• BLM Protester: "We need to start killing people", probably will get a visit from Secret Service soon
    50 replies, posted
Upon some more investigative work, I have actually found an instance of BLM doing precisely what you guys asked for here: [QUOTE]where's the public condemnation? What official channels are saying "no this ain't us"[/QUOTE] [T]http://i.imgur.com/mLSCEXO.png[/T] [QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51754619]Like any movement should, every individual should see "maybe 100" people shouting "cops should die because they're cops", stand up and say "no, this is antithetical to the movement and is an affront to my personal beliefs and we will not stand for it." and eject the rouge/corrupt elements. Because to allow those people to stay is a tacit act of admission by each and every individual that they are ok with those ideas. And that's why it's so important. Because it speaks volumes about [I]each and every single individual[/I] that associates with those supposedly rogue elements. Either it's such a small concern to them it isn't worth the trouble of objecting, or they just flat out [I]agree[/I]. And even if they disagree, their actions are fundimentally identical to as if they did agree, so it's practically the same expression.[/QUOTE] They should condemn that group of protesters (and they may very well have; it's a slog going through these thousands of tweets and FB posts), but some of your other comments don't sit well with me. Why does this speak volumes about every single individual that associates with BLM? Most people that associate with BLM probably aren't even aware that this event took place. And come on. "Either it's such a small concern to them it isn't worth the trouble of objecting, or they just flat out [I]agree[/I]"? Things are more nuanced than that. What about the people like myself that are critical of these facets of the movement while still supporting it? Your last statement is the most absurd to me of all. "Even if they disagree, they agree"? What? [QUOTE]Well all the founding members state that the movement is an anti police movement, and [I]only[/I] an anti police movement. So frankly this is in truth perfectly aligned with the movement. Frankly if you want to do some good, find another way to express it. BLM is corrupt to the core and is beyond repair. And that's presuming what they're crusading for is correct at all, which isn't really true.[/QUOTE] Sources? [QUOTE]Ok.[/QUOTE] I'll take these on a case-by-case. [QUOTE][video=youtube;hqQXmnMr_w8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqQXmnMr_w8[/video][/QUOTE] [url]http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/14/fox-amp-friends-airs-misleading-footage-to-sugg/201874[/url] [url]http://www.msnbc.com/the-reid-report/the-truth-about-the-dead-cops-chant[/url] [QUOTE][video=youtube;RC-Cqkq6zWc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Cqkq6zWc[/video] [video=youtube;mlJx7YV0ICM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlJx7YV0ICM[/video][/QUOTE] These two videos literally amount to a grand total of two people, one a convicted criminal. [QUOTE][video=youtube;9ZJOmtEH5Y0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZJOmtEH5Y0[/video] I mean, is this enough or should i keep going?[/QUOTE] The last one is probably the most damning; but that's not saying much. The first statement doesn't seem to be cheered much, but the video is cut off before we see how people respond so who knows. The second clip is cut with no applause or cheering to another clip with clapping, who knows what for (some previous statement of unknown content), the last clip had people cease applauding as soon as he started talking about violent action. The video is presented in a, in my opinion, disingenuous fashion. Also, is there more info on this video? The comment section is of no help as you can imagine. A source that states that the speakers were associated with BLM, officially or unofficially, would be of particular usefulness.
See this is a good discussion. This is what we need. [QUOTE=Duck M.;51754656]Upon some more investigative work, I have actually found an instance of BLM doing precisely what you guys asked for here: [T]http://i.imgur.com/mLSCEXO.png[/T] [/QUOTE] Good on 'em, they need more people like that. Although a singular instance is nice, the majority of evidence is against it. So they have a ways to go. [QUOTE=Duck M.;51754656] They should condemn that group of protesters (and they may very well have; it's a slog going through these thousands of tweets and FB posts), but some of your other comments don't sit well with me. Why does this speak volumes about every single individual that associates with BLM? Most people that associate with BLM probably aren't even aware that this event took place. And come on. "Either it's such a small concern to them it isn't worth the trouble of objecting, or they just flat out [I]agree[/I]"? Things are more nuanced than that. What about the people like myself that are critical of these facets of the movement while still supporting it? Your last statement is the most absurd to me of all. "Even if they disagree, they agree"? What?[/QUOTE] No you misunderstand me. In that instance i was talking about interactions between the individuals within the movement, and not the movement as a collective. Specifically when they're socializing together, and not out in public. And it speaks volumes about the movement's culture that when someone goes "violence against cops is good", nobody stands up and says "you're a fucking moron, get out". And in not doing so, they're complicit with that opinion in failing to reject it. As for you, unless you go to actual BLM gatherings/assemblies/etc, there's nothing you can actually do to fix this sort of thing. The onus of responsibility is on the people inside the movement itself. And when i say "it's practically the same result", what i mean is if you have a person who agrees with violence against cops/white people, and you have a person that disagrees with it, but does nothing to condemn or eject the people with those ideas, the end result is exactly the same between the two possibilities. So the practical outcome is an identical result. All it takes for evil to happen is for good men to do nothing. [QUOTE]Sources?[/QUOTE] Well for starters[URL="http://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/"] it was founded on[/URL] the philosiphies of [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/cuba-assata-shakur-americas-most-wanted-woman-will-not-be-extradited"]someone wanted for the murder of multiple police officers[/URL]. So that's not much of an endorsement. [URL="http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/tmp.html"]And said philosiphies are very revolutionary and destructive in nature[/URL], and are [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvRlJ_MzoII"]echoed repeatedly by the movement itself[/URL], so you can't say that those philosihpies were just discarded. Also they were heard saying "[URL="http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter-leader-defund-police-departments/"]Defund police[/URL]". And also just [URL="http://www.citynews.ca/2016/04/05/black-lives-matter-co-founder-tweets-about-killing-men-and-white-folks/"]killing white people and men because reasons[/URL]. Although the original tweet was taken down because it turns out advocating genocide is unpopular. I'm trying to find the original quote i was thinking of but google isn't playing nice. For what it's worth i know i've seen it, but since i can't prove it yet feel free to disregard this. [QUOTE][URL]http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/14/fox-amp-friends-airs-misleading-footage-to-sugg/201874[/URL] [URL]http://www.msnbc.com/the-reid-report/the-truth-about-the-dead-cops-chant[/URL][/QUOTE] Neither of these refutes that it was BLM, just that it was a splinter of the main group. [QUOTE]These two videos literally amount to a grand total of two people, one a convicted criminal. [/QUOTE] Well everyone on that side of the panel are complicit in it, so you could at least throw them into the count as well. Point is, it's evidence to support the corruption of the culture of BLM, as these views are at best not hindered and at worst, actively enabled/encouraged [QUOTE]The last one is probably the most damning; but that's not saying much. The first statement doesn't seem to be cheered much, but the video is cut off before we see how people respond so who knows. The second clip is cut with no applause or cheering to another clip with clapping, who knows what for (some previous statement of unknown content), the last clip had people cease applauding as soon as he started talking about violent action. The video is presented in a, in my opinion, disingenuous fashion.[/QUOTE] But does anyone stop him? Does anyone boo, jeer or say "no!"