|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
The people I know that others would call "antifa" are mostly reformed anarchists who moved back from the west coast and got over the fact that their collective/venue/'zine library turned heroin den was never gonna work out. Many are involved with programs like Food Not Bombs and aren't threatening at all, and the few that still turn out for protests with black bandanas on are pretty big on non-violence. Here's an old little article on a kid I went to high school with, cool guy who would absolutely be labeled "antifa."
Dunno anyone who openly belongs to a white supremacist or Proud Boys type group, closest to that I got are people I went to high school with whom I would be fine never seeing again lol.
|
On June 06 2020 08:11 farvacola wrote:The people I know that others would call "antifa" are mostly reformed anarchists who moved back from the west coast and got over the fact that their collective/venue/'zine library turned heroin den was never gonna work out. Many are involved with programs like Food Not Bombs and aren't threatening at all, and the few that still turn out for protests with black bandanas on are pretty big on non-violence. Here's an old little article on a kid I went to high school with, cool guy who would absolutely be labeled "antifa." Dunno anyone who openly belongs to a white supremacist or Proud Boys type group, closest to that I got are people I went to high school with whom I would be fine never seeing again lol.
This is exactly my experience of antifa and yet when i said that here people told me it was different in the US.
|
Northern Ireland23957 Posts
On June 06 2020 08:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 08:11 farvacola wrote:The people I know that others would call "antifa" are mostly reformed anarchists who moved back from the west coast and got over the fact that their collective/venue/'zine library turned heroin den was never gonna work out. Many are involved with programs like Food Not Bombs and aren't threatening at all, and the few that still turn out for protests with black bandanas on are pretty big on non-violence. Here's an old little article on a kid I went to high school with, cool guy who would absolutely be labeled "antifa." Dunno anyone who openly belongs to a white supremacist or Proud Boys type group, closest to that I got are people I went to high school with whom I would be fine never seeing again lol. This is exactly my experience of antifa and yet when i said that here people told me it was different in the US.
Everything is magically different in the US, like everyone having guns or lacking healthcare.
|
On June 06 2020 08:11 farvacola wrote:The people I know that others would call "antifa" are mostly reformed anarchists who moved back from the west coast and got over the fact that their collective/venue/'zine library turned heroin den was never gonna work out. Many are involved with programs like Food Not Bombs and aren't threatening at all, and the few that still turn out for protests with black bandanas on are pretty big on non-violence. Here's an old little article on a kid I went to high school with, cool guy who would absolutely be labeled "antifa." Dunno anyone who openly belongs to a white supremacist or Proud Boys type group, closest to that I got are people I went to high school with whom I would be fine never seeing again lol.
More or less the same experience. I'm not sure that bodes well for the future though. Who do you call if Proud Boys show up at your doorstep to discuss your political views?
|
On June 06 2020 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 07:33 Danglars wrote:On June 06 2020 06:26 Nevuk wrote:
So, the proud boys. No one on this board will even make a token attempt to defend them. I think they were too far for even xDaunt when he was still able to post (xDaunt really liked Milo, iirc, but I'm pretty sure Gavin McInnis was too far).
Here's their founder describing them.
The scary music is unnecessary IMO, as they're frightening enough in the first place. Also note the cops literally ignoring them beating people in some clips.
The reason "boys" is in the name is because they deny membership to all women. Imagine a mixture of skinheads, homophobes, islamophobes, misogynists, and trump super-fans (a person can be a super-fan without being the others), but better dressed. When we call them Nazis, that's not hyperbole. They're possibly more extreme than the average neo-nazi. If you ask one if liberals should be put into a holocaust, they won't just say yes, they'll offer to help and ask where they should start.
When people scaremonger about Antifa, the most outlandish of those claims are actually TRUE of the proud boys. Remember Charlottesville? That was organized by a proudboys member (since disavowed, for obvious pr reasons). They're basically an admitted right wing terrorist group, who only barely escaped classification as a hategroup in 2018 after the FBI abruptly reversed course on the announcement.
