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

silverharp

Here is a funny one, people started reading "what we believe", BLM then deleted the page , absolute clowns

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1308080281040060416

Omackeral

Tell me how wrote: »

Agreed. And largely because of the public discourse around them being unacceptable.

A lot of people could do well to remember that. That includes on here. People complain about racists running riot on this site but any racist musings are dealt with by card, warning or ban. It's not accepted in the main.

nj27

Omackeral wrote: »

A lot of people could do well to remember that. That includes on here. People complain about racists running riot on this site but any racist musings are dealt with by card, warning or ban. It's not accepted in the main.

I haven’t been banned for racism, which you would surely consider an acceptable descriptor of me, so I guess that’s nonsense. Let you into a little bit of a secret. I work with people who have advanced degrees in both medicine and science, certainly smarter than I would ever claim to be. I talk freely with them regarding the kind of nonsenses you speak, and they don’t just agree but teach me things regarding this matter which didn’t yet know. This is in the main kid, and it ain’t going anywhere.

1800_Ladladlad

Well this only make sense. Now go after the mayors.

https://twitter.com/TheJusticeDept/status/1308012076720414720

John Doe1

Tell me how wrote: »

Link to this narrative please.

eh....Affirmative action for one.

The logic of which is If not enough Black people are getting into top colleges, its becase of white people being racist against Black people. You cant expect black people to have the same test scores as White/Asian people....

Funnily enough, Nigerian immigrants are some of the top performers in America which would indicate the issue resides in African American communities rather than the evil Whities.

Overheal

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Well this only make sense. Now go after the mayors.

https://twitter.com/TheJusticeDept/status/1308012076720414720

Nobody aside from hyperpartisans are taking anything Barr's DOJ says seriously. This DOJ is extremely tainted with political corruption as pointed out by both Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.

Gervais08

John Doe1 wrote: »

eh....Affirmative action for one.

The logic of which is If not enough Black people are getting into top colleges, its becase of white people being racist against Black people. You cant expect black people to have the same test scores as White/Asian people....

Funnily enough, Nigerian immigrants are some of the top performers in America which would indicate the issue resides in African American communities rather than the evil Whities.

It’s apparently called the “bigotry of low expectations”. Sums it up nicely.

Silentcorner

A bit of light relief...we could all do with a laugh!!

Overheal

Federal courthouse in Louisville boards up the windows and schedules a week long closure, starting later today, ahead of the announcement into whether or not the officers who killed Breonna Taylor will be criminally charged. There have been requests to secure other federal buildings in the downtown area.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-courthouse-bracing-for-charging-decision-in-police-shooting-of-breonna-taylor/?fbclid=IwAR3AxxIpT6gCfZk2EegVv3dIj_SSUS-Awc748aLcb-1G7WcY5bWGIKioLhI

So that's a "No," then.

nj27

Overheal wrote: »

Federal courthouse in Louisville boards up the windows and schedules a week long closure, starting later today, ahead of the announcement into whether or not the officers who killed Breonna Taylor will be criminally charged. There have been requests to secure other federal buildings in the downtown area.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-courthouse-bracing-for-charging-decision-in-police-shooting-of-breonna-taylor/?fbclid=IwAR3AxxIpT6gCfZk2EegVv3dIj_SSUS-Awc748aLcb-1G7WcY5bWGIKioLhI

So that's a "No," then.

Why did they bother? Just slap "black owned business" on it, which apparently was a trend amid the prior riots. No idea why they'd do that but worth a try I guess.

Overheal

nj27 wrote: »

Why did they bother? Just slap "black owned business" on it, which apparently was a trend amid the prior riots. No idea why they'd do that but worth a try I guess.

Because quite a few 'anti-racist' rioters exist unfortunately. I'm just grateful they're overshadowed by tens of millions of people who have only been peaceful.

nj27

Overheal wrote: »

Because quite a few 'anti-racist' rioters exist unfortunately. I'm just grateful they're overshadowed by tens of millions of people who have only been peaceful.

Cool, so better to signal to those groups then? Why didn't they lash a few KKK and Swastika symbols on if that was the main demographic they were worried about?

Overheal

nj27 wrote: »

Cool, so better to signal to those groups then? Why didn't they lash a few KKK and Swastika symbols on if that was the main demographic they were worried about?

?

nj27

Overheal wrote: »

?

Ok

Tell me how

John Doe1 wrote: »

eh....Affirmative action for one.

The logic of which is If not enough Black people are getting into top colleges, its becase of white people being racist against Black people. You cant expect black people to have the same test scores as White/Asian people....

Funnily enough, Nigerian immigrants are some of the top performers in America which would indicate the issue resides in African American communities rather than the evil Whities.

That's just another opinion.

A link was requested to support the following statement.

This whole BLM narrative is that Black people are the only people who do not have agency over their own lives

I know some posters use their own posts as 'evidence' of a view being negated but as with them, its just showing the absence of a real argument.

Tell me how

Following on from AG Barr's actions, this from DeSantis.

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1308145347978563589

Wonder will all the defenders of the constitution get their flags out for this one. Expect not somehow.

Overheal

His 2nd proposed provision would effectively have legalized the murder of Heather Heyer and attempted murder of dozens of others.

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

His 2nd proposed provision would effectively have legalized the murder of Heather Heyer and attempted murder of dozens of others.

