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

Nermal

Foxtrol wrote: »

Not surprised that I'm still waiting for someone to admit that they were totally fooled that there was some mass protest outside the hospital with chants about the police dying.

The tweet from the police didn't use the words 'mass' or 'chant'.

Justin Credible Darts

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

Exactly where did i align myself with white supremacy? Also foxtrol what i want to say to you isn't anything racist, i find you and ign#orant p#ick, typical american dumb f#ck, I'll be banned for this but to call we racist and a white supremacist now i see you for what you are, typical sjw that will not engage in debate but through out all the nonsense hyperbole that is you, I'm married to a person of colour, I'm f#cking livid here for you to accuse me of been racist and a white supremacist

you wont be the first on here to be personally insulted and then get banned for defending yourself.


I too am in a mixed race marriage and was subjected to the same "pro trump" and "anti black" nonsense in other threads for daring to question blm

As soon as they are defeated with facts, out comes the agendas and insults

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

Countless media outlets and online sources.
Not Fox news.

There have been thousands of protests, have you read media reports for each of them? More likely you just looked at the ones with violence that the media pushed for clicks and views.

It is understandable human nature but utterly stupid to be fooled by it.

nj27 wrote: »

Strawmen for thee but not for me.

Fair, though it was meant as a joke.

However, I was pretty close though as you can see above. :rolleyes:

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

That mute button clearly isn't working too well... :rolleyes:

I never called you racist or a white supremacist.

You posted this:

You clearly admit to being fully aware that your views align with people that believe in white supremacy, they just not 'the majority'.

You are quite good at calling names though. Apparently I'm a bootlicker with no balls because I believe that everyone, including black people and cops, should obey the law.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Usual boot licking here

Foxtrol wrote: »

as many with your mindset don't have the balls to go full WLM.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

There have been thousands of protests, have you read media reports for each of them? More likely you just looked at the ones with violence that the media pushed for clicks and views.

If the vast majority of protests are peaceful, are the vast majority of cops fair in their interractions with black people?

Tipperary animal lover

Foxtrol wrote: »

That mute button clearly isn't working too well... :rolleyes:

I never called you racist or a white supremacist.

You posted this:



You clearly admit to being fully aware that your views align with people that believe in white supremacy, they just not 'the majority'.

Twist away foxtrol, i can read between the lines .... don't align my views in anyway, reading the forum here as i said the majority of people dont agree with any of this sh#te, i can't say everyone as that would make me a mind reader, but twist it to your narrative,

Foxtrol

Nermal wrote: »

The tweet from the police didn't use the words 'mass' or 'chant'.

It also didn't say it was 4 idiots and one person shouted it. Their other tweet however has been shown to be full of lies.

They knew exactly what they were doing and so many of the usual suspects fell for it

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

There have been thousands of protests, have you read media reports for each of them? More likely you just looked at the ones with violence that the media pushed for clicks and views.

It is understandable human nature but utterly stupid to be fooled by it.



Fair, though it was meant as a joke.

However, I was pretty close though as you can see above. :rolleyes:

All we need is to see the violent protests and the calls for violence from BLM leaders to correctly label BLM a violent movement.
Any peaceful protests aligned with BLM are tarnished by the scumbags involved in violence in other BLM protests.

You make a lot of assumptions about how people are consuming information, like you have an idea of what the "enemy" is and everyone who disagrees with you must then engage in every behaviour you assume they would.

mynamejeff

Foxtrol wrote: »

It also didn't say it was 4 idiots and one person shouted it. Their other tweet however has been shown to be full of lies.

They knew exactly what they were doing and so many of the usual suspects fell for it

but it did happen didn't it ? or are you disputing that

Foxtrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are quite good at calling names though. Apparently I'm a bootlicker with no balls because I believe that everyone, including black people and cops, should obey the law.

You and I is that we both believe people should obey the law, I however believe the police don't have the right to choke/shoot/beat people that don't and when they do wrong they should be punished not excused.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

You and I is that we both believe people should obey the law, I however believe the police don't have the right to choke/shoot/beat people that don't and when they do wrong they should be punished not excused.

I don't believe I've witnessed anyone here excusing police brutality when it happens.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

I don't believe I've witnessed anyone here excusing police brutality when it happens.

You need to open your eyes then.

gozunda

Foxtrol wrote: »

Research sates that 93% of protests have been peaceful and that is despite police repeatedly caught on camera escalating situations and causing violence.

Unlike what you've made clear from your post, I'm actually against all violence, be it shooting of police or kneeling on necks

Incorrect.

That 'fact'* already been busted in this thread btw.

