Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

# of violent protests ÷ # of protests total = % of violent protests.

This doesn't answer any of my questions. 

[-W.A.R-]

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

and I would argue don't fully comprehend

You know what would be hilarious? When Trump says that BLM is a Marxist organization someone needs to ask him to please define what Marxism is

[Dazey]

10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

How does one determine the percentage of protests being ''peaceful'' (or otherwise)?

Edited September 15, 2020 by Dazey

[DieselDaisy]

Another unanswered will-o'-the-wisp then? Oh well.

[Len Cnut]

Whiteboys do love to talk about race, don't they?   I was talking to this fella about it, recently in the country from Ghana and he's like...why is everybody so obssessed about race here?  See, I find myself like...giving him little pointers like 'don't say 'x' around here, it might be thought of as racist'.  He ended up saying like why is this country so obssessed with race?  You are putting ideas in my head that I otherwise might never have thought of or considered.  To point out that someone is exceptionally black or make fun of perhaps an Indian or English accent isn't considered racist simply because they're not looking at life through that sort of a lens.  Like if I take the piss out of Dies' for being a pasty white motherfucker (though he might be tanned as Beppe Di Marco for all I know!) but I don't actually hold any notions of racial prejudice in my heart then there's sort of no problem.  He also said, amusingly, this is one of the countries that did the enslaving so why are they now in a position to lecture anybody?  I didn't have an answer for him

Also, @soon, Malcolm X didn't promote violence, he promoted self defence.  Like if a group of my lot are putting it on a group of your lot, your lot have the right to put me on my arse.

[Dazey]

34 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Another unanswered will-o'-the-wisp then? Oh well.

I'm not sure what you're asking in that case. I mean you asked how one would determine % of peaceful protests and the answer is the same way you determine any percentage. You divide the number in question by the total sample size and multiply the answer by 100.  

[DieselDaisy]

Malcolm X would've hated the BLM thing also as he detested ''white saviour'' complex. You'd expect he would've hate therefore the middle classy virtue signalling David Brent style posturing we see these days, 

Quote

“The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the black man. Let me explain what I mean by the white liberal. In America there is no such thing as Democrat or Republican anymore. In America you have liberals and conservatives. The only people living in the past who think in terms of I’m a Democrat or Republican, is the American Negro. He’s the one that runs around bragging about party affiliation. He’s the one that sticks to the Democrat or sticks to the Republican. But white people are divided into two groups, liberals and conservative. The Democrats who are conservative, vote with the Republicans who are conservative. The Democrats who are liberal vote with the Republicans that are liberal. The white liberal aren’t white people who are for independence, who are moral and ethical in their thinking. They are just a faction of white people that are jockeying for power. The same as the white conservative is a faction of white people that are jockeying for power. They are fighting each other for power and prestige, and the one that is the football in the game is the Negro, 20 million black people. A political football, a political pawn, an economic football, and economic pawn. A social football, a social pawn. The liberal elements of whites are those who have perfected the art of selling themselves to the Negro as a friend of the Negro. Getting sympathy of the Negro, getting the allegiance of the Negro, and getting the mind of the Negro. Then the Negro sides with the white liberal, and the white liberal use the Negro against the white conservative. So that anything that the Negro does is never for his own good, never for his own advancement, never for his own progress, he’s only a pawn in the hands of the white liberal. The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros, and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked, or deceived by the white liberal then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man. The only way that our problem will be solved is when the black man wakes up, clean himself up, stand on his own feet and stop begging the white man, and take immediate steps to do for ourselves the things that we have been waiting on the white man to do for us. Once we do for self then we will be able to solve our own problems’ "The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox. One is the wolf, the other is a fox. No matter what, they’ll both eat you.”

- Malcolm X

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I'm not sure what you're asking in that case. I mean you asked how one would determine % of peaceful protests and the answer is the same way you determine any percentage. You divide the number in question by the total sample size and multiply the answer by 100.  

Questions contained in here,

10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

How does one determine the percentage of protests being ''peaceful'' (or otherwise)?

