hell of a lot more trouble than there already is. Do you share the same level of offense for examples of violence from rioters given throughout the thread?

Tell me how · 06-09-2020 7:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Your constant and tiresome requests of proof for commonly known aspects of BLM is baffling.

WTF are commonly known aspects of BLM? And known by whom?

What we've had on this thread is someone wanting to stop talk of the percentage of people involved in looting because the statistics categorically indicate that it is a fraction of a percentage of all those protesting.

We have another poster who yesterday was shown again, the vast majority of protests are peaceful and their response was that the media are not covering this accurately.

Today we had a poster say that they think that the fact that Jacob Blake was a criminal, that his killing was justified. That is straight up advocating for vigilantism.

This thread is populated by a significant number who think that police activities which would be unacceptable irrespective of the colour of the person subjected to it, and are proven to happen dis-proportionally more frequently to people who are black, are acceptable and that there is either no need to change, or that protests asking for change are unacceptable.

I am going to continue to ask for proof to show how weak the position is in denouncing those calling for meaningful action.

Tell me how · 06-09-2020 7:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

I don't see an issue with those beliefs.

Which ones do you have a problem with?

Given this statement on the same site,

We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.

We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.

Do you still think the BLM is racist?

Tell me how · 06-09-2020 7:41pm

gozunda wrote: »

Burning, looting etc and and has been variously excused by some blm nutters because it is classed as "reparations". One popular promoter of this idea goes as far to suggest that any "ownership" (not slavery) —is “innately, structurally white supremacist".

Can't understand how anyone supports this **** tbh .

Nobody here is supporting this, as you know.

The person advocating that was a single person within the movement. Does that make it an organisation core belief? It's not listed on their site as one of 'their beliefs' as another poster linked to.

You were shown yesterday that the vast majority of protests have no such activity so you should probably stop misrepresenting what is going on.

gozunda · 06-09-2020 7:44pm

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Where did I miss that, given its literally what I said in the post you replied to?
Because when you have elected officials (not 'random nutters' as you are trying to claim) pushing for things like murdering people and burning down houses based on a sign outside it, its asking for a hell of a lot more trouble than there already is. Do you share the same level of offense for examples of violence from rioters given throughout the thread?

Nope. No mention of the ongoing rioting, burning at all in the comment I first replied to afaik. Hence my point.

What I get from your comments is that you've picked 2 random nutters (politicians or anyone and random as in social media randomer) posting crap like that But the point is - no Its not a competition. What good does it do to copy and paste images of what these nutters post on social media? Do something useful - report not repeat it. And no I don't get why you think anyone would take "offense" btw - that makes no sense either.

Who the fek wouldn't in their right mind wouldn’t abhor this type of ****e no matter where it comes from?

Tell me how · 06-09-2020 7:48pm

kildare lad wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/black-owned-businesses-put-up-signs-to-stop-looting-show-solidarity-2020-6

https://thecounter.org/blm-chicago-black-owned-business-signs-protests-george-floyd/

Seems a bit racist only destroying white business's.

From the article

But Barber says the signs are mostly meant to convey solidarity. "I think, more than anything, it gives people pride, unifying them in something they can stand for," Barber said.

I supposed you think every such sign is only their to prevent looting.

We had several instances on this thread of non-white people having their property impacted. So, which is it, even such property is being targeted or only white properties are being targeted.

Once again, you have tired to present an argument without being burdened by what is actually happening.

Tell me how · 06-09-2020 7:49pm

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. No mention of the ongoing rioting, burning at all in the comment I first replied to afaik. Hence my point.

What I get from your comments is that you've picked 2 random nutters (politicians or anyone and random as in social media randomer) posting crap like that But the point is - no Its not a competition. What good does it do to copy and paste images of what these nutters post on social media? Do something useful - report not repeat it. And no I don't get why you think anyone would take "offense" btw - that makes no sense either.

Who the fuk wouldn't in their right mind wouldn’t abhor this type of ****e no matter where it comes from?

And meanwhile, a single BLM organizer's words are taken to represent the whole organisation.

Pick a lane.

gozunda · 06-09-2020 8:02pm

T

Tell me how wrote: »

WTF are commonly known aspects of BLM? And known by whom?

What we've had on this thread is someone wanting to stop talk of the percentage of people involved in looting because the statistics categorically indicate that it is a fraction of a percentage of all those protesting.

We have another poster who yesterday was shown again, the vast majority of protests are peaceful and their response was that the media are not covering this accurately.

Today we had a poster say that they think that the fact that Jacob Blake was a criminal, that his killing was justified. That is straight up advocating for vigilantism.

This thread is populated by a significant number who think that police activities which would be unacceptable irrespective of the colour of the person subjected to it, and are proven to happen dis-proportionally more frequently to people who are black, are acceptable and that there is either no need to change, or that protests asking for change are unacceptable.

