Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[downzy]

11 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I noticed how Downzy is completely absent from these points by DD and Len... 

Downzy has a lot to do during the day and hasn't had time to read DD and Len's points.  

[downzy]

11 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

What points would that be? That some black people don't agree they are victims of racism or that BLM is an important movement? Why would that even matter? We are not fighting against racism for those who don't care but for those who do. 

This.

The discussion of whether Malcolm X or MLK would be supporters of BLM is pointless.  What does it matter whether leaders from 60 to 70 years ago would agree or support the current civil rights movements.  It's a discussion meant to distract and ignore from the current issues.  I suppose it's an interesting thought experiment, akin to who would win against Ali vs Tyson, but it's an irrelevant pursuit.  They were men of their times; we are in our own time with our own set of challenges.  

[downzy]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/16/black-man-now-almost-impossible-stand-black-lives-matter-agenda/

You keep posting the same black man who shares your opinion.

You do realize that simply because you found one or two black people who agree with you it doesn't legitimize your position.  It just means you found one or two black people who agree with you.  

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, downzy said:

You keep posting the same black man who shares your opinion.

You do realize that simply because you found one or two black people who agree with you it doesn't legitimize your position.  It just means you found one or two black people who agree with you.  

I didn't ''found'' these people - one of them I wasn't even aware of until two days ago! There are also more than ''one or two''! You would know that if you read the article quoted earlier. 

All you have done is ignored every stated fact and demonstrative footage - this stuff is actually extent, recorded, and free to access!! - and manufactured a bunch of stuff about the very foundation of this movement, submerging it in some wishy washy nonsense to exonerate it of the great damage it has cause. The origin of BLM is actually quite specific and can be narrowed down to a specific and compact time frame. You deliberately choose to ignore the origins.  

None of this has legitimized your position either. Neither has shouting ''racist'' at people perpetually for simply pointing-out the utter biased drivel you speak.

 

 

[downzy]

10 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Should you really be the ones trying to put people right at this juncture?  It is, at very least, indicative of a sort of arrogance.  And if black empowerment is the thing then why are YOU the most vocal ones, surely you should be reserved and like...sitting back and sensitive to the fact that what you are supposed to be standing for is the black man getting a fair shake/getting his voice heard.

Racism doesn't get solved in America without the buy-in by white America (or enough of white America).  We've seen this all through the civil rights movement.  It was not until the horrors of brutality that were beamed into white America's homes did enough white Americans became to shift their views and physically and vocally support black American's fight for justice and equality.  To make it clear, I'm not saying that justice and equality is something that is given by white Americans to black Americans.  But you can't have progress in this space unless enough white Americans take up the cause. 

Who says white Americans are now the most vocal in the movement?  Sure, DD can and likely will find a youtube video of Whitey McWhiteface putting on a display.  But by and large, BLM is still sustained and primarily led by black Americans.  The last time I checked there are no white leaders amongst the BLM movement. 

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

but there's a fine line where you kinda start making it about yourself. 

That's true.  There is an element of performance to what we're seeing from some white Americans.  But I would say two things.  First, even if it's performative, in the aggregate it still can help lead to progress.  Second, and while I don't think you're doing this, the belief that all expressions of support and fraternity amongst white Americans for the BLM is simply performative and little of it sincere is the kind of cynicism that regressive reactionaries are counting on to push back on this movement.  We shouldn't impugn an entire movement, even the white supporters, simply because some might see themselves a bit too much in their support.  

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Where BLM kinda morphs into like trans rights and gay rights and it became, what was that shit you were talkin' early, BAM?  Black Asian Minorities?  Its like a bunch of people co-opting this whole thing and its like hang on a second, whoose the primary wronged party here, where did this begin?  Black folks right, thats what this is supposed to be about?

I would say this consideration is based on two concerns.  First, black Americans have historically been the most conservative with respect to gay rights.  The irony of Obama's victory in 2008 was that it came at the cost of making gay marriage illegal in the state of California (more Africans came out to vote for Obama in 2008, and in doing so also took the time to vote in support of Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage as a result of passing).  So I think it's an acknowledgement by the black community, particularly those 30 and under, that if the are going to fight racial prejudice as a whole they have to correct the sins of the past and make it clear they are also supportive of gay and trans rights.  Second, and to the point I just made, the efforts to include the LGBTQ community in their fight is to tap into a much larger conversation around fairness and equality that extends beyond just the issues affecting the black community.  Equality before the law isn't just a black issue.  It's an ongoing issue that effects many different marginalized communities.  Tying their fight to the larger fight is, in their opinion, the best path to promoting the issue as a whole.  You might disagree with that strategy or mindset, but it's not an unconscious accident on the part of those who promote the cause.  