If you think that applies to Heather Heyer's case it means you think it was self defense.

Tell me how

Danzy wrote: »

If you think that applies to Heather Heyer's case it means you think it was self defense.

Wrong.
It means that the driver can claim they were simply fleeing a mob, instead of the reality where they deliberately targeted someone.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

If you think that applies to Heather Heyer's case it means you think it was self defense.

No that's not the case at all. It simply is the case that self-defense is exactly what the murderer argued in court. If the law gave him a legal self-defense clause to attach to, it would have worked.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-man-charged-in-white-nationalist-rally-to-argue-self-defense-2018-11

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

His 2nd proposed provision would effectively have legalized the murder of Heather Heyer and attempted murder of dozens of others.

No idea who Heather Heyer is but I'd agree with the second provision in principle. If some dumb fcuk(s) are blocking the road and attacking your car thereby endangering your life, then yes you should be allowed to plough through them to escape. Note I said escape, not to deliberately target them.

Protesters have a right to protest (peacefully) but they don't have a right to attack someone in their car and if they are dumb enough to be in the way of you escaping, too bad for them.

Tell me how

BattleCorp wrote: »

No idea who Heather Heyer is but I'd agree with the second provision in principle. If some dumb fcuk(s) are blocking the road and attacking your car thereby endangering your life, then yes you should be allowed to plough through them to escape. Note I said escape, not to deliberately target them.

Protesters have a right to protest (peacefully) but they don't have a right to attack someone in their car and if they are dumb enough to be in the way of you escaping, too bad for them.

How hard could it have been to do some research?

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

No that's not the case at all. It simply is the case that self-defense is exactly what the murderer argued in court. If the law gave him a legal self-defense clause to attach to, it would have worked.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-man-charged-in-white-nationalist-rally-to-argue-self-defense-2018-11

no he didn't your making stuff up again

he plead guilty and accordingly got life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack#Heather_Heyer

ProfessorPlum

Tell me how wrote: »

How hard could it have been to do some research?

So, clearly not fleeing from the mob, therefore provision 2 doesn’t apply.

Thanks for clarifying.

BattleCorp

Tell me how wrote: »

How hard could it have been to do some research?

Yeah, I could have and did some in the last few minutes. What happened to her doesn't change my mind.

I still think that if you are being attacked in your car by people, you should be allowed to defend yourself by driving away. Note I'm saying defend yourself, not plough into a pile of protesters who aren't attacking you or standing adjacent to those attacking you.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

No that's not the case at all. It simply is the case that self-defense is exactly what the murderer argued in court. If the law gave him a legal self-defense clause to attach to, it would have worked.

....

Any such case still has to meet due process and burden of proof.

Looking at the bill - it covers violent disorder looting

Obviously where a protest is peaceful - these provisions will not have any remit.

John Doe1

Tell me how wrote: »

That's just another opinion.

A link was requested to support the following statement.



I know some posters use their own posts as 'evidence' of a view being negated but as with them, its just showing the absence of a real argument.

You need a link to to understand the relationship between Affirmative action and
how that lessens agency for African Americans? Jesus...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States

"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only current black Justice, opposes affirmative action. He believes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race, such as race-based affirmative action or preferential treatment. He also believes it creates "a cult of victimization" and implies blacks require "special treatment in order to succeed". Thomas also cites his own experiences of affirmative action programs as a reason for his criticism.[114][115]

Frederick Lynch, the author of Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action, did a study on white males that said they were victims of reverse discrimination.[116] Lynch explains that these white men felt frustrated and unfairly victimized by affirmative action.[117] Shelby Steele, another author against affirmative action, wanted to see affirmative action go back to its original meaning of enforcing equal opportunity. He argued that blacks had to take full responsibility in their education and in maintaining a job. Steele believes that there is still a long way to go in America to reach our goals of eradicating discrimination.[117]

Terry Eastland, the author who wrote From Ending Affirmative Action: The Case for Colorblind Justice states, "Most arguments for affirmative action fall into two categories: remedying past discrimination and promoting diversity".[118] Eastland believes that the founders of affirmative action did not anticipate how the benefits of affirmative action would go to those who did not need it, mostly middle class minorities. Additionally, she argues that affirmative action carries with it a stigma that can create feelings of self-doubt and entitlement in minorities. Eastland believes that affirmative action is a great risk that only sometimes pays off, and that without it we would be able to compete more freely with one another. Libertarian economist Thomas Sowell identified what he says are negative results of affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.[113] Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor white or Asian); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best – the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile – thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they engender animosity toward preferred groups as well.[113]:115–147"

Dyr

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Well this only make sense. Now go after the mayors.

https://twitter.com/TheJusticeDept/status/1308012076720414720

Good stuff, make the weirdos understand that there are consequences to their nonsense.

kildare lad

Look at all these weirdos outside a fellas house just cause he's a trump and america flag on the porch

https://twitter.com/antifastats/status/1306331592101711873?s=20

BattleCorp

kildare lad wrote: »

Look at all these weirdos outside a fellas house just cause he's a trump and america flag on the porch

https://twitter.com/antifastats/status/1306331592101711873?s=20

We aren't getting too far away from the point where some home owner is going to come out and mow down a pile of them with a belt-fed machine gun.

For the record, that isn't peaceful protesting. That's pure harrassment and can't be legal.