? Again, complacency. [QUOTE]Also, is there more info on this video? The comment section is of no help as you can imagine. A source that states that the speakers were associated with BLM, officially or unofficially, would be of particular usefulness[/QUOTE] I just stumbled upon it one day. I'm not sure there's any reason to think it's not BLM though, i can't think of any other sort of common assemblies like this, so in all likelyhood it is BLM. And hell, here's some more videos [video=youtube;1WzzUVBi1_Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WzzUVBi1_Q[/video] [video=youtube;OJAuVQlLxD0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJAuVQlLxD0[/video] [URL]http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/keith-lamont-scotts-brother-white-people-devils-video-watch-charlotte-riots-facebook-live-brentley-vinson-black-lives-matter/comment-page-6/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51754710] Good on 'em, they need more people like that. Although a singular instance is nice, the majority of evidence is against it. So they have a ways to go.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure about the whole "majority of evidence part". It only took me about 15 minutes to find that, I'm sure theres more. [QUOTE]No you misunderstand me. In that instance i was talking about interactions between the individuals within the movement, and not the movement as a collective. Specifically when they're socializing together, and not out in public. And it speaks volumes about the movement's culture that when someone goes "violence against cops is good", nobody stands up and says "you're a fucking moron, get out". And in not doing so, they're complicit with that opinion in failing to reject it. As for you, unless you go to actual BLM gatherings/assemblies/etc, there's nothing you can actually do to fix this sort of thing. The onus of responsibility is on the people inside the movement itself. And when i say "it's practically the same result", what i mean is if you have a person who agrees with violence against cops/white people, and you have a person that disagrees with it, but does nothing to condemn or eject the people with those ideas, the end result is exactly the same between the two possibilities. So the practical outcome is an identical result. All it takes for evil to happen is for good men to do nothing.[/QUOTE] Ah, I understand. I think these instances are more of a result of stuff like the bystander effect, which isn't exclusive to BLM. As for me, I do semi-regularly participate in my local activist protests and marches (J20, womens march, and post-election day, nov 9th), but I'm not officially associated with any larger groups. I may get involved to see what the landscape of our local activist culture is like and what I can do to be a part of it/improve it, but it seems like the stuff closest to me is more antifa/marxist groups and not really BLM. [QUOTE] Well for starters[URL="http://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/"] it was founded on[/URL] the philosiphies of [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/cuba-assata-shakur-americas-most-wanted-woman-will-not-be-extradited"]someone wanted for the murder of multiple police officers[/URL]. So that's not much of an endorsement.[/QUOTE] Assata Shakur is an indisputidably controversial figure and her case is one of the more complicated. I won't defend her necessarily, but she [I]was[/I] acquitted for most of her alleged crimes and her involvement with the turnpike shooting isn't entirely clear. It isn't inconceivable that someone would support her for the more positive parts of her rhetoric while remaining skeptical of her involvement (just like Common, for one, this conversation reminds me of that old Jon Stewart vs. O'Reilly debate actually). [QUOTE][URL="http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/tmp.html"]And said philosiphies are very revolutionary and destructive in nature[/URL], and are [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvRlJ_MzoII"]echoed repeatedly by the movement itself[/URL], so you can't say that those philosihpies were just discarded.[/QUOTE] How are these two links related? Am I supposted to believe that the chant iterated by the people in the video is an implicit endorsement of Shakur? [QUOTE]Also they were heard saying "[URL="http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter-leader-defund-police-departments/"]Defund police[/URL]". And also just [URL="http://www.citynews.ca/2016/04/05/black-lives-matter-co-founder-tweets-about-killing-men-and-white-folks/"]killing white people and men because reasons[/URL]. Although the original tweet was taken down because it turns out advocating genocide is unpopular. I'm trying to find the original quote i was thinking of but google isn't playing nice. For what it's worth i know i've seen it, but since i can't prove it yet feel free to disregard this.[/QUOTE] I disagree with defunding police departments to a certain extent; I think that funds should be used more constructively and should be directed in a fashion that improves quality of life for citizens in respective districts and police performance. If relations can be improved by increasing or redirecting funding then I say go for it- but perhaps there are some dysfunctional departments that should be defunded or entirely reformed. Ferguson was one, I'm sure there are others. I think she should be given the opportunity to defend and extrapolate on her claims. And yeah, I dont like BLM Toronto. I've said that in the past, and I'll say it again. They are part of the problem, imho. [QUOTE]Neither of these refutes that it was BLM, just that it was a splinter of the main group.[/QUOTE] Being unassociated means that it's unassociated. You provided this video, what evidence can you provide that this was either an unofficial or official BLM group? [QUOTE]Well everyone on that side of the panel are complicit in it, so you could at least throw them into the count as well. Point is, it's evidence to support the corruption of the culture of BLM, as these views are at best not hindered.[/QUOTE] Which panel? I think you're referring to the first video but that's not a significant increase. In my opinion, it's not the job of BLM to publicly denounce literally every single instance of someone saying the words "Black Lives Matter" in an inflammatory situation. [QUOTE]But does anyone stop him? Does anyone boo, jeer or say "no!"? Again, complacency.[/QUOTE] Who knows, maybe they do. The video is cut up to where we don't see genuine audience reactions, which was my point. Another reasonable explanation, as I pointed out earlier, could be the result of the bystander effect/being intimidated. [QUOTE]I just stumbled upon it one day. I'm not sure there's any reason to think it's not BLM though, i can't think of any other sort of common assemblies like this, so in all likelyhood it is BLM.[/QUOTE] That seems fairly disingenuous to me. There are [I]plenty[/I] of black power movements active today. The New Black Panthers Movement, for instance, is a racist and militant group that's been posted in here before and I could've sworn I saw you posting about. Or, they could just be unaffiliated. It's not safe or responsible to just assume that these people are affiliated with BLM without evidence. [QUOTE]And hell, here's some more videos [video=youtube;1WzzUVBi1_Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WzzUVBi1_Q[/video][/QUOTE] The reporter said it himself, the demonstrations were peaceful. They singled this guy out but even they admit that there was no violence here. [QUOTE][video=youtube;OJAuVQlLxD0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJAuVQlLxD0[/video][/QUOTE] What's the problem with this one? Is it because they're in a library? That's really not that bad, it's disruptive and not my ideal protest location but it isn't violent or even on the caliber of anything else you've posted. [QUOTE][URL]http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/keith-lamont-scotts-brother-white-people-devils-video-watch-charlotte-riots-facebook-live-brentley-vinson-black-lives-matter/comment-page-6/[/URL][/QUOTE] His brother was just (in his mind, unjustly) killed. It's not irrational for him to lash out emotionally, especially when considering how high-profile the case was and how the media attention must have affected him. Really, though, I don't know why I have to defend the actions of every single individual human being that's uttered the words "Black Lives Matter". Can I not support the movement while condemning the actions of these people? Why must the movement (not really the movement, even, but its supporters) be completely spit-shine-spotless to be worth supporting?
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51754901] The reporter said it himself, the demonstrations were peaceful. They singled this guy out but even they admit that there was no violence here. [/QUOTE] its ok because hes black
[QUOTE=IceBlizzard;51755067]its ok because hes black[/QUOTE] Ok? Could you extrapolate? I'm confused, what is "ok because he's black"?
[QUOTE=27X;51754544]Says the guy who ranted on for three pages in the GG thread about what a bunch of misogynist woman beating fuckfaces we are and why don't we pick a better hashtag[/QUOTE] well the difference is that blm is about people's lives and rights while gg is about fucken video games it's not important
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51754156]I like how everyone is saying "tudd is biased" as if that makes the horrible horrible content of the video less true.[/QUOTE] BLM is dumb, the content of the video is horrible, and people pointing out Tudd's posting habits are absolutely correct. [QUOTE]sophists[/QUOTE] I was thinking that this word suddenly got really popular on FP then I noticed you just changed your avatar.