Do you poll the participants ex post facto? Police call-outs - well most of the footage show incidents happening without a police presence? What is the criteria for determining whether a protest was ''peaceful'' or violent? The innocent diners were being verbally, not physically assaulted - would those be included or omitted? Technically the toppling of a statue is criminal damage so is this included? 

It is almost like those polls which claim ''70% of women fake orgasms'' haha. You wonder how this data was acquired?

 

[Dazey]

15 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

How does one determine the percentage of protests being ''peaceful'' (or otherwise)?

Do you poll the participants ex post facto? Police call-outs - well most of the footage show incidents happening without a police presence? What is the criteria for determining whether a protest was ''peaceful'' or violent? The innocent diners were being verbally, not physically assaulted - would those be included or omitted? Technically the toppling of a statue is criminal damage so is this included? 

I suspect one would include destruction of property and violence towards citizens as non peaceful. The incident in the restaurant qualify as harassment but the point is that these incidents are being used to paint a picture of the whole movement and they're simply not representative. Peaceful protests can get a little rowdy at times but rowdy and burning cities to the ground are not the same thing. Again you're using a few isolated incidents to further your own narrative.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

I suspect one would include destruction of property and violence towards citizens as non peaceful. The incident in the restaurant qualify as harassment but the point is that these incidents are being used to paint a picture of the whole movement and they're simply not representative. Peaceful protests can get a little rowdy at times but rowdy and burning cities to the ground are not the same thing. Again you're using a few isolated incidents to further your own narrative.

I would need to gain some idea of methodology behind this statistic I'm afraid before accepting it. A mob shouting like a madman at a poor diner may not be included after all! 

I have no ''narrative'' but the truth, of which none of you are interested, or actively avoid, even when it is presented to you with footage. 

[soon]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Whiteboys do love to talk about race, don't they?   I was talking to this fella about it, recently in the country from Ghana and he's like...why is everybody so obssessed about race here?  See, I find myself like...giving him little pointers like 'don't say 'x' around here, it might be thought of as racist'.  He ended up saying like why is this country so obssessed with race?  You are putting ideas in my head that I otherwise might never have thought of or considered.  To point out that someone is exceptionally black or make fun of perhaps an Indian or English accent isn't considered racist simply because they're not looking at life through that sort of a lens.  Like if I take the piss out of Dies' for being a pasty white motherfucker (though he might be tanned as Beppe Di Marco for all I know!) but I don't actually hold any notions of racial prejudice in my heart then there's sort of no problem.  He also said, amusingly, this is one of the countries that did the enslaving so why are they now in a position to lecture anybody?  I didn't have an answer for him

Also, @soon, Malcolm X didn't promote violence, he promoted self defence.  Like if a group of my lot are putting it on a group of your lot, your lot have the right to put me on my arse.

Yeah, I could have said "use of force." (Which is what is commonly described as violence in discussion the forum. In fact not even using force is frequently referred to as "violence." Ive long given up on that conversation, lol.) Anyways...

But, hey man, with X as a NoI member its difficult to distinguish their aims, including racial segregation of the inferior white devils, from the inevitable violence that would accompany it. X is not naive. Also if New Africa had been the course of action, that would have been full on armed insurrection  - one doesnt simply start a new country within the borders of the Empire!

Didnt he actually quit NoI because the leadership prevented him from organizing violence to respond to incidents of police brutality against Muslims? It was to defend the community at large from a threat that was always present and yet, not presenting itself in the moment. Id count that as Community Defense and I fully acknowledge that community defense has its place. Im also comfortable describing Community Defense as 'political violence.' But I think its different than self defense which as a term seems to mostly be used when the defense occurs in the moment of the threat?

[soon]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Malcolm X would've hated the BLM thing also as he detested ''white saviour'' complex. You'd expect he would've hate therefore the middle classy virtue signalling David Brent style posturing we see these days, 

He was brought up in the specific context of MLK wouldnt support "violence." Thats the whitewashed 'teddy bear' MLK, not the real one, who worked to maintain relationships with all leaders across tactical lines. One can only figure he'd be calling for unity and respecting a diversity of tactics becasue thats what he did while living. So, speaking on MLKs behalf in this manner is entirely ahistorical. Its propaganda.

