Jump to content

Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 654
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So it's the people when we're bumming choir boys but the leaders when we're protesting racial injustice? Right. Gotcha.

If you truly believe that Church leadership was moving around hundreds of abusive priests solely because of the concern for the sanctity of confession, then man alive, I really don't have anything to

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The LEFT people. This is the left, well a gnr forum example of it. Look at them shine. Aren't they wonderful? These are the heirs of liberalism (free speech/religious toleration) and socialism (worker's rights/living standards). Look at them live up to their ancestors' creeds.

So what you're saying is that I meet all your requirements to be the Lefts poster child? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The leaders of the church don't condone that behavior, that's the difference. I'm not saying that excuses the behavior, just like (I'm sure) you don't condone the rioters behavior. The Catholic Church is 100% against the behavior of these priests. I know someone is going to say "they covered it up." But that's not the truth. The truth is, they had to protect the sanctity of confession.

If you truly believe that Church leadership was moving around hundreds of abusive priests solely because of the concern for the sanctity of confession, then man alive, I really don't have anything to say that would make the slightest difference.  I mean, I could point to the fact that many of the allegations of abuse did not come through confessions by the priests but admissions from the abused, but you probably wouldn't care about any of that.

39 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Kinda like doctor patient confidentiality.

Doctor-patient confidentiality does not preclude a doctor from reporting abuse.  In most developed nations it is required by law for doctors to report instances of abuse to authorities.

42 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So even the innocent priest that knew, were forbidden to discuss it.

Even if that were true, wouldn't that underscore how complicit the organization is if formal rules preclude the organization from doing fuck all about saving kids?

43 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

You can't expect people to go against their religion, even for purposes that seem worthy.

When it comes to stoping dicks from entering into kids, yeah, I kind of expect people - especially those who claim moral authority - to do the right thing.  Amazing you don't.

43 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

As for BLM, their leaders are very troubling. No matter how you spin it, that fact remains. 

Right, so a handful of BLM leaders espouse some political philosophy that you don't agree with (and I would argue don't fully comprehend), so let's denigrate the entire movement.  The spirit that drove tens of millions to protest, that's corrupted because a handful of self anointed leaders said something you disagree with.

Never mind the Catholic leadership who looked past systemic abuses of kids.  That couldn't be helped.  We shouldn't taint fellow Catholics for the failures of their leaders and organizational shortcomings.  But with BLM, fuck 'em.  They talk commie.  

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

In reality Black Lives Matter was founded 2013 by Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi and Alicia Garza in the wake of the Zimmerman acquittal. There was no grassroots movement before they founded Black Lives Matter Network. The grassroots movement does not precede the Network but succeeds the Network. 

How do you think most grass roots movements are started?  What do you think a grass roots movement even is?  

Moreover, if you're capable of differentiating the movement from the organization as you seem to do so in this post, why is the movement defined by a few people that sit at the top?  If the movement has succeeded the network, then why conflate the two?  

45 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Again, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? This is why I stopped posting here. No matter what topic I was in, Day and a few others ALWAYS turned it into a religious discussion. Yet I got suspended for taking a thread off topic.

What suspension?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

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

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

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

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

BiUT9cU.jpg

Edited by Dazey
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whiteboys do love to talk about race, don't they? :lol:  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 :lol:

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :shrugs: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :shrugs: 

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?

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Whiteboys do love to talk about race, don't they? :lol:  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 :lol:

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by soon
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Len Cnut
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by DieselDaisy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...