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

It would depend on the country obviously. If they were smart, they'd pick basically the whole of Western Europe, the majority of which is broadly still mono-cultural.

Do you not know what the word 'majority' means?

Also, talking about people not giving a shite, they are the same people who start all these threads.

I don't know what you think you are doing, but you are not saying that my statement was incorrect.

Yes.

What I AM saying is that it isn't the endorsement you think it is.

Lots of black people would like to go to America rather than elsewhere, because there's a lot of black people there. Same for Asian, Latino, whatever.

They aren't going for the "multiculturalism", they are interested in precisely the opposite, more of their own race, in a (crazily biased) wealthy nation.

So again, it's not some great endorsement of multiculturalism. It's an indictment.

No I'm not acccshually arguing that.

I didn't say that.

I said, there are more black people in the United states, hence the attraction for black people to move there. There are more Latino people in the USA, hence the attraction for Latino people to move there.

Nowhere did I say that they were a majority. And that's acccshually a fact.

And that right there, is an indictment of multiculturalism. That people want to be around their own people, instead of complaining to the end of their lives about other people.

That's why you'll have less and less Europeans keen on going to America. The state of it.

You are saying that there are so many Asians and African Americans (and White people obviously) there that Asians and Africans would feel at home in America and therefore would choose to live there.

You are literally doubling down on America being successful at multiculturalism.

This is a really sh1tty thing to say and I'm reporting your post.

All my posts here were indeed against BLM but in support of the vast majority of honest black people that are being done a huge disservice by this racist and violent movement that transforms scumbag criminals into heroes and martyrs thus reinforcing the racist stereotypes and considers blacks as victims and lesser people unable to stand as equals.

Almost the exact same things were said about the civil rights marchers in the 60's as are being said about BLM advocates now.

And yet the people saying them now, are outraged at the suggestion that they would have been on a particular side of the argument, when it was being held previously.

It's a sign of a privilege that people claim doesn't exist to think you can so casually dismiss the lived experience of a community just because things were actually worse for them in the past.

I'm not going to tolerate the mealy mouthed claim that someone would definitely have been against the mistreatment of people in the past, as they argue against their equal and fair treatment in the present.

And yet all you can do is dismiss them out of hand without providing any counter to the points raised. I suspect this is because you realise that the context in which they are made is entirely valid.

That in itself is telling. You keep telling us you believe in equality. And yet you run from thread to thread arguing against the idea that people who feel they don't experience equality should be entitled to fight for it, or have others advocate that they received it.

You want your version of equality, that is a continuation of the status-quo that you are comfortable with.

When people are using the exact same argument to dismiss BLM advocates, as were used against civil rights advocates previously, it sure as hell is worth pointing out. Just saying it isn't worth discussing is evidence enough of the absence of argument against it.

Your version of equality ignores the disadvantage some people are literally born in to. Or the fact that many people actively try to maintain their disadvantage. That isn't limited to race, but it includes race, and that is central to this discussion.

Right now, in Kenosha County, (same county as the Rittenhouse case) the county is arguing that a young black girl who killed the man who sexually trafficked her and assaulted her should not be able to use a law designed to help the victims of trafficking in her defense. You cannot look at the fervent energy applied to defending Rittenhouses argument that he was defending himself, by many influential media and political figures and ignore how others who argued the same are treated.

If you don't want to be associated with White Supremacists, maybe don't have yourself photographed using White supremacist gestures.

With respect to that young girls case, maybe do check it out, and then come back and edit your post saying you are sure I'm leaving stuff out. I read about it in the media, its more likely its the media you pay attention to have ignored it.

If you believe that that is merely the Ok symbol from a guy in the situation he was in, wearing the shirt he was wearing, with members of the Proud Boys group, then yes, Jesus is indeed weeping.

But when the benchmark for considering someone a racist starts with evidence of them using the N word, I'm not surprised there'll be apologists for him.

FBI disagrees with you.

You know exactly what point I am making with reference to the N word, I've made it before and you've understood it clearly. It makes it very easy to claim to not be an apologist for racists when the bar for the to not be identified as such is so easy to pass.

Was waiting for that.

So you think the whole group cannot be tarnished because of the words or actions of a few? Guess you'll be retracting your statements about BLM being a hateful movement because of a comments by a handful of people who associate with them over the years.

If you take these handful of people out of both groups, on one side, you are left with an entirely anti-racist movement, on the other a violent self avowed male chauvinist group. You sill have issues with the former, more than the latter?