But of course you are correct about the white saviour thing. Its just thats not the context that X was riased in the conversation.

Edited September 15, 2020 by soon

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, soon said:

So, speaking on MLKs behalf in this manner is entirely ahistorical.

I of course am only offering my opinion on how I feel Martin Luther King would have acted - I thought that went without saying considering none of us know, and we are all employing guesswork? 

It is difficult to see how Malcolm X would've supported it given the above quotation.

[soon]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I of course am only offering my opinion on how I feel Martin Luther King would have acted - I thought that went without saying considering none of us know, and we are all employing guesswork? 

It is difficult to see how Malcolm X would've supported it given the above quotation.

I said I agreed with your contribution, regarding white saviours being a deal breaker! lol However, it is ahistorical to make the claim that others have, that MLK would reject a diversity of tactics and not foster unity and dialogue with people employing other tactics. Which is what brought X into the conversation.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

I said I agreed with your contribution, regarding white saviours being a deal breaker! lol However, it is ahistorical to make the claim that others have, that MLK would reject a diversity of tactics and not foster unity and dialogue with people employing other tactics. Which is what brought X into the conversation.

It isn't ''ahistorical' if it is blatantly obvious that it is merely my speculative opinion, which is no more incorrect than somebody stating the reverse, that he would have supported it. We simply don't know!

[soon]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It isn't ''ahistorical' if it is blatantly obvious that it is merely my speculative opinion, which is no more incorrect than somebody stating the reverse, that he would have supported it. We simply don't know!

Again, I didnt call what you said about white saviours ahistorical.

Again, I pointed to historical facts that show he maintained unity across tactical lines. That was to another persons point. It would be ahistorical to suggest some sudden post humous shift in MO.

Jeez. You think everything is a fight. I agreed with you. And I already clarified that once!!

[Len Cnut]

Quote

But, hey man, with X as a NoI member its difficult to distinguish their aims, including racial segregation of the inferior white devils, from the inevitable violence that would accompany it.

They did not believe there would be violence, they believed they were to be delivered by the hand of God.

Quote

Didnt he actually quit NoI because the leadership prevented him from organizing violence to respond to incidents of police brutality against Muslims? It was to defend the community at large from a threat that was always present and yet, not presenting itself in the moment.

There was whispers of something of that nature i.e. he wanted to do something tangible, it was never specifically violence or insurrection though, more that he was irked that they were kept from doing something proactive about police brutality by Elijah Muhammads policy.  His quitting was more to do with Elijahs allegedly  fathering a load of children out of wedlock, which casts a funny light on the whole 'I am holy' bit. 

Fuck knows what Malcolm would've thought today,  Certainly, according to what he preached in the the 50s and 60s he would not have taken kindly to BLM but then for him to be exposed to BLM he would have to have lived another 55 years and his opinions subject to 55 years of historical change so fuck knows what he would've thought...and its not as if he was the sort who never changed his mind as per his about turn on the whole white devil stuff.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

One further reason why Malcolm X would've never associated himself with Black Lives Matter is the latter's affiliation with homosexuality. 

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

One further reason why Malcolm X would've never associated himself with Black Lives Matter is the latter's affiliation with homosexuality. 

This is very very true.  Homosexuality, transgender, I can't see ol' Malc' goin' a bundle on that stuff.  You'd be surprised how many icons of liberalness were staunchly against that shit.  Bob Marley for instance, being a Jamaican, I dunno if you know but those fuckin' West Indies lot are NOT HAVIN' gayness.  Not in any way shape or form.  As in violently not havin' it. 

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

This is very very true.  Homosexuality, transgender, I can't see ol' Malc' goin' a bundle on that stuff.  You'd be surprised how many icons of liberalness were staunchly against that shit.  Bob Marley for instance, being a Jamaican, I dunno if you know but those fuckin' West Indies lot are NOT HAVIN' gayness.  Not in any way shape or form.  As in violently not havin' it. 

BLM is very gay-centric.  The ironic thing is its ideology would offend most of Africa!