[QUOTE=Eric95;51755117]well the difference is that blm is about people's lives and rights while gg is about fucken video games it's not important[/QUOTE] [quote] It doesn't matter if people are losing their livelihoods and being permanently blacklisted and being socially abused for entirely shallow political reasons cause I don't give a fuck about video games while posting on a forum about video games [/quote]
[QUOTE=KingOfScience;51753540]just gonna pop in here real quick and emphasize that this is not representative behavior of BLM protesters in general. it's another example of people cherrypicking videos that make them look bad. don't see this and think that it's what the movement stands for.[/QUOTE] I think BLM reached PETA levels of shittyness. The shark was jumped when BLM protests turned up in Canada and the UK.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51754901]I'm not sure about the whole "majority of evidence part". It only took me about 15 minutes to find that, I'm sure theres more.[/QUOTE] "Some evidence" and "The majority of the evidence" are two distinct statements [QUOTE] Ah, I understand. I think these instances are more of a result of stuff like the bystander effect, which isn't exclusive to BLM. As for me, I do semi-regularly participate in my local activist protests and marches (J20, womens march, and post-election day, nov 9th), but I'm not officially associated with any larger groups. I may get involved to see what the landscape of our local activist culture is like and what I can do to be a part of it/improve it, but it seems like the stuff closest to me is more antifa/marxist groups and not really BLM.[/QUOTE] Well it probably is the bystander effect, but what does that change? Absolutely nothing. Explanation of inaction is not absolution of responsibility [QUOTE]Assata Shakur is an indisputidably controversial figure and her case is one of the more complicated. I won't defend her necessarily, but she [I]was[/I] acquitted for most of her alleged crimes and her involvement with the turnpike shooting isn't entirely clear. It isn't inconceivable that someone would support her for the more positive parts of her rhetoric while remaining skeptical of her involvement (just like Common, for one, this conversation reminds me of that old Jon Stewart vs. O'Reilly debate actually). How are these two links related? Am I supposted to believe that the chant iterated by the people in the video is an implicit endorsement of Shakur? [/QUOTE] The chant is lifted directly from her little manifesto. The point being that you can't make the argument that her influence is marginal, which serves the bigger point that the whole movement is founded in this destructive, revolutionary and fundimentally ideological position. Which has never not been a recipe for disaster and suffering. Just ask spain. [QUOTE]I disagree with defunding police departments to a certain extent; I think that funds should be used more constructively and should be directed in a fashion that improves quality of life for citizens in respective districts and police performance. If relations can be improved by increasing or redirecting funding then I say go for it- but perhaps there are some dysfunctional departments that should be defunded or entirely reformed. Ferguson was one, I'm sure there are others. I think she should be given the opportunity to defend and extrapolate on her claims. And yeah, I dont like BLM Toronto. I've said that in the past, and I'll say it again. They are part of the problem, imho.[/QUOTE] Well it's not about what you think, and that's a perfectly reasonable opinion you have, my point is that the core beliefs of the BLM movement are broken. So what you think is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not condemning you, i'm condemning what you're defending. It's unhealthy to not make the distinction between yourself and what you're standing for. And the supporting evidence i provided was supposed to show that it's an anti police and anti establishment movement. So ok, you defund the only way for the state to enforce the law, which is a defining feature of the state. What takes it's place? Anarchy and a dominance highearchy of violence. The CAR tried that, it sucks. [QUOTE]Being unassociated means that it's unassociated. You provided this video, what evidence can you provide that this was either an unofficial or official BLM group?[/QUOTE] Splintering off from the main BLM parade and not being a part of BLM are two different things. And it supports my point that a sizable chunk of BLM is a corrupting and rouge influence upon the rest of the movement that has rendered it a failing and aimless cause. [QUOTE]Which panel? I think you're referring to the first video but that's not a significant increase. [/QUOTE] And therefore what? Is someone openly advocating for genocide no indicative of a serious cultural problem within the movement? That's the biggest possible red flag anyone could ever raise. [QUOTE]In my opinion, it's not the job of BLM to publicly denounce literally every single instance of someone saying the words "Black Lives Matter" in an inflammatory situation.[/QUOTE] No you're right. It's their job to [I]internally[/I] dennounce and [I]rectify[/I] the parts of the movement that have these views. I mean by that token you could justify the KKK by saying "well they're simply a group for advancing the white race in society, and aren't specifically anti non whites. It's not their job to condemn every single anti black member they may have, because the core philosiphies they hold isn't specifically anti black." But we don't treat them like that, and because they fail to curb those terrible elements, those terrible elements define them. Is it that bad with BLM yet? No, but it will be if they fail to act, which they are. [QUOTE]Who knows, maybe they do. The video is cut up to where we don't see genuine audience reactions, which was my point. Another reasonable explanation, as I pointed out earlier, could be the result of the bystander effect/being intimidated. [/QUOTE] Could be true, although the longer it takes for someone to act the less and less likely it is. You could see it either way just as reasonably. [QUOTE]That seems fairly disingenuous to me. There are [I]plenty[/I] of black power movements active today. The New Black Panthers Movement, for instance, is a racist and militant group that's been posted in here before and I could've sworn I saw you posting about. Or, they could just be unaffiliated. It's not safe or responsible to just assume that these people are affiliated with BLM without evidence.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure the black panthers would have a majority white crowd at a public protest. That's like some neo nazis having a majority jewish audience at a rally, yet somehow even less likely. You're right to say it's bad to assume, i'm just saying it's the most likely scenario. [QUOTE]The reporter said it himself, the demonstrations were peaceful. They singled this guy out but even they admit that there was no violence here.[/QUOTE] And i'm not arguing about violence, i'm arguing about the culture and ideas they're harboring. And the idea i was presenting was "white people are devils". Does this seem healthy to you? [QUOTE]What's the problem with this one? Is it because they're in a library? That's really not that bad, it's disruptive and not my ideal protest location but it isn't violent or even on the caliber of anything else you've posted.[/QUOTE] You must've not watched it all the way through, because they start screaming things like "fuck you you filthy white fuck" and threatening people based on race. I trust you'd agree that that's not super duper constructive or pragmatic principals to live by. [QUOTE]His brother was just (in his mind, unjustly) killed. It's not irrational for him to lash out emotionally, especially when considering how high-profile the case was and how the media attention must have affected him. [/QUOTE] Absolutely not. Suffering tradgedy is not an excuse to say "all of X race are inherently evil/worthless and must be destroyed". That's reprehensible and is only going to harbor ever compounding resentment. Do not make excuses like that. [QUOTE] Really, though, I don't know why I have to defend the actions of every single individual human being that's uttered the words "Black Lives Matter". Can I not support the movement while condemning the actions of these people? Why must the movement (not really the movement, even, but its supporters) be completely spit-shine-spotless to be worth supporting?[/QUOTE] Every movement has it's rouge elements, and both it as a collective/organization and all it's constituent individuals have a responsibility to purge those rouge elements before they corrupt and destroy it from within. The entire point of my argument is that [I]that's not happening[/I]. And i don't mean that literally nobody within has ever said "you know maybe that's a shitty opinion", it's that it's not happening enough. And there is so little correction to the rogue elements, that it's in danger of the rogue elements becoming the most influential internal part. And that wont' change until something inside the movment changes, and the vast majority of the people inside take their mantle of responsibility and fix it. [QUOTE=Raidyr;51756689] I was thinking that this word suddenly got really popular on FP then I noticed you just changed your avatar.[/QUOTE] And therefore what? [editline]31st January 2017[/editline] My mistake, that clip didn't show the actual "filthy white fuck" moment. Trying to find the one that did [editline]31st January 2017[/editline] Edit button isn't working. That is the clip i remember and clip does contain it, it's just direly drowned out in the background and you have to listen very carefully to hear it. I remembered it being much more distinct and just posted it without re watching it. Whoops