*The wording taken directly from the actual report details that:

"more than 93% of events" involve non-violent demonstators

Read as it is written - it suggests that in at least 93% of events / protests - at least some protestors were engaging in violence and that just 7% of all protests which were peaceful.

Leaving aside the inaccurate headlines and looking at the study methodology - it is evident that it is a stand alone study with the data on violence being gathered solely from news reports.

It has been shown that many of the main media sources are frequently not reporting on many of the blm protests and riots

However it would appear that real-time reports and video footage coming from independent reporters and members of the public are not included in the study.

It is a fact that the all too frequent violence of blm protests are online for all to see. Is it that you prefer we all close our eyes and blame the police too? Im afraid that doesn't wash...

Justin Credible Darts

amazes me the whiners who complain how terrible things are and they must protest., and these so called abuse of human rights etc.

Try that sh1t in saudi arabia, or iran or russia or china, and see how you get on.
Never ceases to amaze me all these pc people who demand equality , womens right etc, go very quiet when it comes to arabs treating women like dirt, underage marriage , and their fanaticism.

Then contradiction is something we have come to expect from these people

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

You need to open your eyes then.

I would contend that you should be the one opening their eyes. All you ever seem to see is racism everywhere, particularly when it's really nowhere to be seen.

Overheal

I don’t live in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, nor China. Nor do I support their human rights abuses. So I fail to see the objective in bringing them up.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

All we need is to see the violent protests and the calls for violence from BLM leaders to correctly label BLM a violent movement.
Any peaceful protests aligned with BLM are tarnished by the scumbags involved in violence in other BLM protests.

You make a lot of assumptions about how people are consuming information, like you have an idea of what the "enemy" is and everyone who disagrees with you must then engage in every behaviour you assume they would.

Well given how frequently people post from right wing videos it is hard to ignore the trend.

That is your right to have that opinion but using that logic many groups would be deemed 'violent movements', from anti-apartheid to civil rights to MAGA.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

You and I is that we both believe people should obey the law, I however believe the police don't have the right to choke/shoot/beat people that don't and when they do wrong they should be punished not excused.

What about if someone assaults a cop or resists arrest? Are the cops entitled to use force at any stage?

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

That has to be the most preposterous attempt to win an argument I've witnessed here in some time. You are literally twisting this person's words to suit your agenda, shame on you.

What did the poster mean then?

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well given how frequently people post from right wing videos it is hard to ignore the trend.

That is your right to have that opinion but using that logic many groups would be deemed 'violent movements', from anti-apartheid to civil rights to MAGA.

Anything you disagree with seems to be "right wing".

The notion that BLM is equivalent to the Civil rights movement has already been addressed on this thread. As for the anti apartheid movement, that's yet another false equivalence. You can have MAGA if you like, I've never professed to support Trump or his followers.

Foxtrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

What about if someone assaults a cop or resists arrest? Are the cops entitled to use force at any stage?

Of course, that is the difference between legitimate use of force and police brutality.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

What did the poster mean then?

They used the word "majority" which was the word you exploited to mean that there was an element of support for white supremacy here, which of course is utter nonsense.

gozunda

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well given how frequently people post from right wing videos it is hard to ignore the trend.

That is your right to have that opinion but using that logic many groups would be deemed 'violent movements', from anti-apartheid to civil rights to MAGA.

You have to be having a laugh. So you believe most real-time footage of violent blm protests or those videos showing blm activists harrassing and intimidating others are 'right wing videos" lol.

Do you think this a 'right wing video' as well ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8LAaff8cQ

And before you start blaming Maga or the police or whoever - there's plenty more of the same online.

nullzero

BattleCorp wrote: »

What about if someone assaults a cop or resists arrest? Are the cops entitled to use force at any stage?

The prevailing logic would suggest that the cop should desist from carrying out their duties and instead pay reparations to the criminal if they aren't white.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

Anything you disagree with seems to be "right wing".

What do you call Ben Shapiro, Candice Owens, Andy Ngo?

The notion that BLM is equivalent to the Civil rights movement has already been addressed on this thread. As for the anti apartheid movement, that's yet another false equivalence. You can have MAGA if you like, I've never professed to support Trump or his followers.

I was there when the Civil Rights movement was discussed in this thread, the last time a guy lost his mind when I quoted MLK's own words to him. WLM/ALM posters repeatedly have shown they have no idea what happened during the Civil Rights movement.

Actually a good short video was put out yesterday, showing how that the right are using the exact same tactics today against BLM as they did against the Civil Rights movement, calling them the exact same names

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1305250193194049539?s=20

CarProblem

So some people are comfortable with 7% of protests/protesters being violent but advocate protest against police who shoot less that 0.01% of suspects arrested

Confusing

https /twitter.com/LeonydusJohnson/status/1300072478262394882

I can't post links so remove the space between the https & :

Foxtrol

gozunda wrote: »

You have to be having a laugh. So you believe most real-time footage of violent blm protests or those videos showing blm activists harrassing and intimidating others are 'right wing videos" lol.