Muhammad Ali also, who thought miscegenation was repugnant and had a very patriarchal view on women. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[soon]

All I said was that MLK didtn break ties and unity across tactical lines. Not sure how this got into a supposed position I hold on X v BLM? hehe

[Len Cnut]

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

BLM is very gay-centric.  The ironic thing is its ideology would offend most of Africa!

Muhammad Ali also, who thought miscegenation was repugnant and had a very patriarchal view on women. 

We don't even need to go that far back, the man in my avatar was none too fond of em.  Hip Hop in general really, until recent times.  There's sort of a divide even now in hip hop, that doesn't care for Kanye West wearing man-skirts or Young Thug wearing...I dunno, nail polish or whatever it is he does.  Sorry, I realise this isn't exactly your field of interest

Edited September 15, 2020 by Len Cnut

[soon]

30 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

There was whispers of something of that nature i.e. he wanted to do something tangible, it was never specifically violence or insurrection though, more that he was irked that they were kept from doing something proactive about police brutality by Elijah Muhammads policy.  His quitting was more to do with Elijahs allegedly  fathering a load of children out of wedlock, which casts a funny light on the whole 'I am holy' bit. 

Thanks for interesting response.

Curious if you have any thoughts on if/how Malcolm X engaged any figures that went on to join or found The Panthers/ Black Liberation Army? X was assassinated in 65' and the Panthers were founded in 66' so maybe some figures crossed paths with X prior to the founding of the Panthers?

I cant for the life of my bring any info on that to mind.

To me the Panthers would be much more analogous to BLM, because of marxism and a supposedly/hopefully queer affirming stance. Also the breakfast programs speak to BLMtm's desire for village child rearing models. They would differ also in that they had an executive and membership structure and strict codes of conduct. And they had international allies.

But just wondering in general how/if Malcolm X had any connection to any 'future' panthers

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Thanks for interesting response.

Curious if you have any thoughts on if/how Malcolm X engaged any figures that went on to join or found The Panthers/ Black Liberation Army? X was assassinated in 65' and the Panthers were founded in 66' so maybe some figures crossed paths with X prior to the founding of the Panthers?

The Panthers were quite literally Malcolm inspired and he did say when he founded the OAAU that he was willing to work with all and sundry if they were interested in those common goals.  The Panthers did have a distinctly Marxist bent though so I dunno if he would've been all onside with that but then he wouldn't necessarily have to be, would he?

Quote

To me the Panthers would be much more analogous to BLM, because of marxism and a supposedly/hopefully queer affirming stance. Also the breakfast programs speak to BLMtm's desire for village child rearing models. They would differ also in that they had an executive and membership structure and strict codes of conduct. And they had international allies.

More analagous?  Yeah, I'd say so, at least more than the aforementioned.  Broadly speaking though they didn't exactly have many white members, they did encourage the formation of a White Panther Party to do parrallel work (hence John Sinclair etc etc)

As far as a Malcolm and Panthers connection they were, as I say, Malcolm inspired and I'm sure one or two key figures attended the odd rally but I think thats as far as it goes.  There's a lot of incestuous cross-over for want of a better phrase but no direct link or alliance between Malcolm and the likes of Stokely and Rap Brown, much less Huey Newton and them. 

Its all a timeline and one leads to the other, from Marcus Garvey to The Moorish Temple of Sciences to the National of Islam to the 5 Percenters to the Black Power boys and The Panthers etc etc etc

[DieselDaisy]

Malcolm X was assassinated before the founding of the Black Panthers, although they cited Malcolm X, his influence and assassination, as a key reason for their foundation, and Betty Shabazz, Malcolm X's widow, affiliated herself closely with the Panther movement.

[soon]

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Malcolm X was assassinated before the founding of the Black Panthers, although they cited Malcolm X, his influence and assassination, as a key reason for their foundation, and Betty Shabazz, Malcolm X's widow, affiliated herself closely with the Panther movement.

Yes, in my post I laid out that X was murdered before the Panthers formed. Is this becoming a meme, you not reading yet responding to my posts? I thought only liberals did that

Thanks for this great info!!