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51758924]"Some evidence" and "The majority of the evidence" are two distinct statements[/QUOTE] You'll have to clarify this one for me because I think I'm missing something. You did say majority of evidence, no? [QUOTE]Well it probably is the bystander effect, but what does that change? Absolutely nothing. Explanation of inaction is not absolution of responsibility[/QUOTE] It would be nice if someone spoke up but it's fairly unrealistic considering basic human psychology. [QUOTE]The chant is lifted directly from her little manifesto.[/QUOTE] I actually did miss that! This could raise the idea that these people do not know that the quote is associated with Shakur just as I didn't. Before now I would've recited that message with no knowlege of its origin. [QUOTE]The point being that you can't make the argument that her influence is marginal, which serves the bigger point that the whole movement is founded in this destructive, revolutionary and fundimentally ideological position. Which has never not been a recipe for disaster and suffering. Just ask spain.[/QUOTE] Influence does not travel the path of point A to point B most of the time. It's transformed over time, parts of ideology are selectively implemented and remembered, the cultural surroundings that those beliefs are contextualized within change, etc. If BLM does actively tread into Black Liberation Army level revolutionary action, then you got me. However, I think times have changed and it's not realistic to expect that to come out of BLM. [QUOTE]Well it's not about what you think, and that's a perfectly reasonable opinion you have, my point is that the core beliefs of the BLM movement are broken. So what you think is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not condemning you, i'm condemning what you're defending. It's unhealthy to not make the distinction between yourself and what you're standing for.[/QUOTE] This is an interesting one. Not something I've really thought about or was thinking about when I wrote that, that's for sure. I think my point is that they could have more nuanced logic and reasoning behind the statement "Defund police" just as I do. Wouldn't it be better to not take rapid fire one-liners at face value? [QUOTE]And the supporting evidence i provided was supposed to show that it's an anti police and anti establishment movement. So ok, you defund the only way for the state to enforce the law, which is a defining feature of the state. What takes it's place? Anarchy and a dominance highearchy of violence. The CAR tried that, it sucks.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what the context behind the whole CAR situation is. If you could give me a brief primer I would appreciate it. In terms of BLM though, again, it's hard to know exactly what they mean. If they wanted to entirely rid the US of police, then wouldn't they take a more hardline abolitionist diction to convey that? The phrasing in terms of the word "defund" has be a bit confused, I'll admit. Could "defund" possibly refer to a partial defunding of departments? Because if that's the case, then my points earlier could stand. [QUOTE]Splintering off from the main BLM parade and not being a part of BLM are two different things. And it supports my point that a sizable chunk of BLM is a corrupting and rouge influence upon the rest of the movement that has rendered it a failing and aimless cause.[/QUOTE] But we still haven't established whether or not this group OR the original group it splintered off from was associated with BLM at all. As far as I can tell from the articles I read and posted earlier, the contrary is likely true. [QUOTE]And therefore what? Is someone openly advocating for genocide no indicative of a serious cultural problem within the movement? That's the biggest possible red flag anyone could ever raise.[/QUOTE] I think it's indicative of larger cultural problems both within the movement and outside of it in the greater sphere of social justice. That much is undeniable, as it doesn't seem to be an isolated sentiment. It could be symptomatic of larger frustrations and alienation. Whatever the reason, it [I]does[/I] seem that BLM is trying to curb sentiments like that on their social media platforms. There are so many different local chapters and I'm not affiliated with any of them, so I can't speak on what their politics and views on this particular issue are. [QUOTE]No you're right. It's their job to [I]internally[/I] dennounce and [I]rectify[/I] the parts of the movement that have these views.[/QUOTE] Internally? As in, leadership in activist events denouncing inflammatory statements and sentiments? Leadership promoting certain tactics within town-hall like meetings within local chapters? I've experienced the first myself, and I don't think either you nor I knows what happens behind closed doors within the membership of official chapters. [QUOTE]I mean by that token you could justify the KKK by saying "well they're simply a group for advancing the white race in society, and aren't specifically anti non whites. It's not their job to condemn every single anti black member they may have, because the core philosiphies they hold isn't specifically anti black." But we don't treat them like that, and because they fail to curb those terrible elements, those terrible elements define them. Is it that bad with BLM yet? No, but it will be if they fail to act, which they are. [/QUOTE] But the KKK [I]are[/I] specifically non-white. Their goals, aims, and agenda come at the hands of the disenfranchisement of minorities in the favor of white nationalism. The empowerment of black americans and ending institutional & systematic inequality in the US does not harm white americans, their civil rights and/or liberties, or their social standing. Comparing BLM to the KKK, even through this rhetorical device of yours, is far fetched and a false equivalence. I see more action from BLM trying to curb their worst than the KKK ever has, which isn't surprising considering that the KKK's "worst" is their best. [QUOTE]I'm not sure the black panthers would have a majority white crowd at a public protest. That's like some neo nazis having a majority jewish audience at a rally, yet somehow even less likely. You're right to say it's bad to assume, i'm just saying it's the most likely scenario.[/QUOTE] Alright now this is something that I can speak on to a great extent and have a lot of experience with. A good amount of protests are organized and started by more radical groups, and are co-opted by bystanders and less involved individuals over time. For instance, the J20 protests on my campus were started by an antifa coalition, but they advertised the protests to the students as a whole through flyers and posters, and thus the more radical individuals became the minority, but also were the ones "leading" the protest and were the ones with the megaphone in their hands. I think that this is just how protests naturally tend to function, grow and propagate. It is very, very feasible that these guys are a very small, radical group of 4-5 people that ended up with an audience because of these tactics. Again, if you can prove that these guys are officially BLM, then go ahead. [QUOTE]And i'm not arguing about violence, i'm arguing about the culture and ideas they're harboring. And the idea i was presenting was "white people are devils". Does this seem healthy to you?[/QUOTE] I don't think it's healthy, not for the state of black-white relations in the US and not for BLM, but I reiterate, they singled this one guy out because he was [I]already[/I] vocally expressing this stuff and that made him an easy target for media. If this is the [I]absolute worst[/I] that these protests had to offer, then that's really not a bad sign. [QUOTE]You must've not watched it all the way through, because they start screaming things like "fuck you you filthy white fuck" and threatening people based on race. I trust you'd agree that that's not super duper constructive or pragmatic principals to live by.[/QUOTE] Could you timestamp it for me? I'm honestly still not hearing any of this. [QUOTE]Absolutely not. Suffering tradgedy is not an excuse to say "all of X race are inherently evil/worthless and must be destroyed". That's reprehensible and is only going to harbor ever compounding resentment. Do not make excuses like that.[/QUOTE] This isn't the first instance of someone saying something irrational or lashing out in frustration and anger in the immediate loss of a loved one or family member. And sorry, but when did he say "all of X race are inherently evil/worthless and must be destroyed".? He said that "all white people are devils", but that isnt what you put in quotes. [QUOTE]Every movement has it's rouge elements, and both it as a collective/organization and all it's constituent individuals have a responsibility to purge those rouge elements before they corrupt and destroy it from within. The entire point of my argument is that [I]that's not happening[/I]. And i don't mean that literally nobody within has ever said "you know maybe that's a shitty opinion", it's that it's not happening enough. And there is so little correction to the rogue elements, that it's in danger of the rogue elements becoming the most influential internal part. And that wont' change until something inside the movment changes, and the vast majority of the people inside take their mantle of responsibility and fix it.[/QUOTE] I think that's speculation and gut perception, really. Neither you nor I can provide empirical evidence as to what direction the movement is taking at the very moment. Media sensationalizes the worst of every movement, especially when cell phone cameras are constantly rolling and people are A. Looking for attention and B. Have every word they say and action they take captured. You won't hear about the peaceful aspects and activism of BLM because it doesn't generate views and clicks. You'd be very hard pressed to find a wide-scale movement that fulfilled your qualifications of quelling their rogue elements. Keep in mind that the civil rights movement had its own radical fragment groups and, arguably, a far greater amount of violence, terrorism, and radical rhetoric than what we see now. Groups like the Black Liberation Army and the Black Panthers were much more radical and violent than anything you can observe now. The nonviolent, civil disobedience types were nice, but they're only a single piece of the puzzle that might not even be represented in news media today. Really, [url="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/01/dont-criticize-black-lives-matter-for-provoking-violence-the-civil-rights-movement-did-too/?utm_term=.6f841206b439"]not much has changed.