I am going to continue to ask for proof to show how weak the position is in denouncing those calling for meaningful action.

The statistics you tried to claim that hardly anyone was rioting were busted by another poster.

It was shown how that the tweet you posted making the claim about most protests not being violent does not stand up to scrutiny.

As for the a large section of mainstream media not reporting accurately- that was also shown to be happening. Your denial of that fact is irrelevant.

And finally you are now just making this ****e up. You do know that Jacob Blake was not killed yes? And that the poster believed the policeman shot him whilst trying to detain him as part of his job yes?

And I see you're off again with imagining what you believe others think and making up complete and utter horsemanure again

Its like you haven't read a single post anyone has posted in reply or are just having a laugh. Its hard to tell tbh.

Tipperary animal lover · 06-09-2020 8:05pm

https://twitter.com/i/status/1302646088873046016

gozunda · 06-09-2020 8:06pm

Tell me how wrote: »

And meanwhile, a single BLM organizer's words are taken to represent the whole organisation.

Pick a lane.

Have they? Where?

Making rubbish up again Tmh? Well done :pac:

Tell me how · 06-09-2020 8:13pm

gozunda wrote: »

The statistics you tried to claim that hardly anyone was rioting was busted by another poster.

Link please

gozunda wrote: »

It was shown how that the tweet you posted making that claim about most protests not being violent does not stand up to scrutiny.

It absolutely stands up, to anyone not trying to engage in hypotheticals of 'well, they said this, but why didn't they say that' argument.

Feel free to link an equally comprehensive report which counters the one offered or just accept it is accurate.

gozunda wrote: »

As for the a large section of mainstream media not reporting accurately- that was also shown to be happening. Your denial of that fact is irrelevant.

Can we get a link other than you just stating something repeatedly.

gozunda wrote: »

And I see you're off again with imagining what you believe others think and making up complete and utter horsemanure again

Link again please or just admit that you see anyone as showing your argument to be empty, is making stuff up.

Tell me how · 06-09-2020 8:15pm

gozunda wrote: »

Have they? Where?

Making rubbish up again Tmh? Well done :pac:

And the associated conversations around these posts

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.

Harry lyme wrote: »

More deflection from you.

The head of BLM in Chicago (3rd biggest city in USA) is spouting the reparations line, it is not 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.

gozunda · 06-09-2020 8:57pm

Lol. Your reply is not to show - what you said is true - but instead to ask for links? I remember you being asked for a link to one of your previous flights of imagination and you gave a link to the entire thread. :pac: So ...

Tell me how wrote: »

Link please

In thread. DIY.

Tell me how wrote: »

It absolutely stands up, to anyone not trying to engage in hypotheticals of 'well, they said this, but why didn't they say that' argument.

Oh no it doesn't. See thread for details

Tell me how wrote: »

Feel free to link an equally comprehensive report which counters the one offered or just accept it is accurate.

Why so? I'm not posting tweets which do not stand up to scrutiny.

Tell me how wrote: »

Can we get a link other than you just stating something repeatedly.

Nope. Many posters have posted on that topic. Too many to list tbh. Take your pick

Tell me how wrote: »

Link again please or just admit that you see anyone as showing your argument to be empty, is making stuff up.

Here's an abstract - will that do?

Tell me how wrote:

This thread is populated by a significant number who think that police.... yada yada yada

BTW you left out the bit about about Jacob Blake being "killed". I would love if you could tell us more....

Carfacemandog · 06-09-2020 9:18pm

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. No mention of the ongoing rioting, burning at all in the comment I first replied to afaik. Hence my point.

What I get from your comments is that you've picked 2 random nutters (politicians or anyone and random as in social media randomer) posting crap like that But the point is - no Its not a competition. What good does it do to copy and paste images of what these nutters post on social media? Do something useful - report not repeat it. And no I don't get why you think anyone would take "offense" btw - that makes no sense either.

Who the fuk wouldn't in their right mind wouldn’t abhor this type of ****e no matter where it comes from?

Do all your comments on rioting, looting or violence among these people also discuss the violence from the other end of the spectrum on this issue? I mean if that is the standard you want, that any post referring to problems on one side must also discuss problems on the other, I would hope you are at least consistent about it.

And the reason I ask if you take offense is because you very clearly are quite defensive about me posting these calls to violence from elected officials as shown by your defensive posts on the matter. No matter how hard you want to claim elected officials - people voted in to represent their constituencies - are 'random nutters', they are not. It seems peculiar because don't recall you taking similar offense to examples of actual 'random nutters' on the other side which have been posted throughout the thread promoting or engaged in violence. I have been dipping in and out though, so feel free to point me to some examples if you have.

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

Comments