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

Junkyard Tom

CarProblem wrote: »

if I commit more crimes than you I'm more likely to be arrested, shot etc

Fuck me, it's all so simple in that cowboys-and-injuns world isn't it? You think the war on drugs doesn't have a class/racial element? If you can't apply one iota of critical reasoning to how we essentially get the criminals we want, as it were, then there really is no point in this discussion.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Ehrlichman [Nixon Aide]

Out of interest, do you really think the US spends billions of USD messing around in South America, training death squads, toppling governments and installing goons because it cares about drug addicts?

Honestly, grow up, the world isn't the goodies-v-baddies fairy tale you seem to have bought into.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But shur like, BLM hasn't been declared a terrorist organisation yet, so they won't be arrested under that jurisdiction..

Interestingly according to at least one report - while the US State Department has a list of foreign terror organisations, the government does not legally denominate specific domestic terror groups and no federal criminal offense exists which is referred to as "domestic terrorism".

"Domestic terrorism" simply seems to be a catchall for terrorist type events which happen within the United States.

TheFactMan

Tell me how wrote: »

It was another event in a long line of disparate treatment towards people of colour by the police resulting in their death.

You think because they weren't wearing hoods and shouting the N word that it can't then have been influenced by systemic negative views towards one sector of society?

So if a black person breaks the law and gets killed by police , it's automatically racial no proof required ?

Ridiculous position to hold.

There is nothing to indicate nor any proof to show GF death was racially motivated or anything of the sort...

Are we that far gone now that we don't even need the truth or proof?

Seems most blm followers I see on here seem to just make up there own version of the truth and run with that.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Except they aren't doing that. In any sort of demonstrative way. As you know.

No - no one being terrorised in "any sort of demonstrative way" As we know ...

Nothing at all to see. Please move along now ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8QESv_t2Lk

gozunda

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Fuck me, it's all so simple in that cowboys-and-injuns world isn't it? You think the war on drugs doesn't have a class/racial element? If you can't apply one iota of critical reasoning to how we essentially get the criminals we want, as it were, then there really is no point in this discussion.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Ehrlichman [Nixon Aide]

Out of interest, do you really think the US spends billions of USD messing around in South America, training death squads, toppling governments and installing goons because it cares about drug addicts?

Honestly, grow up, the world isn't the goodies-v-baddies fairy tale you seem to have bought into.

As was pointed out earlier - criminalty is "not just" drugs ...

But yeah you're correct - blm isn't simply the goodies-v-baddies fairy tale some would make it out to be ...

nullzero

This BLM "movement" (more like a bowel movement) has been proven to be headed by racists who are openly calling for violence days ago and yet we still have people toiling under the misconception that it is actually a wonderfully virtuous movement.

Obviously facts and evidence mean nothing to some people.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

No - no one being terrorised in "any sort of demonstrative way" As we know ...

Nothing at all to see. Please move along now ..

Do you want to talk about percentages again, or, let me guess, you want to ignore the fact that so few protesters or protests contain any element of violence and these marches are planned and publicised in advance and monitored and attended by police forces.

You probably also don't want to talk about the BLM protests which have little to no police in attendance because they are entirely peaceful and which are continuing to happen.

Laughable the extremes people are going to to ignore the reality that the FBI director is pointing out.

CarProblem

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Fuck me, it's all so simple in that cowboys-and-injuns world isn't it?

Junkyard Tom, maybe one day you'll actually read all of what I posted

It is that simple on why crime rates need to be taken into account when assessing rates of police killings per capita (by race)

- the police kill more white people than black, but for a fairer comparison we need to account for other factors (rates per capita by race)
- black people commit more crimes per capita than white people but for a fairer comparison we need to consider other factors (socio economci factors)

Yet when looking at police shootings per capita it would be "manipulative" to consider other factors (correct for crime rates)

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You think the war on drugs doesn't have a class/racial element? If you can't apply one iota of critical reasoning to how we essentially get the criminals we want, as it were, then there really is no point in this discussion.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Ehrlichman [Nixon Aide]

Out of interest, do you really think the US spends billions of USD messing around in South America, training death squads, toppling governments and installing goons because it cares about drug addicts?

Honestly, grow up, the world isn't the goodies-v-baddies fairy tale you seem to have bought into.