[/url] And a lot of what has has changed for the better.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51759331]You'll have to clarify this one for me because I think I'm missing something. You did say majority of evidence, no?[/QUOTE] Point is i've produced a hell of a lot more evidence for awful behaviour than you've produced for healthy constructive behaviour. I was basically saying "I challenge you to overwhelm me with proof of BLM's fundimentally benign nature." [QUOTE]It would be nice if someone spoke up but it's fairly unrealistic considering basic human psychology. [/QUOTE] You seem to lack valuation of the individual's responsbility for morale action. Which is strange for someone who proudly says he supports social movements like this. Because yes, it would be nice. In fact if they object it's their duty to object, or suffer the consequences of allowing the things they object to to continue on unchallenged. That's what morality [I]is.[/I] [QUOTE]I actually did miss that! This could raise the idea that these people do not know that the quote is associated with Shakur just as I didn't. Before now I would've recited that message with no knowlege of its origin. [/QUOTE] Or you could look at it this way. You would've and BLM [I]does[/I] have the words of a violent, racist revolutionary who's wanted for multiple murders put into your/their mouth without your/their knowing. If i found out something like that i'd be floored because my assumptions about my beliefs and what i aligned myself with was so far removed that i'd have the floor of my very identity swept out from under me. It's that profound. And besides, the point i was originally making is that they proudly advertise to have based the movement on that woman's work. If you foster bad ideas, they only grow worse. [QUOTE]Influence does not travel the path of point A to point B most of the time. It's transformed over time, parts of ideology are selectively implemented and remembered, the cultural surroundings that those beliefs are contextualized within change, etc. If BLM does actively tread into Black Liberation Army level revolutionary action, then you got me. However, I think times have changed and it's not realistic to expect that to come out of BLM. [/QUOTE] Then why do i have evidence to support at least sizable parts of BLM acting in a revolutionary, anti white and anti police/authority way, if the founding philosiphies of revolutionary, anti white and anti police/authority was discarded? And yeah "That doesn't represent BLM", then what conditions have to be met for any part to be cannonically representitive? Because i'm going by manifested behavior, which is directly indicative of the thinking and people behind it. And i see enough destructive, hateful and violent behaviour to show that BLM has [I]failed[/I] in every regard a movement can fail. And don't say "not all", because 100% saturation of anything is impossible, and an unreasonable barrier to conviction. As an example, it seems the threshold for permanent corruption in a society is 9-10% before it's irreparable. Like greece, nigeria, venezeula etc. They won't recover until the floor gets taken out from under them and society resets, because they've hit the critical mass of no return. And that's just for cheating on taxes or bribery. Open calls for genocide and revolutionary acts are a far heavier thing. So the question i should really be parsing is do you think that 10% of BLM are corrupt/destructive/subversive/undesirable? Because if it's anywhere above 5%, you're in serious trouble of reaching that critical threshold, and if you're already there it's forever damned and beyond repair. I would argue that the bystander effect you're observing is a symptom of that 10% threshold being hit. Because the internal reasoning is "well if i whack this mole down, no matter how good a job i do, 10 more will spring up in it's place, so it's a futile exercise." Which is the same reasoning that an otherwise perfectly morale individual will express in a society that has that 10% figure to justify their own becoming corrupt, perpetuating the issue eternally. [QUOTE]This is an interesting one. Not something I've really thought about or was thinking about when I wrote that, that's for sure. I think my point is that they could have more nuanced logic and reasoning behind the statement "Defund police" just as I do. Wouldn't it be better to not take rapid fire one-liners at face value?[/QUOTE] I'm acting on the assumption that they oppose the police, because that was the idea of the manifesto the movement was based on, and the feelnig it's fueled by. If you have some alternate explanation for saying "Defund The Police", i'd love to hear it. Because it's not "defund corrupt or failing police branches", which is still wildly insane, but at least has a semblance of morality to it. No, it's "The Police", singular, collectively, as [I]one.[/I] [QUOTE]I'm not sure what the context behind the whole CAR situation is. If you could give me a brief primer I would appreciate it. In terms of BLM though, again, it's hard to know exactly what they mean. If they wanted to entirely rid the US of police, then wouldn't they take a more hardline abolitionist diction to convey that? The phrasing in terms of the word "defund" has be a bit confused, I'll admit. Could "defund" possibly refer to a partial defunding of departments? Because if that's the case, then my points earlier could stand. [/QUOTE] There was a revolution in CAR with similar ideas. They viewed the french/white people as oppressors and took down the government based on that. God knows how many other people claimed to take the space where the french authority had occupied. Nobody won. Now the place is genuine anarchy. No state, no government, nothing but chaos, violence and oppression worse than ever before. You ever want to stop an anarchist dead in his tracks, just say "why don't you move to CAR". It's hellish, and all happened on the same ideas that BLM happily grounds itself on. [QUOTE]I think it's indicative of larger cultural problems both within the movement and outside of it in the greater sphere of social justice. That much is undeniable, as it doesn't seem to be an isolated sentiment. It could be symptomatic of larger frustrations and alienation. Whatever the reason, it [I]does[/I] seem that BLM is trying to curb sentiments like that on their social media platforms. There are so many different local chapters and I'm not affiliated with any of them, so I can't speak on what their politics and views on this particular issue are. [/QUOTE] Well that 'greater sentiment' is still leaking out the seams. So either they're trying and failing, or the majority aren't trying at all. And yeah, it is symptomatic of social justice. Maybe you should ask yourself why if you find it so appalling. And maybe you should choose not to associate with that sphere if you observe that those problems are endemic to it. [QUOTE]Internally? As in, leadership in activist events denouncing inflammatory statements and sentiments? Leadership promoting certain tactics within town-hall like meetings within local chapters? I've experienced the first myself, and I don't think either you nor I knows what happens behind closed doors within the membership of official chapters.[/QUOTE] No, internally as in every single constituant member taking on their morale duty and saying "No." and ejecting the rogue elements. You know, like a social movement, where people feel it's their duty on morale grounds to object to a percieved injustice or immoral transgression, and come together to fix. [QUOTE]But the KKK [I]are[/I] specifically non-white. Their goals, aims, and agenda come at the hands of the disenfranchisement of minorities in the favor of white nationalism.[/QUOTE] Not originally, which is exactly my point. They failed to curb their own worst actors and became corrupt and resentful. [QUOTE] Alright now this is something that I can speak on to a great extent and have a lot of experience with. A good amount of protests are organized and started by more radical groups, and are co-opted by bystanders and less involved individuals over time. For instance, the J20 protests on my campus were started by an antifa coalition, but they advertised the protests to the students as a whole through flyers and posters, and thus the more radical individuals became the minority, but also were the ones "leading" the protest and were the ones with the megaphone in their hands. I think that this is just how protests naturally tend to function, grow and propagate. It is very, very feasible that these guys are a very small, radical group of 4-5 people that ended up with an audience because of these tactics. Again, if you can prove that these guys are officially BLM, then go ahead.[/QUOTE] Well firstly, the black panthers is a black supremacy group who want a black state in america, or to secede america. They'd beat the ever loving shit out of anyone white that got near them, so that's a non starter. Secondly, "Yeah but at my campus a bunch of violent anacho/communists drew huge crowds" is horrifying [QUOTE] I don't think it's healthy, not for the state of black-white relations in the US and not for BLM, but I reiterate, they singled this one guy out because he was [I]already[/I] vocally expressing this stuff and that made him an easy target for media. If this is the [I]absolute worst[/I] that these protests had to offer, then that's really not a bad sign.[/QUOTE] How much evidence do you need before you will concede "oh, this is a big problem." Because you can't just say "yeah but just this instance" as if it's the only time it's ever happened, when i've provided at least a dozen instances of this in this thread alone. [QUOTE]Could you timestamp it for me? I'm honestly still not hearing any of this. [/QUOTE] It's the higher pitched yelling underneath around the time you can see the woman flipping off whoever's to the right of the person holding the camera. Super duper faint i know, but it does go on for some time [QUOTE]This isn't the first instance of someone saying something irrational or lashing out in frustration and anger in the immediate loss of a loved one or family member. And sorry, but when did he say "all of X race are inherently evil/worthless and must be destroyed".? He said that "all white people are devils", but that isnt what you put in quotes.