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

it seems that the focus is really easily lost about that by it suddenly becoming about a whole bunch of other shit

It would be if the inclusion of other marginalized groups was the overarching value or the basis upon the spirit of the movement lives on.  It's not.  It's simply and acknowledgement and an evocation of what they are for and what they are not.  The primary concern is to elevate the notion that black people are treated differently than white people.  In doing so they acknowledge that their fight isn't limited to them, and they make it clear they are not an exclusionary force.  

 

[downzy]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

All you have done is ignored every stated fact and demonstrative footage - this stuff is actually extent, recorded, and free to access!!

No.  What I have done is refused to accept that your footage is indicative of the entire movement.  You're employing the exception defence.  "Look, here's one guy talking about this.  Look, here's a video of white people being assholes to dinners.  Look, here's a black guy who shits on BLM.  I'm right."

It's nothing more than an effort to mischaracterize a decentralized movement by appealing to so-called self-anointed leaders and contrarians.  

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The origin of BLM is actually quite specific and can be narrowed down to a specific and compact time frame. You deliberately choose to ignore the origins.

Again, no.

What I choose to do, because it is undeniable, is separate the movement at large with the organization.  Myself and the tens of millions of people who have voiced support for the spirit of the movement over the summer could care less about what some self-anointed leader of the organization says.  The repeated incidents of black people being brutalized by cops sparked worldwide support for a phrase that happens to also have an organization.  Denigrating anyone who says they support BLM is to cynically assume they agree or are even aware of some obscure far-off Marxist policy position supported by a few individuals within the organization.  You're already on record as suggesting anyone who supports or identifies as a BLM supporter as scum without the slightest idea of what they actually believe in.  

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Neither has shouting ''racist'' at people perpetually for simply pointing-out the utter biased drivel you speak.

I haven't shouted racist at people.  Just you. 

[DieselDaisy]

33 minutes ago, downzy said:

I haven't shouted racist at people.  Just you. 

Well I am still waiting for the evidence for that. It should be the easiest thing in the world to quote one of my ''racist'' posts, and I believe I have three people (you, Soul, and some other wanker who I blocked, on the case) but: nope. Zilch. Null. There are literally three of you and neither one of you can produce one racist quotation written by yours truly to support your accusation! But I'll continue to wait...

[downzy]

33 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well I am still waiting for the evidence for that. It should be the easiest thing in the world to quote one of my ''racist'' posts, and I believe I have three people (you, Soul, and some other wanker who I blocked, on the case) but: nope. Zilch. Null. There are literally three of you and neither one of you can produce one racist quotation written by yours truly to support your accusation! But I'll continue to wait...

I don't need to go through your entire posting history.  I've used some of your most recent posts to support my opinion.  Guess you weren't paying attention.  

[Len Cnut]

16 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

The ugliness of racism, which suppresses people for no good reason and cause conflicts, isn't affected by who says it, who they are and who their ancestors are, it is ugly period. That people should be disqualified for fighting against racism, or speaking out against racism, or standing and marching in solidarity to victims of racisms, simply because they haven't been victims of racism themselves or because they happen to belong to a group of people who tend to be racist towards others, is nonsensical to me. The validity of an opinion and value of an expression isn't colored by who says it, it stands on its own. 

It's unfortunate when this happens because it dilutes the message, but kind of unavoidable for such a massive and disorganized movement as BLM.

So why is the whole white saviour thing bandied around so much?
 

Quote

 

Now you are buying into the propaganda that a lot of people are being ragged on for not marching, espoused by those who seek to undermine BLM. 

 

No I'm not, I'm talking about those people who do that shit, whether there's 1 or 2 or 50 of em, not the whole BLM.

Quote

It's a shame that when blacks don't conform to the lefts' views they're put down like they are but I welcome them on the right with open arms, peace and love.

Like the old pervert next door just waiting for Sally to argue with her family so he can 'comfort' her

Quote

The discussion of whether Malcolm X or MLK would be supporters of BLM is pointless.  What does it matter whether leaders from 60 to 70 years ago would agree or support the current civil rights movements.  It's a discussion meant to distract and ignore from the current issues.

Why would I want to do that?

Quote

Racism doesn't get solved in America without the buy-in by white America (or enough of white America).  We've seen this all through the civil rights movement.  It was not until the horrors of brutality that were beamed into white America's homes did enough white Americans became to shift their views and physically and vocally support black American's fight for justice and equality.  To make it clear, I'm not saying that justice and equality is something that is given by white Americans to black Americans.  But you can't have progress in this space unless enough white Americans take up the cause. 