I genuinely have no idea what that rant has to do with me or what I wrote

On the off chance you're not:
- simple
- illiterate
- so wedded to your "side" you might actually consider what someone wrote in full

I'll post this again

Why do black people commit more crimes? Typically, throughout time and in all countries propensity to commit crime is related to factors such as

- socio economic factors
- rates of unemployment, deprivation etc
- rates of early school leaving etc

If you corrected for these factors I'd be very surprised to see a disparity by race - i.e. I do not believe black people have some "racial commitment" to crime.

- Do I think black people in America are discriminated against? Yes
- Do I think black people in America have numerous things to be aggrieved about? Yes
- Do I think black people in America should be protesting? Yes
- Do I think black people in America should be protesting about police shootings? No - unless it is a cross community effort arguing that police kill too many people regardless of race

People need to cop on with this identity politics nonsense. **** me - so many people latch onto trendy social media hashtags and stick to them no matter what. Doubling down when shown to be wrong because the narrative is still trendy

The irony is politicians love this crap. To solve the real issues would be hard (possibly impossible in our life times) and anything initiated today would take time (possibly generations) to bear fruit. Instead they can announce they're doing something, however all it will be is quick fixes to appease the mob that will achieve nothing and in 30 years time we'll all still be on this thread arguing over why nothing has changed

You should note (but you probably won't) - nowhere do I say the issues above are simple

CarProblem

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you want to talk about percentages again, or, let me guess, you want to ignore the fact that so few protesters or protests contain any element of violence

I've asked before and got no answer so can some one explain the following logic:

- 7% of protesters not being peaceful: fine
- 0.01% of arrests leading to someone being killed: not fine
- 0.0007% of arrests leading to an unarmed person being killed by police: not fine

If we're discussing percentages that is. Or let me guess, you want to ignore those percentages compared to the 7% we shouldn't worry about

Tell me how

CarProblem wrote: »

I've asked before and got no answer so can some one explain the following logic:

- 7% of protesters not being peaceful: fine
- 0.01% of arrests leading to someone being killed: not fine
- 0.0007% of arrests leading to an unarmed person being killed by police: not fine

If we're discussing percentages that is. Or let me guess, you want to ignore those percentages compared to the 7% we shouldn't worry about

Can you give evidence as to where the 7% came from please.
Be commonly accepted figures, 20M people have protested this summer. 7% of this is 1.4M. Does the amount of damage which has been done seem like 1.4M people (versus a national police force of approx 680K) have been acting violently?
It is also 140 times greater than the number of people who have been arrested at protests over the course of the summer.


In relation to the other two percentage points.
The police are an arm of officialdom which is funded through public taxes and is charged specifically with keeping people, all people, safe.
If there is any instance in which their views or practices are pre-emptively or excessively resulting in the deaths of civilians that should be considered as to whether it is acceptable or not and if not, then action should be identified so as to greatly reduce the chances of it happening in future.

Or, do you think that there shouldn't be such consideration and what would you think of the probability that for every instance which results in a death, there is probably hundreds, if not thousands more the contain some element of violence but no death, or no shooting, but is still excessive prejudicial treatment.

Junkyard Tom

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you give evidence as to where the 7% came from please.

He seems to trying to draw some sort of equivalence between property damage and stone-throwing with death-by-cop too which just really isn't worth responding to.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you want to talk about percentages again, or, let me guess, you want to ignore the fact that so few protesters or protests contain any element of violence and these marches are planned and publicised in advance and monitored and attended by police forces. You probably also don't want to talk about the BLM protests which have little to no police in attendance because they are entirely peaceful and which are continuing to happen.Laughable the extremes people are going to to ignore the reality that the FBI director is pointing out.

Btw You're the one claiming there's nothing to see or talk about lol. Thats evidently not the case thanks due to mainly independent reports.

Btw were those the "statistics" you used which were shown to bunkum?

But yes please - let's ignore the myriad incidents of harassment, intimidation and violence which have been a significant feature of the blm protests.

What the FBI director is 'pointing out' is certainly not what that tweet claims. What he does detail is a look back at domestic terrorism incidents previous years . Somehow can't see that been the case from here on in tbh. Laughable? No.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He seems to trying to draw some sort of equivalence between property damage and stone-throwing with death-by-cop too which just really isn't worth responding to.

Just for perspective, this is the cost of the riots... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8740609/Rioting-140-cities-George-Floyds-death-cost-insurance-industry-2-BILLION.html

And the numbers of arrests and deaths from resulting from BLM pros this year are as follows...

"As of June 22, 2020, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began, with most arrests being locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfews or blocking roadways. As of June 8, 2020, at least 19 people have died during the protests."