[/QUOTE] And therefore it's ok? If i lost a family member to a black gang members and said "niggers are a plauge upon the earth", the media would fucking errupt, and you know it. Secondly, what the hell else was he expressing? That bracketed statement was just a paraphrasing of what he was expressing, not a literal quote. The devil is an archtypical figure representing the sole source of all evils and suffering that beset the world. And you don't let the devil go unmolested when you see him. Ergo, whitey is the source of all evil, and he has to be driven out and/or destroyed. I challenge you to tell me what else he was expressing. [QUOTE]I think that's speculation and gut perception, really. Neither you nor I can provide empirical evidence as to what direction the movement is taking at the very moment. Media sensationalizes the worst of every movement, especially when cell phone cameras are constantly rolling and people are A. Looking for attention and B. Have every word they say and action they take captured. You won't hear about the peaceful aspects and activism of BLM because it doesn't generate views and clicks.[/QUOTE] Well then certainly a staunch supporter could describe to me specifically and exactly what they've achieved? And i don't mean "they've raised awareness for X" or "contributed to combating X", becuse those aren't achievements. Those are unquantifiable and vague effects, and they're not something you can stand on. You need a result to point to, or some sort of victory condition to say "we have done something" [QUOTE] You'd be very hard pressed to find a wide-scale movement that fulfilled your qualifications of quelling their rogue elements. Keep in mind that the civil rights movement had its own radical fragment groups and, arguably, a far greater amount of violence, terrorism, and radical rhetoric than what we see now. Groups like the Black Liberation Army and the Black Panthers were much more radical and violent than anything you can observe now. The nonviolent, civil disobedience types were nice, but they're only a single piece of the puzzle that might not even be represented in news media today.[/QUOTE] Firstly, no. Black panthers are a fundimentally violent and supremicist group, and they're proud of it. I think that's a huge fucking insult to the actual civil rights movement. Secondly, the only ones that achieved anything were virtious and purged their darker elements. MLK made a big fucking deal about genuine means of action, non violence, and legal concencious objection. So that doesn't stand up either. Thirdly, what about the countless enviromental protests, protests against government actions, against or for the EU/Brexit, banks, extranational entities, pipelines or god knows what else. What about Ghandi's movements, which was a non violent revolution that ended in a peaceful transition of power that formed the modern state of india? What about every single perfectly adequete political club that doesn't run out in the streets with images of revolution and impossible utopias in their heads, and fix/address/affect things in the traditional, official and perfectly normal avenues? To say that "no movement can be expected quell it's rogue elements" is to fundamentally [I]deny[/I] the purpose of social movements like BLM. Because by that same logic, no police department could be expected to fufill my qualifications of quelling their rogue elements, so y'all may as well go the fuck home. And more importantly, it implies that each and every individual in those movements lacks the ability to stand up and say "no, i will not stand for this. And i object.", argue for their position, and that reality will not reward the more truthful, functional and greater ideas over those that are corrupt, destructive and mad. That is bullshit, and contradicts everything you've claimed to stand for. So which is it? [QUOTE]Really, [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/01/dont-criticize-black-lives-matter-for-provoking-violence-the-civil-rights-movement-did-too/?utm_term=.6f841206b439"]not much has changed.[/URL] And a lot of what has has changed for the better.[/QUOTE] Ok, this is sophistry of the highest order, which would take more than what i've written here to go over. But i will say this [QUOTE]As much as BLM’s opponents and supporters (who insist that “this ain’t yo mama’s civil rights movement”) differentiate it from the 1960s effort, these two historical moments have a lot in common. Both have been opposed by more than half of Americans, both have needed violent confrontations to attract national media attention, and both have been criticized for their combative tactics. Whether in the 1960s or the 2010s, the aggressive disruption of American race relations has caused the same anger and fear — from Northerners and Southerners, from blacks and whites, from liberal “allies” and racist adversaries.[/QUOTE] Notice how they don't say "And the ideas have similar principals and philosophies too". Because they're not similar at all. MLK's movement objected to Black people not being treated as equals, and being treated in a way antithetical to american values of individualism, egalitarianism and equality of opportunity. BLM Is opposing authority of the state, and it's representations, and is undeniably founded on the words of a black supremicist/anti white, revolutionary. The article fails to make the comparison because the author knows it would fail. [editline]1st February 2017[/editline] Also if you're interested in CAR, i'd highly reccomend "The Ambassador". It's a wonderful window in to an extremely interesting and horrifying place. Liberia is also another extremely good example of what happens when the populace actively undermines and rejects the authority of the state/miscillanious authority. [video=youtube;ZRuSS0iiFyo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRuSS0iiFyo[/video] This is where it gets you. This is what the religious conceptualization of hell represents. This is what the concept of religious hell warns you about, and why religions insist on morale behavior. Because this is what happens if it gets bad enough. In practicality, this [I]is[/I] hell.
[QUOTE=Eric95;51755117]well the difference is that blm is about people's lives and rights while gg is about fucken video games it's not important[/QUOTE] Every time someone calls you out you immediately throw out your "lmao who fukin cares" response.
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;51759866]Every time someone calls you out you immediately throw out your "lmao who fukin cares" response.[/QUOTE] there's nothing wrong with caring about video games but my point is that one of those things is worth being genuinely outraged and aggressive toward the opposing side about while the other one definitely isn't they're not comparable at all
[QUOTE=Eric95;51760354]there's nothing wrong with caring about video games but my point is that one of those things is worth being genuinely outraged and aggressive toward the opposing side about while the other one definitely isn't they're not comparable at all[/QUOTE] Gamaegate didn't have much outrage or aggression until the accused parties started their retaliatory smear campaign. What happened after wasn't really about gamergate anymore, contrary to what either side of the argument will claim.
Holy shit could it start any better? "We will not accept any form of discrimination" Proceeds to discriminate against Trump voters and those that don't believe in their cause 100% :goodjob:
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51759660]Point is i've produced a hell of a lot more evidence for awful behaviour than you've produced for healthy constructive behaviour. I was basically saying "I challenge you to overwhelm me with proof of BLM's fundimentally benign nature."[/QUOTE] Alright, if you want to get into this, then we can start: [url]http://kfor.com/2016/07/10/thousands-attend-peaceful-black-lives-matter-protest/[/url] [url]http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/puget-sound/black-lives-matter-protesters-march-through-seattle-on-crowded-shopping-day/[/url] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/us/black-lives-matter-protests/[/url] [url]http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/175529781-story[/url] [url]https://www.rt.com/usa/350697-inglewood-memphis-baton-rouge-protests/[/url] [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1125/Why-Black-Lives-Matter-protests-were-nonviolent-but-not-calm[/url] [url]http://www.dailytoreador.com/news/blm-to-host-peaceful-protest-at-tim-cole-park/article_201081bc-6e27-11e6-a8b7-0b8d78690a21.html[/url] [url]http://www.teenvogue.com/story/teen-activists-shut-down-chicago-streets-peaceful-blm-protest[/url] [url]https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/07/07/before-gunfire-dallas-officers-blm-protesters-were-posing-for-photos-together/H6IuZVB9uDUdTcGvDSfjdP/story.html[/url] [url]http://www.arkansasmatters.com/news/local-news/black-lives-matter-peaceful-protest-at-arkansas-state-capitol/502798942[/url] [url]http://okcfox.com/news/local/black-lives-matter-to-host-peaceful-protest-vigil-in-downtown-oklahoma-city[/url] [url]http://www.mediaite.com/online/black-lives-matter-releases-a-statement-on-dallas-shooting/[/url] [url]http://ijr.com/opinion/2016/01/252045-went-black-lives-matter-meeting-heres-learned/[/url] [url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/08/dallas_police_department_twitter_feed_before_the_shootings.html[/url] [url]http://www.thesnaponline.com/gallery/protesters-bring-black-lives-matter-message-throughout-albemarle/article_6713349e-4ea9-11e6-8ee3-4b1c46da929a.html[/url] [url]http://lgbtweekly.com/2016/07/12/black-lives-matter-san-diego-to-stage-peaceful-protest-ahead-of-todays-mlb-all-star-game/[/url] [url]http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/07/14/more-protests-events-planned-metro-phoenix/87111480/[/url] [url]http://www.fox23.com/news/black-lives-matter-plans-peaceful-protest-sunday-in-oklahoma-city/395481076[/url] [url]http://wreg.com/2016/07/10/interim-mpd-director-shows-up-to-black-lives-matter-rally/[/url] [url]http://ijr.com/2016/07/646356-15-cities-where-black-lives-matter-protests-happened-this-past-week-besides-dallas/[/url] I could keep going- there are many many more smaller, local protests that get less news coverage. [QUOTE]You seem to lack valuation of the individual's responsbility for morale action. Which is strange for someone who proudly says he supports social movements like this.