I did say in my post 'support by all means, stand up, put your money down etc etc' words to that effect, I was just talking about the tendency to overrun and smother a thing and the importance of guarding against that.

Quote

Who says white Americans are now the most vocal in the movement?

No one.  Well, not me anyway, all I was talking about was the concept of the white zealot in the context of BLM.

 

[Len Cnut]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well I am still waiting for the evidence for that. It should be the easiest thing in the world to quote one of my ''racist'' posts, and I believe I have three people (you, Soul, and some other wanker who I blocked, on the case) but: nope. Zilch. Null. There are literally three of you and neither one of you can produce one racist quotation written by yours truly to support your accusation! But I'll continue to wait...

The Case for Dies' Being a Racist:

1 - knows a lot about the Nazi's

2 - comes from up North where they're all racist anyway

3 - likes cricket, colonialists sport

4 - big tachioed racist looking cunt in his avatar

5 - doesn't like dark Magnums

6 - hates hip hop

 

Verdict: Guilty

Edited September 17, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

So why is the whole white saviour thing bandied around so much?

I don't know. I never hear that expression really. Isn't that just something white people say to belittle other white people who fight for racial equality?

No one is "saving" anyone, people just stand up for what is right. The whole idea that whites should only care about whites and their own problems and blacks about blacks and their problem, is kind of a segregation of empathy and concern. An apartheid of the empathic mind. 

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know. I never hear that expression really. Isn't that just something white people say to belittle other white people who fight for racial equality?

No one is "saving" anyone, people just stand up for what is right. The whole idea that whites should only care about whites and their own problems and blacks about blacks and their problem, is kind of a segregation of empathy and concern. An apartheid of the empathic mind. 

My original post did say that you should support, stand up and lay your money down for the cause, what I'm talking about is the importance of guarding against a tendency to make the whole thing a self serving exercise.  Its something to do with the nature of empowerment and self actualisation. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

My original post did say that you should support, stand up and lay your money down for the cause, what I'm talking about is the importance of guarding against a tendency to make the whole thing a self serving exercise.  Its something to do with the nature of empowerment and self actualisation. 

Absolutely. I don't see that happening re: BLM, though. But what do I know?

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Absolutely. I don't see that happening re: BLM, though. But what do I know?

I wouldn't say that I necessarily see it happening either, otherwise I would put it stronger than 'guarding against a tendency', it just sprang to mind when I see extremely zealous shoutey people in large groups having a go at some diner or something.  Again, this obviously is a small minority in the bigger scheme of things but thats how things start. 

Also, I find this seperation of movement and organization slightly troubling.  Was just listening to that thing Dies' posted yesterday with Piers Morgan, its a really odd thing, you have a movement and an organization by the exact same name with different concerns, its a bit...weird. 

 

[DieselDaisy]

8 hours ago, downzy said:

I don't need to go through your entire posting history.  I've used some of your most recent posts to support my opinion.  Guess you weren't paying attention.  

Nothing you have quoted is racist however! It couldn't be as none exists! You haven't been able to quote a single quote of actual racism. Maybe, like most of the left these days, you are not tolerably well informed on what the term ''racism'' means, as these days you scatter the term around like confetti  from rice to pancake mix, that it is a term that is becoming ultimately useless. Here however is a standard definition,

Quote

Noun

racism (usually uncountable, plural racisms)

1. Belief that there are distinct human races with inherent differences which determine their abilities, and generally that some are superiorand others inferior. quotations ▼
2. The policies, practices, or systems (e.g. government or political) promoting this belief or promoting the dominance of one or more racesover others. quotations ▼

   Martin Luther King spoke out against racism.

3. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity; (countable) an action of such discrimination. 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I wouldn't say that I necessarily see it happening either, otherwise I would put it stronger than 'guarding against a tendency', it just sprang to mind when I see extremely zealous shoutey people in large groups having a go at some diner or something.  Again, this obviously is a small minority in the bigger scheme of things but thats how things start. 

Also, I find this seperation of movement and organization slightly troubling.  Was just listening to that thing Dies' posted yesterday with Piers Morgan, its a really odd thing, you have a movement and an organization by the exact same name with different concerns, its a bit...weird. 

 

They commenced amalgamated, co-joined - the term ''Black Lives Matter', the movement and the organisation. They proceeded as one. There was no grass roots movement before the creation of organisations: this is a thoroughly erroneous narrative spread by downzy and Soul. Black Lives Matter in reality were instigated July 2013 by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi in the wake of the Zimmerman acquittal.