But yeah, it's all the fault of police and their vendetta against anyone with black skin, even the scores of black police officers. This whole narrative is poisonous.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

This whole narrative is poisonous.

And you'd have to be either wilfully blind or a bit thick to be still arguing it..

TheFactMan

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you want to talk about percentages again, or, let me guess, you want to ignore the fact that so few protesters or protests contain any element of violence and these marches are planned and publicised in advance and monitored and attended by police forces.

You probably also don't want to talk about the BLM protests which have little to no police in attendance because they are entirely peaceful and which are continuing to happen.

Laughable the extremes people are going to to ignore the reality that the FBI director is pointing out.

The vast majority of police are good and don't kill people but you and blm are only too happy to brand them all as bad, but when it comes to blm you happily class the few as acceptable.

Slightly hypocritical don't ya think ?

Why don't you apply the same reasonable logic to the police force ?

DangerScouse

The Democrats have been carefully attempting to distance themselves from their support for BLM these last two weeks or so.

They made a fatal error to support it in the first place. Middle America won't be forgetting that come election day.

Silentcorner

DangerScouse wrote: »

The Democrats have been carefully attempting to distance themselves from their support for BLM these last two weeks or so.

They made a fatal error to support it in the first place. Middle America won't be forgetting that come election day.

There has clearly been a shift in the behaviour of the Democrats since their DNC...their internal polling must have spooked them....they need to hold the black vote, if they don't they are doomed.

gozunda

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He seems to trying to draw some sort of equivalence between property damage and stone-throwing with death-by-cop too which just really isn't worth responding to.

Don't think so....

The 7% seems to comes from media reports of a study looking at Blm protests and violence. Various headlines incorrectly claimed that the study detailed that the majority of all protests were peaceful.

But yeah your stone throwing is a false dilemma. It's without question that lives are more important than property and stones. But that in no way justifies the destruction of the property of someone else or stoning anyone.

No-ones life was saved because a car dealership got torched. No lives were saved because some scumbags used stones as missiles...

Tell me how

TheFactMan wrote: »

The vast majority of police are good and don't kill people but you and blm are only too happy to brand them all as bad, but when it comes to blm you happily class the few as acceptable.

Slightly hypocritical don't ya think ?

Why don't you apply the same reasonable logic to the police force ?

Why dont you tell us what you think my view of police forces is and what action should be taken to see how close you are. Then I'll respond to this deflection.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Don't think so....

The 7% seems to comes from media reports of a study looking at Blm protests and violence. Various headlines incorrectly claimed that the study detailed that the majority of all protests were peaceful.

But yeah your stone throwing is a false dilemma. It's without question that lives are more important than property and stones. But that in no way justifies the destruction of the property of someone else or stoning anyone.

No-ones life was saved because a car dealership got torched. No lives were saved because some scumbags used stones as missiles...

So, the figure is that 7% of protests are violence, (let's leave aside the fact that that doesn't imply that such a percentage of all posters are engaging in such activities) why then do you still claim the majority of protests aren't peaceful? Is 93% no longer a greater number than 7%?

TheFactMan

Tell me how wrote: »

Why dont you tell us what you think my view of police forces is and what action should be taken to see how close you are. Then I'll respond to this deflection.

How can I be deflecting you haven't asked me anything ?

You ve posted thru out the thread as aligned with blm who are very anti police , you also have posted alot of negative about the police aswell...

Why are you all of a sudden pretending to be completely rational and fair to the police when you blatantly haven't been ?

You then accuse others of deflection...

Again it's all slightly hypocritical your arguement isnt very balanced and has gaping holes in it.

Your most recent one for example when you implied gf killing was racially motivated by the police without any proof or reasoning at all only that it was!

The selective amnesia doesn't really work when people can just go back a couple of pages...

Junkyard Tom

gozunda wrote: »

The 7% seems to comes from media reports of a study looking at Blm protests and violence. Various headlines incorrectly claimed that the study detailed that the majority of all protests were peaceful.

If we take that 7% as a truth (how you designate a couple of hundred rioters remaining after several thousand peaceful marchers go home as not a peaceful protest is another matter but let's park that) then it leaves 93% as peaceful.

How is 93% of protests being peaceful not a majority? Have you been smoking something? Also, if we go by the hard numbers then it's a tiny fraction of 1% of BLM protesters are causing damage, no?

If one twat in a crowd of ten thousand people throws a stone then does that protest become a riot? If we applied that dumb-logic to the police then does one cop killing a black guy make every cop accessory to murder?

