Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You might not have seen this post from me:

So the vast majority of BLM protest marches have been entirely non-violent. This would come as a surprise to anyone following far-right social media, or just reading DieselDaisy's posts, which tries to paint the entire movement as violent in an effort to undermine its objective which is racial equality.

And as for your idea that something is wrong with a movement that contain violent components: Can you think of any movement of people of the size of BLM that wasn't exploited by thugs and vandals to some extent? What you are seeing is just humanity in action. It doesn't take away from the movement's genuine objective.

And lastly, racism. The definition of racism has been pretty stable (valuing some races/ethnicicities/peoples higher than other; or rather, some lower than others), but as society has become less and less racist and with less and less tolerance for overt examples of racism, racist people have learnt to hide their racism better. So the displays of racism have morphed somewhat. Racists simply have to be a bit more clever about their racism. They have to because they dare not be honest about their feelings on race. They dare not openly admit believing some races are lesser than others (actually, we had one self-acclaimed racist here some moths ago, horrible but refreshing). But here's a way to identify a racist who doesn't want to be identified: He or she is someone who never say anything suggesting he isn't a racist, he or she is someone whose beliefs and opinions entirely align with racist ideology without explicitly admitting being a racist, he or she is someone who would consistently attack/reject/dismiss attempts at racial equality ("the entire BLM movement can be rejected because of some vandalism and violence"), and is someone who, when confronted with this, will refuse to deny being a racist. I mean, if you consistently attack the idea of racial equality for obviously vicarious motives, that is a pretty clear giveaway. Don't get me wrong, one can easily be against BLM because one doesn't like protests in general, or doesn't like the fact that 7 % of the protest marches contain some violence, or because some protesters want to destroy statues. That's fair enough. On its own that's not wrong. But when you consistently undermine and mock any attempts at racial equality, or fight the notion that racism exists and is wrong, then the sheer burden of all this would strongly indicate that you are a racist.  You quack like a duck, you walk like a duck, and you align ideology with a duck  - yeah, safe to say you are a duck.

 

 

7% is a fairly large number imo. If a movement cause violence at ANY percentage, than the movement has major issues imo. 

I don't disagree with the underlying issue. If Black America feels like they are being targeted by police unfairly, then they are entitled to that opinion. If Black athletes want to kneel during the national anthem, that's their right imo. But when a movement causes violence and destruction (at any percentage) than it can not be considered peaceful. It also can not be considered protesting, and has to acknowledge that it has moved into rioting. There comes a point when we have to consider that the movement will turn into anarchy, especially if Trump wins the election. If that's the case, is Trump wrong for sending in the military to stop the anarchy?

At the end of the day, I hope the majority of people want peace and respect. We don't always have to agree, but we should avoid violence and try and remain respectful. 

Where I personally draw the line is that none of these "victims" were completely innocent. Does that mean they deserved what happens to them, no I would say that. But at the same time, how you conduct yourself around the police IS important. All 3 of the major cases have some pretty large holes in them. They are not simply black and white (pun intended) or nearly as clear cut as many make them sound. All I'm saying is that, if you see both sides of all of these cases, that doesn't make you "bad" or "racist" or anything else. We all should hold our opinions on these case (Floyd especially) until the case is heard in court. If the officer is found not guilty, then he is found not guilty. Same applies if he is found guilty. We have a judicial system for a reason, and we should allow it to work before we jump to conclusions. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

18 minutes ago, downzy said:

The demand for being treated equally by the US legal system isn't responsible for the violence produced by a slim minority. 

A recent study showed that 93 percent of the protests in the name of BLM was peaceful. 

Do you think it is at all fair to judge the 93 percent by the actions of the 7?

There is no one single dominant BLM organization.  Much of the money raised was used (unfortunately in some cases rather haphazardly) to assist with bail and legal fees.  

And what's wrong with that if one organization is using the money to get the word out?

And you base this on what knowledge?  

So do you admit that the movement and the organization are one in the same?

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

7% is a fairly large number imo. If a movement cause violence at ANY percentage, than the movement has major issues imo. 

I don't disagree with the underlying issue. If Black America feels like they are being targeted by police unfairly, then they are entitled to that opinion. If Black athletes want to kneel during the national anthem, that's their right imo. But when a movement causes violence and destruction (at any percentage) than it can not be considered peaceful. It also can not be considered protesting, and has to acknowledge that it has moved into rioting. There comes a point when we have to consider that the movement will turn into anarchy, especially if Trump wins the election. If that's the case, is Trump wrong for sending in the military to stop the anarchy?

At the end of the day, I hope the majority of people want peace and respect. We don't always have to agree, but we should avoid violence and try and remain respectful. 