(This is just a brief summary of them. There's a whole list on wikipedia of 19 known incidents they've been involved in within the past 3 years). They hit big on misogyny, jingoism, and whatever you want to call violence in the name of "defense of western civilization." But I wouldn't really cite a video mashup, because people do these with just enough clips about Antifa, and you'll hear them advocating for outright justifying murder (similarly to stop an imminent fascist overthrow of Democracy). So I wouldn't link videos of that nature in order to make some broad comparison of how dangerous one group is to another. You can do the same video with Antifa, because they have outlandish members that will say the same kind of shit on camera for a mashup. The danger is membership numbers, willingness to put thought into action, arsenals, expectation of consequences, and other statistics. Not a jump-cut video. We'll see if any claims about Antifa's involvement in the more violent looting events and splinters off from the main protests when the people arrested are investigated and charged. It's not worth putting all the blame on them, or whitewashing the blame. No one is comparing proud boys to antifa. The issue is Oregon police history of collaborating with proud boys and what that means about Oregon police.
Please don't assume I'm contradicting a point nobody made, before reading the point in the quoted part that I'm responding to. It's an embarrassing example of assuming the worst about a person, like so-and-so will always argue about straw men, so this is an example of him arguing against straw men.
On June 06 2020 08:05 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 07:33 Danglars wrote:On June 06 2020 06:26 Nevuk wrote:So, the proud boys. No one on this board will even make a token attempt to defend them. I think they were too far for even xDaunt when he was still able to post (xDaunt really liked Milo, iirc, but I'm pretty sure Gavin McInnis was too far). Here's their founder describing them. https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1267171557845151744The scary music is unnecessary IMO, as they're frightening enough in the first place. Also note the cops literally ignoring them beating people in some clips. The reason "boys" is in the name is because they deny membership to all women. Imagine a mixture of skinheads, homophobes, islamophobes, misogynists, and trump super-fans (a person can be a super-fan without being the others), but better dressed. When we call them Nazis, that's not hyperbole. They're possibly more extreme than the average neo-nazi. If you ask one if liberals should be put into a holocaust, they won't just say yes, they'll offer to help and ask where they should start. When people scaremonger about Antifa, the most outlandish of those claims are actually TRUE of the proud boys. Remember Charlottesville? That was organized by a proudboys member (since disavowed, for obvious pr reasons). They're basically an admitted right wing terrorist group, who only barely escaped classification as a hategroup in 2018 after the FBI abruptly reversed course on the announcement. (This is just a brief summary of them. There's a whole list on wikipedia of 19 known incidents they've been involved in within the past 3 years). They hit big on misogyny, jingoism, and whatever you want to call violence in the name of "defense of western civilization." But I wouldn't really cite a video mashup, because people do these with just enough clips about Antifa, and you'll hear them advocating for outright justifying murder (similarly to stop an imminent fascist overthrow of Democracy). So I wouldn't link videos of that nature in order to make some broad comparison of how dangerous one group is to another. You can do the same video with Antifa, because they have outlandish members that will say the same kind of shit on camera for a mashup. The danger is membership numbers, willingness to put thought into action, arsenals, expectation of consequences, and other statistics. Not a jump-cut video. We'll see if any claims about Antifa's involvement in the more violent looting events and splinters off from the main protests when the people arrested are investigated and charged. It's not worth putting all the blame on them, or whitewashing the blame. True, but that is the leader of the proud boys. Not some random member. The jumpcut video isn't great, but I figured a 2 minute highlights video was good enough for someone who had never heard of them. There have also been reports that some violence in the riots is being done by police and right-wing groups (no proud boys affiliation). The average member of antifa groups is very ineffective. Have you all ever interacted with a far leftist besides GH? His groups protest at the 2016 dem convention was like, by far the most coherent group action I've ever seen from them. The ones I knew had their hearts in the right place, but close to zero idea of how to effect political change. One of them became homeless for a year to protest the military industrial complex (I haven't heard from him since...). The only reason you see them when the PB show up is that the PB gave the local leftists a time and place to be.
The two problems here are defraying responsibility through multiple chapters, and the fraught effort of comparing levels and threats of extremists.
I can't argue that there isn't some local chapter of Antifa that isn't cool with violence against anyone they call fascists. There could be a dozens cities of that type. I just know the ideology has it and the national news reports it. I agree that a lot of these incidents could've been worse if Antifa were a little more effective with their knives, rocks, poles, and makeshift bludgeons. They'll make contact eventually, and suddenly that will be Charlottesville death count. And yes, they appear mostly as a group of unmuscular student-age, and low 30s, "bad boy" students.