[/QUOTE] I can recognize a responsibility for morale action while still understanding the natural psychological response of an average person when placed into situations like these. [QUOTE]Or you could look at it this way. You would've and BLM [I]does[/I] have the words of a violent, racist revolutionary who's wanted for multiple murders put into your/their mouth without your/their knowing. If i found out something like that i'd be floored because my assumptions about my beliefs and what i aligned myself with was so far removed that i'd have the floor of my very identity swept out from under me. It's that profound.[/QUOTE] I would understand it, because in the end Assata Shakur [I]has[/I] had influence within black america as a whole, not just in BLM. When people like Common, someone who's been to the white house and is usually regarded as a pretty well meaning guy, has been on record supporting her a decade before these videos came out, that should be apparent. There is a large sentiment that she was unjustly convicted and was innocent, and to be entirely fair, that is still up for debate. There are numerous accounts of the turnpike shooting and not all of the details on the event are clear. I'm also curious what you mean by her being responsible for the deaths of "multiple" police officers; she was only ever convicted of the one. Unless you're saying she's guilty by association of her BLA peers murders. And besides, the point i was originally making is that they proudly advertise to have based the movement on that woman's work. If you foster bad ideas, they only grow worse. [QUOTE]Then why do i have evidence to support at least sizable parts of BLM acting in a revolutionary, anti white and anti police/authority way, if the founding philosiphies of revolutionary, anti white and anti police/authority was discarded?[/QUOTE] As I said, ideals being discarded isn't the only mechanism for ideological change, they can be transformed as well, or interpreted differently in the differing cultural standards of the time. I agree that revolutionary rhetoric is potentially an issue, but I think that its influence is overblown when considering just how small a minority these individuals tend to be. [QUOTE]And yeah "That doesn't represent BLM", then what conditions have to be met for any part to be cannonically representitive? Because i'm going by manifested behavior, which is directly indicative of the thinking and people behind it. And i see enough destructive, hateful and violent behaviour to show that BLM has [I]failed[/I] in every regard a movement can fail.[/QUOTE] Well what qualifies as "enough" for you? Because when each and every protest has fewer than 10% of its participants arrested, usually on the lower end, that's not a significant issue to me. The vancouver stanley cup riots were worse than most BLM protests I've been to and have observed. [QUOTE]And don't say "not all", because 100% saturation of anything is impossible, and an unreasonable barrier to conviction. As an example, it seems the threshold for permanent corruption in a society is 9-10% before it's irreparable. Like greece, nigeria, venezeula etc. They won't recover until the floor gets taken out from under them and society resets, because they've hit the critical mass of no return. And that's just for cheating on taxes or bribery. Open calls for genocide and revolutionary acts are a far heavier thing.[/QUOTE] First of all, I would like to see a scientific basis for your 9-10% claim. Second of all, you have to provide evidence that 9-10%+ of BLM falls under irreperable terrority. The evidence I provided earlier suggets otherwise, when headcounts in most protests are in the thousands and usually less than 10 people get arrested. The worst, most violent and agitated protests usually result in a maximum of 100, and that's discounting how many of those are acquitted, arrested for peacekeeping means and did not commit a violent act, and still falls under the 10% threshold, and usually the 5% threshold as well, depending on the individual event. [QUOTE]So the question i should really be parsing is do you think that 10% of BLM are corrupt/destructive/subversive/undesirable? Because if it's anywhere above 5%, you're in serious trouble of reaching that critical threshold, and if you're already there it's forever damned and beyond repair.[/QUOTE] That's the thing- I really, genuinely do not believe that even 5% of BLM is "corrupt/destructive/subversive/undesirable". Could it get to that point? Of course, I'm not denying that. If there are enough bad eggs that are influential enough, then it could definitely tread into that territory. But with a movement as large and diverse as BLM, I really doubt that would happen. [QUOTE]I would argue that the bystander effect you're observing is a symptom of that 10% threshold being hit. Because the internal reasoning is "well if i whack this mole down, no matter how good a job i do, 10 more will spring up in it's place, so it's a futile exercise." Which is the same reasoning that an otherwise perfectly morale individual will express in a society that has that 10% figure to justify their own becoming corrupt, perpetuating the issue eternally.[/QUOTE] I don't really think that's the internal reasoning people use when subject to the bystander effect. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect[/url] There are a lot more psychological factors that go into the generic instance of this phenomenon, to come up with your own reasoning that plays to your own biases seems dishonest to me. [QUOTE]I'm acting on the assumption that they oppose the police, because that was the idea of the manifesto the movement was based on, and the feelnig it's fueled by. If you have some alternate explanation for saying "Defund The Police", i'd love to hear it. Because it's not "defund corrupt or failing police branches", which is still wildly insane, but at least has a semblance of morality to it. No, it's "The Police", singular, collectively, as [I]one.[/I][/QUOTE] Why cant it be "Defund corrupt and failing police branches"? And why is even that so irrational? [QUOTE]There was a revolution in CAR with similar ideas. They viewed the french/white people as oppressors and took down the government based on that. God knows how many other people claimed to take the space where the french authority had occupied. Nobody won. Now the place is genuine anarchy. No state, no government, nothing but chaos, violence and oppression worse than ever before. You ever want to stop an anarchist dead in his tracks, just say "why don't you move to CAR". It's hellish, and all happened on the same ideas that BLM happily grounds itself on.[/QUOTE] I'm taking on some reading and research on the history of this nation and... I dont know. I dont really think its comparable to the situation stateside. There is a lot more at work here than what you present. There are many more socioeconomic and political factors that go into a country like this. The idea that the present United States could ever devolve into a situation like this is fundamentally absurd. [QUOTE]Well that 'greater sentiment' is still leaking out the seams. So either they're trying and failing, or the majority aren't trying at all. And yeah, it is symptomatic of social justice. Maybe you should ask yourself why if you find it so appalling. And maybe you should choose not to associate with that sphere if you observe that those problems are endemic to it.[/QUOTE] Well- heres the thing. I still associate with and push forward with social justice because I find it a fundamentally important concept in a free nation. If there are problems, I would rather stay and try to fix them than to leave and let them get worse. Neither BLM, nor social justice as a whole, are irreperable and irredemable. Do they have noticable issues? Yes, but I would rather work with them on improving them instead of fighting against them. No, internally as in every single constituant member taking on their morale duty and saying "No." and ejecting the rogue elements. You know, like a social movement, where people feel it's their duty on morale grounds to object to a percieved injustice or immoral transgression, and come together to fix. [QUOTE]Not originally, which is exactly my point. They failed to curb their own worst actors and became corrupt and resentful.[/QUOTE] I'm [I]pretty sure[/I] that the KKK was resentful from the very start. [QUOTE]Well firstly, the black panthers is a black supremacy group who want a black state in america, or to secede america. They'd beat the ever loving shit out of anyone white that got near them, so that's a non starter.[/QUOTE] My point is that we dont know the whole story. [QUOTE]Secondly, "Yeah but at my campus a bunch of violent anacho/communists drew huge crowds" is horrifying[/QUOTE] Not really. First of all, because they're not violent. They [I]are[/I] anarcho/communists, I wont dispute that, but literally the worst I've ever seen them do is draw out a hammer and sickle out of condensation on a car window. [QUOTE]How much evidence do you need before you will concede "oh, this is a big problem." Because you can't just say "yeah but just this instance" as if it's the only time it's ever happened, when i've provided at least a dozen instances of this in this thread alone.