Where I personally draw the line is that none of these "victims" were completely innocent. Does that mean they deserved what happens to them, no I would say that. But at the same time, how you conduct yourself around the police IS important. All 3 of the major cases have some pretty large holes in them. They are not simply black and white (pun intended) or nearly as clear cut as many make them sound. All I'm saying is that, if you see both sides of all of these cases, that doesn't make you "bad" or "racist" or anything else. We all should hold our opinions on these case (Floyd especially) until the case is heard in court. If the officer is found not guilty, then he is found not guilty. Same applies if he is found guilty. We have a judicial system for a reason, and we should allow it to work before we jump to conclusions. 

Honest question. What percentage of a group acting like dicks would it take to taint the whole organisation/movement? 1%? 2%? 6%? What if there was only a couple of thousand bad apples? At what point do you write it off as an insignificant minority?

[soon]

I love the right wing hysteria around non profits in social movements 

They act like it’s a conspiracy! But you can even look up non profits numbers.

I suppose not understanding non profit/ NGO models is why they start their organizations with no budget in their moms basements. And are left to arrive in town piled 20 to a pickup truck.

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

7% is a fairly large number imo. If a movement cause violence at ANY percentage, than the movement has major issues imo. 

Keep in mind this isn't 7 % of protesters, but 7% of protest marches. And personally I don't find it at all surprising that 7% of large protest marches of angry people would contain violent components. I would have thought it would be higher. 

Again, can you mention any similar large scale movements that wouldn't attract some degree of violence and vandalism? 

And again, those 7% is not telling of BLM, but telling of humanity. This is what we are. 

 

[downzy]

18 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So do you admit that the movement and the organization are one in the same?

No. 

[downzy]

20 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So do you admit that the movement and the organization are one in the same?

So then by that logic any Vancouver Canucks fan (or use any other fan base that has a history of riots) is part of a violent movement or organization.

Or better yet, what about is GNR fans?  I was at the 2002 Philly riot.  I didn’t break a thing, but am I guilty by association as a GNR for having been there?

 

[DieselDaisy]

It is a bit academic, the violent levels in the protests considering a lot of gullible white middle class people have decided to support BLM without reading the manifesto. Go direct to the source. They don't hide it! They are charmingly up-front. BLM stipulates beliefs which are somewhat different to mere ''racial equality'' and include lashings of racism and anarcho-marxism. 

PS

Organisation and movement arrived together and affiliated. There wasn't really a BLM before the US chapter, and there wasn't a chapter without the movement. They are the same. Although it is also true that they have spread globally and developed multiple affiliated organisations (UK one is obsessed with Israel). 

Edited September 14, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[downzy]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And again, those 7% is not telling of BLM, but telling of humanity. This is what we are

And this is why i ascribe the descriptor of racism to anyone who uses the violence that occurs alongside peaceful protests as a means to paint the entire movement. We don’t do this with any other group or association, but when it involves black Americans demanding equal treatment from the law some find the motive to impugn the entire movement. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Honest question. What percentage of a group acting like dicks would it take to taint the whole organisation/movement? 1%? 2%? 6%? What if there was only a couple of thousand bad apples? At what point do you write it off as an insignificant minority?

It's not a percentage per say, its taking ownership and responsibility. If BLM came out and denounced rioting and self policed themselves (handing over those that engage in such things to authorities), actions like that can go a long way. The BLM Organization has not done anything remotely like this though, if anything they secretly enjoy then anarchy. 

There are two ways to accomplish change at this kind of level (society\ government) peacefully or by force. When things are done by force they ALWAYS get push back. Thus far, the BLM movement could hardly be argued as being peacefully (even if the majority are). I could be wrong, but I don't believe if MLK was alive he would view this movement as a good thing or positive. It has produced MORE separation, not unity. That's my opinion anyways.

[downzy]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They are charmingly up-front. BLM stipulates beliefs which are somewhat different to mere ''racial equality'' and include lashings of racism and anarcho-marxism.

Anarcho-marxism...  LOL

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

 

1 minute ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Thus far, the BLM movement could hardly be argued as being peacefully (even if the majority are).

You understand how utterly absurd and ridiculous you sound when you make statements like this, right?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, downzy said:

Anarcho-marxism...  LOL

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

 

If that is a link to the original US chapter, I'm sure you'll find the bits relating to dismantling the nuclear family illuminating?

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I could be wrong, but I don't believe if MLK was alive he would view this movement as a good thing or positive.

As someone who has read a lot of King’s writing, I can unequivocally state your assumption here is wrong. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

So then by that logic any Vancouver Canucks fan (or use any other fan base that has a history of riots) is part of a violent movement or organization.