You lads are a hoot.

TheFactMan

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If we take that 7% as a truth (how you designate a couple of hundred rioters remaining after several thousand peaceful marchers go home as not a peaceful protest is another matter but let's park that) then it leaves 93% as peaceful.

How is 93% of protests being peaceful not a majority? Have you been smoking something? Also, if we go by the hard numbers then it's a tiny fraction of 1% of BLM protesters are causing damage, no?

If one twat in a crowd of ten thousand people throws a stone then does that protest become a riot? If we applied that dumb-logic to the police then does one cop killing a black guy make every cop accessory to murder?

You lads are a hoot.

Errr I hate to break it to ya... But you know that blm, believes the few cops that have killed black people rightly or wrongly = whole force is bad.

Defund the police and all that stuff remember.?

You know what you ve been going to bat for all along ? Lol

Incredible stuff !

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If we take that 7% as a truth (how you designate a couple of hundred rioters remaining after several thousand peaceful marchers go home as not a peaceful protest is another matter but let's park that) then it leaves 93% as peaceful.

How is 93% of protests being peaceful not a majority? Have you been smoking something? Also, if we go by the hard numbers then it's a tiny fraction of 1% of BLM protesters are causing damage, no?

If one twat in a crowd of ten thousand people throws a stone then does that protest become a riot? If we applied that dumb-logic to the police then does one cop killing a black guy make every cop accessory to murder?

You lads are a hoot.

You're forgetting the weight on the numbers involved here. 14000 arrests since June isn't a small number. Sadly the people involving themselves in this behaviour are large enough in numbers to sully the movement.

mynamejeff

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If one twat in a crowd of ten thousand people throws a stone then does that protest become a riot? If we applied that dumb-logic to the police then does one cop killing a black guy make every cop accessory to murder?

You lads are a hoot.

yes that is often how a riot starts

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

You're forgetting the weight on the numbers involved here. 14000 arrests since June isn't a small number. Sadly the people involving themselves in this behaviour are large enough in numbers to sully the movement.

It's less than 0.05% of all who have protested.
Or 1 in 2000 who have protested.
Seems pretty small to me.

Imagine..2 million people protesting..the winds of change at your back..and you turn around and riot for three months and make an arse of it..

mynamejeff

Tell me how wrote: »

It's less than 0.05% of all who have protested.
Or 1 in 2000 who have protested.
Seems pretty small to me.

that must be comforting to the dead and injured ,
and the owners of the businesses looted and burned

Danzy

Tell me how wrote: »

It was another event in a long line of disparate treatment towards people of colour by the police resulting in their death.

You think because they weren't wearing hoods and shouting the N word that it can't then have been influenced by systemic negative views towards one sector of society?

ðŸ˜

Justin Credible Darts

As someone who is white...not because it was my choice or had any say in the matter, I most certainly believe my white life matters.
So yes white lives matter...it sure as fu(k matters to me. All lives matter, why just black ?
Is it racist to say Arab lives matter
How about Inuit lives matter ?


And anyone who decides to tell me this horsesh1t about white privilege, lets get some truth out there.
I have NEVER got anything ever in my life because I was the child of a white couple. I had to work to get everything I had. Being white does not pay my bills or put food on the table. I have what I have through my own work ethic and struggle. I never gained in this life because of my skin tone.

Don't give me this history lesson either how blacks were slaves either,I get it was horrible and wrong, however I never had a slave, not did my parents, or their parents etc etc , and furthermore as an Irish family, chances are my ancestors were more likely to be slaves than slave traders, as Irish were treated like dirt.

Also all the black people today, were never slaves, so why should they be seeking an apology of people who were not responsible for something that never happened to them. That is victim complex taken to the max.
Thats akin to me asking the british government for a handout cos my ancestors were treated like dirt by the brits hundreds of years ago.
I did not suffer at their hands.

Do they want some sort of payment, cos that would only promote the idea of someone living on a handout, the very thing a self respecting person would not want.

And lastly, on this myth of white privilege , I know immigrant couples who have got council houses ahead of white Irish people on the housing list longer. That does not seem like white privilege to me. In fact being white was a negative it would seem.
Tell the next white person who is qualified for a job, he or she is not getting the job because they are white , and the spot is only open for a minority, who is possibly less qualified, and tell me how that is not racist.

I bet some person who has been indoctrinated, will report this as it will hurt their feelings, the truth does that to some, and I am in a mixed race marriage for all those who want to cry that this post is racist, which it is not.