Do you think this a 'right wing video' as well ?

And before you start blaming Maga or the police or whoever - there's plenty more of the same online.

Not at all.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

They used the word "majority" which was the word you exploited to mean that there was an element of support for white supremacy here, which of course is utter nonsense.

Why use the term 'majority' then? It was a refreshingly honest statement.

Outlaw Pete

TheFactMan wrote: »

Thats absolutely disgusting, its no wonder people are turning there backs on this "Peaceful" movement...

They would have turned their backs on them years ago if it wasn't for their enabler-in-chief, Barack Obama, and maybe the 8 police officers that were murdered by those BLM influenced would be alive today.

The left love to moan about how President Trump (after condemning Neo-Nazis and white supremacy) said there were also fine people on both sides of the protest in Charlottesville, but yet somehow it was okay For Obama to go to the memorial of those dead police officers and whine about racism against blacks and ask those there (including the families of the dead officers) to not dismiss the protesters as a result of what happened. Sure sounds to me like he was suggesting that the people he was referencing were fine people, just as Trump did a year later. Only difference being that President Trump made his remarks in an appropriate setting, not a memorial service.

The vast majority of the violent protesters we see are under 30 and so that means they were all mostly in the education system to one degree or another during the Obama years. Well is it any wonder then that so many seem so brainwashed and are so willing to believe the BLM rhetoric when their President at the time was on TV endorsing it. I'd suggest not. In my view the man is very much culpable for the current state of affairs and worldwide to some degree also as this mindset is not something which is confined to the United States. The misinformation he endorsed has been far reaching.

An article from the time calls it perfectly:

Obama just couldn't help himself in Dallas speech

As President Barack Obama delivered remarks at the memorial service for our fallen officers, I had hoped he would limit himself to the two good themes he had visited upon learning of the Dallas massacre: the singular evil of the shooter and the need to appreciate the daily sacrifice of all police officers.

Actually, we needed only the second of those two. The memorial service was not a place to wax at length about the twisted figure who had caused our pain. George W. Bush struck the theme perfectly, praising our police, comforting the families and our community, and then wrapping it up.

President Obama, for his part, beautifully praised our fallen heroes and struck inspiring themes of appreciation for police that were precisely what was needed at the event. But then he just could not restrain himself.

I wondered how long it would take for him to defend the Black Lives Matter corner of his core constituency that has come under proper fire for its viciously broad slander of police culture. Elapsed time was about fifteen minutes from praise for our fallen officers to a further coddling of those who took to our streets to malign their brothers and sisters in uniform. Aiming straight at those of us who have suggested a civil perusal of racial disparity is actually harmed by BLM's excesses, his scolding was firm: "We cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid," he instructed.

Oh, yes, we can, when that's what they are. America fully supports thoughtful, fact-based examinations of controversial shootings, for evidence of malfeasance, racial or otherwise. Black Lives Matter has no interest in such a constructive exercise. They have reached their conclusions, and they will not be swayed.

Yet the President's defense of them continued, before a crowd gathered to mourn those lost to the BLM-inspired murder: "We can't simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts. Surely we can see that, all of us."

This is guilt-mongering of a particularly craven order, yet another straw man from the president's inexhaustible collection. What an insult to be told that objections to the hateful rhetorical excesses of Black Lives Matter is somehow a sucker-punch to our black friends. No one should be "hurt" by this criticism except those partaking in the broad smearing of the police profession.

As the president explored a list of his perceived societal ills, it struck me that he is entitled to every point he made, but was this the place? Did grieving families and friends need to endure long paragraphs of analysis about his favored beliefs on race and justice? Wasn't this an occasion best used to share words of praise for those we lost and comfort for those left behind?

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

What do you call Ben Shapiro, Candice Owens, Andy Ngo?



I was there when the Civil Rights movement was discussed in this thread, the last time a guy lost his mind when I quoted MLK's own words to him. WLM/ALM posters repeatedly have shown they have no idea what happened during the Civil Rights movement.

Actually a good short video was put out yesterday, showing how that the right are using the exact same tactics today against BLM as they did against the Civil Rights movement, calling them the exact same names

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1305250193194049539?s=20

Ben Shapiro? Jewish American.

Candice Owens? African American.

Andy Ngo? Asian American.


As for your video, it neatly side steps the racism of Democratic party members at the time of the Civil Rights Movement and paints racism as a purely Republican issue. Yet again the media we consume is relevant to the opinions we form and vice versa.