Or better yet, what about is GNR fans?  I was at the 2002 Philly riot.  I didn’t break a thing, but am I guilty by association as a GNR for having been there?

 

I never said that EVERY member of the movement is guilty by association. I DO hold the organization responsible though. Was GNR responsible for those riots? Yes. Same applies.

[downzy]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

If that is a link to the original US chapter, I'm sure you'll find the bits relating to dismantling the nuclear family illuminating?

No, it doesn’t. It makes clear that child rearing is not the sole responsibility of the parent, but it makes zero claims of dismantling the nuclear family. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

It's not a percentage per say, its taking ownership and responsibility. If BLM came out and denounced rioting and self policed themselves (handing over those that engage in such things to authorities), actions like that can go a long way. The BLM Organization has not done anything remotely like this though, if anything they secretly enjoy then anarchy. 

There are two ways to accomplish change at this kind of level (society\ government) peacefully or by force. When things are done by force they ALWAYS get push back. Thus far, the BLM movement could hardly be argued as being peacefully (even if the majority are). I could be wrong, but I don't believe if MLK was alive he would view this movement as a good thing or positive. It has produced MORE separation, not unity. That's my opinion anyways.

There are some who maintain it is non-political. 

The UK chapter has literally just formed a political party haha. (I'm actually quite happy about this as it'll split the loony race-baiter vote in certain North London Labour seats). 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

As someone who has read a lot of King’s writing, I can unequivocally state your assumption here is wrong. 

He wouldn't support breaking down of the family unit. He wouldn't support violence. 

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

It's not a percentage per say, its taking ownership and responsibility. If BLM came out and denounced rioting and self policed themselves (handing over those that engage in such things to authorities), actions like that can go a long way. The BLM Organization has not done anything remotely like this though, if anything they secretly enjoy then anarchy. 

There are two ways to accomplish change at this kind of level (society\ government) peacefully or by force. When things are done by force they ALWAYS get push back. Thus far, the BLM movement could hardly be argued as being peacefully (even if the majority are). I could be wrong, but I don't believe if MLK was alive he would view this movement as a good thing or positive. It has produced MORE separation, not unity. That's my opinion anyways.

So if you choose not to denounce the worst of your members and cover for them it indicates the whole organisation is rotten beyond repair? 

[Iron MikeyJ]

Just now, Dazey said:

So if you choose not to denounce the worst of your members and cover for them it indicates the whole organisation is rotten beyond repair? 

I never said it was rotten beyond repair, but it does require leadership from the top down. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

No, it doesn’t. It makes clear that child rearing is not the sole responsibility of the parent, but it makes zero claims of dismantling the nuclear family. 

If it isn't there, then they've removed it.

Here it is,

PS

There is no way in hell Luther King would support BLM. 

[downzy]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

I never said that EVERY member of the movement is guilty by association. I DO hold the organization responsible though. Was GNR responsible for those riots? Yes. Same applies.

GNR was responsible for the actions of maybe 30-50 assholes because they chose not to play?

Was the Canucks organization responsible for the few hundred morons who burned down parts of Vancouver?

 

[soon]

So, in a nutshell,

- Jordan Petersons 'post modern marxist (sic)' boogeyman is still out their trying to destroy the nuclear family. Even though in reality his boogeyman only destroyed Peterson himself (nervous breakdown triggered by inability to defend his positions)

- The Bell Curve, as read by Richard Spencer, is still a thing?!?! All this time after Spencer went broke, even.

- The right still cant wrap their heads around what a "decentralized" movement is. Despite being obsessed with them, BLM, XR, Me Too, etc

[downzy]

4 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

He wouldn't support breaking down of the family unit. He wouldn't support violence. 

And neither does BLM or the millions who peacefully protested. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

GNR was responsible for the actions of maybe 30-50 assholes because they chose not to play?

Was the Canucks organization responsible for the few hundred morons who burned down parts of Vancouver?

 

I can't believe you don't see how gnrs actions directly caused the riots. If it were an isolated incident, you might have an argument. But gnrs past DIRECTLY influenced that riot. So yes, they were to blame (as well as the rioters themselves).

[downzy]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If it isn't there, then they've removed it.

Here it is,

PS

There is no way in hell Luther King would support BLM. 

I guess understand how you would interpret that as calling for the end of the nuclear family, but anyone a little less prejudiced would read that and laugh at the accusation. 

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

I can't believe you don't see how gnrs actions directly caused the riots. If it were an isolated incident, you might have an argument. But gnrs past DIRECTLY influenced that riot. So yes, they were to blame (as well as the rioters themselves).

But you’re still a GNR fan, right?  By virtue of being a fan are you not therefore aligned to the worst elements of the group?  This what you’re doing with the BLM movement.