Edited September 17, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

The Case for Dies' Being a Racist:

1 - knows a lot about the Nazi's

2 - comes from up North where they're all racist anyway

3 - likes cricket, colonialists sport

4 - big tachioed racist looking cunt in his avatar

5 - doesn't like dark Magnums

6 - hates hip hop

 

Verdict: Guilty

I am listening to Wagner right now.

[action]

I drive a black BMW, I can't possibly be racist.

joking aside, a couple of observations / anecdotal experiences.

I stopped before a predestrian crossing today, letting a black family pass. I friendly nod I gave them, and the man of the family smiled back and put his thumb up for me. genuinly made me feel good.

I'll never understand racists, but I'll never understand the focus on skin color on both sides of the debate either.

Skin color is so insignificant, that I just don't see the reason to bring it up. Both the right and the left, when bringing up skin color, are racists to me. Even when they are supposedly "fighting" for the cause of black people. Using skin colour as the base of an argument or a proposition, is always racist. 

See, these goddamn hollywood movies of today don't do nothing but spread division between the races, precisely with their forced attempts to give roles to black people.

In current movies, you always have this black woman, usually not attractive, who plays the discriminated / tormented character for being black. And they are always unattractive, never sexy. Is it, becayse it wouldn't be believable having a sexy black woman being discriminated against? See, it's as if movie makers desperately want to fabricate emotions, that just don't have a basis in reality.

Where are the movies that have sexy black women in uplifting, feel good roles? Why is it always depressing, tormented roles? it's propaganda if I ever saw it.

I seriously question the good faith of hollywood when depicting black people in movies. It all seems very insincere and malicious to me.

[ZoSoRose]

It is asinine to think racism is not a rampant problem, still. The things I hear and read from people on a weekly basis is direct proof, some from my own family

[action]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I wouldn't say that I necessarily see it happening either, otherwise I would put it stronger than 'guarding against a tendency', it just sprang to mind when I see extremely zealous shoutey people in large groups having a go at some diner or something.  Again, this obviously is a small minority in the bigger scheme of things but thats how things start. 

Also, I find this seperation of movement and organization slightly troubling.  Was just listening to that thing Dies' posted yesterday with Piers Morgan, its a really odd thing, you have a movement and an organization by the exact same name with different concerns, its a bit...weird. 

 

it is so liberating not to be associated with any movement whatsoever.

but it's so hard to do.

society forces you to admit the side you're on. society loves to label people. And with labels, come rights and privileges.

You can't label me. I am not a supporter of any group of person, I hate them all equally, the right AND the left. I hate everyone and everything. The moment I set foot outside my door, I'm already frustrated with the dumbness of people, and it gets worse with age.

[Gibsonfender2323]

13 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well I am still waiting for the evidence for that. It should be the easiest thing in the world to quote one of my ''racist'' posts, and I believe I have three people (you, Soul, and some other wanker who I blocked, on the case) but: nope. Zilch. Null. There are literally three of you and neither one of you can produce one racist quotation written by yours truly to support your accusation! But I'll continue to wait...

if someone calls you racist and doesn't have facts to back up the evidence it means they lost the argument and are looking for a cop out

[soon]

14 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

if someone calls you racist and doesn't have facts to back up the evidence it means they lost the argument and are looking for a cop out

Or in the case of you and DD, it means the evidence is flying over your heads

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

if someone calls you racist and doesn't have facts to back up the evidence it means they lost the argument and are looking for a cop out

Yes. ''Racism'' is used to shut up fact-based rational discourse. Also, about me positing the opinions of a number of black people criticising Black Lives Matter (more than the ''one or two'' erroneously stated by downzy), the reason their voice is more essential than it would normally be is basically because of the type of rhetoric excised by downzy, soul and others of a wokeish disposition, whereby, whenever a white person criticises Black Lives Matter, you know the r-word is imminent.

[soon]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yes. ''Racism'' is used to shut up fact-based rational discourse. Also, about me positing the opinions of a number of black people criticising Black Lives Matter (more than the ''one or two'' erroneously stated by downzy), the reason their voice is more essential than it would normally be is basically because of the type of rhetoric excised by downzy, soul and others of a wokeish disposition, whereby, whenever a white person criticises Black Lives Matter, you know the r-word is imminent.

That Thatcher quote is exactly wht Greta says about people who insult her for her age....

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

6 hours ago, soon said:

That Thatcher quote is exactly wht Greta says about people who insult her for her age....

Galaxy brain take: Greta is the true conservative