[/QUOTE] I'd need a lot more than what you're presenting. You're presenting small, cherrypicked instances of usually 1-5 people when BLM is a movement of hundreds of thousands -if not millions- of americans. I would need definitive statistical evidence instead of youtube videos of singular instances. [QUOTE]And therefore it's ok? If i lost a family member to a black gang members and said "niggers are a plauge upon the earth", the media would fucking errupt, and you know it.[/QUOTE] Well, there is somewhat of a difference, in that there isnt a wider reaching sentiment across the white community that they're being subjected to institutional black racism. But you do have a point, I'll admit that. I don't want to defend what he said because it was inherently irrational, but was just trying to explain possible cause behind it. [QUOTE]Secondly, what the hell else was he expressing? That bracketed statement was just a paraphrasing of what he was expressing, not a literal quote.[/QUOTE] If you're going to put something into quotations in a rational argument, it should be verbatim. [QUOTE]The devil is an archtypical figure representing the sole source of all evils and suffering that beset the world. And you don't let the devil go unmolested when you see him. Ergo, whitey is the source of all evil, and he has to be driven out and/or destroyed. I challenge you to tell me what else he was expressing.[/QUOTE] I never said that's not what I think he's expressing. [QUOTE]Well then certainly a staunch supporter could describe to me specifically and exactly what they've achieved?[/QUOTE] I've commented on this before, but... [QUOTE]And i don't mean "they've raised awareness for X" or "contributed to combating X", becuse those aren't achievements. Those are unquantifiable and vague effects, and they're not something you can stand on. You need a result to point to, or some sort of victory condition to say "we have done something"[/QUOTE] It seems like you know of my work. I still dont really see [I]why[/I] "raising awareness" and "contributing to combatting X" are invalid (our national conversation on wealth inequality in the US would have never happened without OWS, for instance), but I still affirm that the reform of corrupt and defunct derpartments like that in Ferguson and the more widespread use of body cameras are two concrete impacts that BLM and the greater police accountability movement associated with it has had. [QUOTE]Firstly, no. Black panthers are a fundimentally violent and supremicist group, and they're proud of it. I think that's a huge fucking insult to the actual civil rights movement. [/QUOTE] I never disputed that first point. And... like it or not, they were part of the civil rights movement (mostly near the tail end and in the post-civil rights movement activism), along other radicals like Malcom X. History has whitewashed the Civil Rights movement when in reality a good amount of people at the time saw it as violent, unnecesarry, and inflammatory; even under leaders like King. [QUOTE]Secondly, the only ones that achieved anything were virtious and purged their darker elements. MLK made a big fucking deal about genuine means of action, non violence, and legal concencious objection. So that doesn't stand up either.[/QUOTE] I fully support Dr. King's message and methods and I do wish that we had more men like him spearheading movements today. I think the issue is that conscientous objection isn't a MSM-approved tactic anymore (in terms of garnering effective attention for your movement). There are definitely men and women who still think like King and want to enact change in the same way he did. The fact of the matter is, social justice has changed somewhat, due to how the nature of media and technology have evolved and changed since the 60s. [QUOTE]Thirdly, what about the countless enviromental protests, protests against government actions, against or for the EU/Brexit, banks, extranational entities, pipelines or god knows what else.[/QUOTE] What about them? There has been plenty of violence and radicalism associated with everything you mentioned. Ecoterrorism, [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mair_(murderer)"]violence over Brexit[/url] (Bonus Round: [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crimes-racism-eu-referendum-vote-attacks-increase-police-figures-official-a7358866.html[/url]), violence in the OWS movement... I can do this for everything you mentioned. All you're doing is proving my point here. [QUOTE]What about Ghandi's movements, which was a non violent revolution that ended in a peaceful transition of power that formed the modern state of india? What about every single perfectly adequete political club that doesn't run out in the streets with images of revolution and impossible utopias in their heads, and fix/address/affect things in the traditional, official and perfectly normal avenues?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_movement_for_Indian_independence[/url] Not all of the Indian independence movement was peaceful. As I've said time and time again, every single one of these movements has their radical, violent sects and individuals. [QUOTE]What about every single perfectly adequete political club that doesn't run out in the streets with images of revolution and impossible utopias in their heads[/QUOTE] This seems to just tread into general anti-protest sentiment. Most of the icons and leaders you've mentioned did run out in the streets. [QUOTE]To say that "no movement can be expected quell it's rogue elements" is to fundamentally [I]deny[/I] the purpose of social movements like BLM. Because by that same logic, no police department could be expected to fufill my qualifications of quelling their rogue elements, so y'all may as well go the fuck home. And more importantly, it implies that each and every individual in those movements lacks the ability to stand up and say "no, i will not stand for this. And i object.", argue for their position, and that reality will not reward the more truthful, functional and greater ideas over those that are corrupt, destructive and mad.[/QUOTE] The difference between the BLM and the Police Department is that the Police are a professional group tasked with maintaining order and law. Police officers are supposed to be held to a higher standard than the average citizen because it's their [I]job[/I]. Each and every officer [B]should[/B] be subjected to intense vetting, training and conditioning so that they can perform their jobs to a sufficient degree. This is a suprisingly weak leg for you to stand on. [QUOTE]Ok, this is sophistry of the highest order, which would take more than what i've written here to go over. But i will say this[/QUOTE] There's that word again. It seems to me that you're often interested in throwing around charged buzzwords like this and "cultural marxism" without actually explaining the rationale or argument behind them. [QUOTE]Notice how they don't say "And the ideas have similar principals and philosophies too". Because they're not similar at all. MLK's movement objected to Black people not being treated as equals, and being treated in a way antithetical to american values of individualism, egalitarianism and equality of opportunity. BLM Is opposing authority of the state, and it's representations, and is undeniably founded on the words of a black supremicist/anti white, revolutionary. The article fails to make the comparison because the author knows it would fail.[/QUOTE] I'd personally argue that BLM is more associated with the ideal of "Black people being treated as equals" than you'd like to admit, but I don't know if you would accept that quite frankly. You seem pretty deeply entrenched in this idea that BLM is a black supremacy movement, but having seen [I]actual[/I] honest to god black supremacy movements, BLM is a far cry. [QUOTE]Also if you're interested in CAR, i'd highly reccomend "The Ambassador". It's a wonderful window in to an extremely interesting and horrifying place.[/QUOTE] I'll check it out, thanks for the reccomendation! [QUOTE]Liberia is also another extremely good example of what happens when the populace actively undermines and rejects the authority of the state/miscillanious authority. This is where it gets you. This is what the religious conceptualization of hell represents. This is what the concept of religious hell warns you about, and why religions insist on morale behavior. Because this is what happens if it gets bad enough. In practicality, this [I]is[/I] hell.[/QUOTE] I'd be surprised if BLM ever led to "The Cannibal Warlords of Liberia" (I haven't watched this doc yet but I might edit this post with my thoughts when I'm done. This kinda goes into my same point that I made with the Central African Republic in that there are more socioeconomic and political factors that play into this, but again, I still would like to do more reading on the subject of these countires and their histories before I make a more informed position on the matter. EDIT: Ok, I've watched the full documentary. Do you seriously think that anything like this could happen to a modern western nation? Like, genuinely. Do you think the chances are greater than 0?
[QUOTE=Eric95;51760354]there's nothing wrong with caring about video games but my point is that one of those things is worth being genuinely outraged and aggressive toward the opposing side about while the other one definitely isn't they're not comparable at all[/QUOTE] You don't get to decide what anything is worth to another. The reason why your opinion is garbage and dumbed down is because you're so high on that moral high horse that you genuinely don't give a shit about what matters to people when it doesn't coincide with your own morals or interests.
Getting pretty bloody tired of all these emotionally loaded political videos in this subforum. It's like "videos and flashmovies and that [B]kind of crap[/B]" has been taken too literally. I'd much rather see something interesting or laughable as opposed to someone's damn political views. I meet enough fuckheads like that already. Isn't the point of Sensationalist Headlines for this? Unless you just post on here because you love the attention, like most 16-18 year old "funny provocative" shits do. It's getting a bit odd, innit?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.