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

Blast this forum, I cant see how to edit quoted text lol.

Nope Im not about to loose my ****. I asked a genuine question about the trial. So if there is no proof that he is racist and/or a white supremacist then are you ok with the mainstream media labelling him as that?

Ive been wondering since the story broke, Biden called him a white supremacist recently, Im just curious whether he actually is. Because if he is a genuine neo nazi headcase type then that might help explain the fervour in getting him convicted that certain groups are displaying.

Do you think that most people against the premise of BLM in any way are racist? That's an incredible claim to make.

Firstly, I am bit wary of the 'no proof someone is racist' angle because for some, proof would be irrefutable evidence of them using language such as the N word or member of an organisation which has explicit racial ideology. But that, as happens on here (I am certain of that on some occasions) allows people to absolve themselves from such an accusation, claiming, 'There's no proof and really there is none of this irrefutable proof because that is very easy to avoid.

Secondly, lets just analyse that final statement for a second to make sure it is clear what is being said. The statement I posted was (Key piece highlighted in bold);

What I meant by that is that those who think there is zero justification for the BLM cause, they will not entertain any argument suggesting it is an appropriate movement. I was not and am not suggesting that anyone who has any singular objection to the movement is racist. Those who do think there is no singular justification for it whatsoever, yes, I believe they are racist.

And I expect many will respond to this with the disclaimer 'I think they have a reason, they should just go about it differently' and to that I would say, fine, but if the vast majority of your posts are arguing against the ideal of the movement, and aside from such simplistic disclaimers thrown in once every couple weeks, then I personally won't be too quick to buy that. And no, that doesn't mean I will brand that person as a racist. Twice on this platform in all my time here have I written specifically that I think another poster is racist. I never been cautioned or warned for doing so.

Virtually the exact same thing was said about civil rights activists in the 60's.

This is from a letter from 8 white clergymen to civil rights activists.

Note, MLK's response to this, 'A letter from a Birmingham jail' and is known as one of the most historical relevant documents by a political prisoner is being targeted in some places as something which should not be discussed thought in schools as traditionalists run scared of the concept of CRT which few understand.

If the subjugation of people from Black Communities hadn't happened in systemic fashion, and if people from these same communities weren't still being excessively and prejudicially targeted, there might be some logic in your answer. But neither of those situations is the case.

Pity all people don't hold the police to the same standard they demand from those who have suffered.

I'm perfectly fine with the media, and others expressing suspicion about anyone who choses to align themselves with unsavory groups or ideologies. Did the media actually call him such, or say that he associated with those who are. There is quite a difference.

If it is ok for some to denounce the entirety of the BLM movement because a tiny percentage of those who attended protests engaged in violence, then they should be ok with suggesting that someone who aligns themselves with groups or individuals who have racist intentions being identified as such.

Which do you think is worse, suggesting someone is a racist because they are closely aligned with some with racist views? Or not identifying that someone is identifying with those who are known to hold racist views?

Pretty clear cut example here how the media paints stories in a particular way.

Genuine question, how do you think police and the media would react if at a future march on a state legislative house or something by 'patriots', a black teen from out of state turns up with an assault rifle they don't own and claims to be there to act as something which he is neither qualified nor hired to do?

The equivalent story you're looking for is the one of white criminals shot dead by the police, you know, the kind that doesn't make the news because its not newsworthy. Even when there might be a racist angle if the cop is not white.

Sigh. Post 9851.

Well apart from the instigators from the right who were amongst them, not to mention the police who used violence to provoke the crowds in many, many instances.

Also, in 2017, NY paid $300M+ to claimants who had suffered police brutality. That's one city, one year. Still think the people asking for fair treatment are the problem?

BLM was a summer of rich White kids and inner city gang members burning down and looting thousands of mostly black owned businesses.

It will take years for the communities to recover.

Yeah, and the civil rights movement was nothing but a collection of hippies.

You're right about it taking years for communities to recover. Decades of redlining and under resourcing of Black Communities is strong evidence of that isn't it.

I see a video online of Kyle punching a girl in the head.

Not surprising.

Oh ffs. Here is what you wrote:

I'm perfectly fine with the media, and others expressing suspicion about anyone who choses to align themselves with unsavory groups or ideologies. Did the media actually call him such, or say that he associated with those who are. There is quite a difference.

The media weren't "expressing suspicion". From the off, they were calling him a white supremacist, after all if you arent with BLM you are against them. And if you are against them you are a nazi/white supremacist. I hope he sues left right and centre. I still l haven't seen any proof against him.