The hotspots on the west coast where groups like patriot prayer or the proud boys show up to fight Antifa highlight the second problem. It isn't like proud boys get a worse report card because they inflict more damage generally. Both groups show up to fights armed to fight. Antifa members get arrested with knives and the like. Some incidents it's only pure luck that Antifa didn't actually kill somebody with their attacks. I don't think the distinction is worthwhile that I think alt-right groups have a higher scorecard at this point of the game. Antifa's just got a whole lot more glamour on the "down with the system"-type rhetoric, and get a lot more puff pieces written on how they just want to stop Nazis and fascists by any means necessary. Condemn them both, don't make today's scorecard an enduring part of the point, and when Antifa jumps up again, you won't have to change your perspective on the two groups.
The DC crew literally broke Tucker Carlson's front door, causing his wife and kids to shelter in a pantry inside, as well as publishing the address. Security video has they talking about pipe bombs. It's insane to call that "disrupting Tucker Carlson's dinner," and I really have a problem with the morals of anyone who would do that. Imagine that was your house and family, and see if they're comfortable huddled in a corner when the door breaks and people are making a tremendous racket outside.
I mentioned it in this thread before, but a left wing Antifa professor swung a bike lock at an alt right demonstrator and made heavy contact with that man's skull. He was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon. Thank god nobody died. Berkeley, 2017. (And the bastard got off with probation, I mean cmon)
The more recent prominent one involved Antifa beating up journalist Andy Ngo at a demonstration. They followed and attacked him. What was more disturbing were the voices justifying the violence. It isn't just the alt-right and related groups they want to fight, it's journalists they think are biased in the way of fascists.
Again, I'm not the best person to document every Antifa protest and who got injured, when it's black bloc nonmembers or not. I think it's enough to show that when they say they're gonna fight fascists in the street, they arm themselves and do that. And given enough time, they'll get better, as heart-rending as that thought is. Democracy plus vigilante stoppage of free speech, apparently.
|
On June 06 2020 08:04 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 06:51 Nevuk wrote:On June 06 2020 06:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Rasmussen reports - Black voter approval of Trump surges above 40% - (compared to 26% in August 2019) When you've got BLM mobs destroying businesses often owned by black people is anyone surprised?
So, the proud boys. No one on this board will even make a token attempt to defend them. I think they were too far for even xDaunt when he was still able to post (xDaunt really liked Milo, iirc, but I'm pretty sure Gavin McInnis was too far).
Who even are they? Is this a whataboutism - comparing them to ANTIFA? Really, in terms of numbers and actual disruption caused there is no comparison. You're looking for false equivalency, not whataboutism. Antifa is a disorganized set of groups whose only commonality is a stated goal is to oppose fascists. They don't have a leader and could probably not be trusted to reliably disrupt a dinner party. It's like referring to the far right as the proud boys. Refer to the specific group and the difference becomes a lot clearer. Proud boys are an actual organized group with a stated mission of violence to get their political desires. Compare the documented actions of the two : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)#Notable_actionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#EventsNote how each of the antifa events is done by a totally different group, different set of people, and is done on wildly varying scales. From a dozen people to about a hundred. The worst thing listed is using slingshots against police. On the plus side, they've defended clergy members from white supremacists. Meanwhile, the proud boys events have ended with deaths, maimings, and general violence, and almost always had arrests occur for violence. (Sidenote: I was being sarcastic earlier, but one of the antifa "events" is disrupting Tucker Carlson's dinner with chanted threats and spray painting his driveway. Which yes, bad, but not the same as driving a car into a group of people). While the two groups and the conversation regarding the Proud Boys surely is more about the police cooperation with them, Antifa shouldn't just be let off the hook that easily. The obvious incidents that come to mind are bike lock guy, and them burning UCB in response to, I forget, Ben, Milo, or Ann Coulter from speaking on campus or something. Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 06:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:NPR, PBS, and Marist did a polling this past week. Covers everything from the protests, his job as president, and his head to head vs Biden. He's clearly falling in the ratings and is going to have a difficult hill to climb come November should the protests and the pandemic not be resolved by then. Coinciding with Trump's handling of race relations are the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and the downward turn of the economy. And the poll found that Trump is suffering politically.
The number of people disapproving of the job he's doing as president is near a record; the intensity of the opposition against him — how many people strongly disapprove — is the highest it has ever been. To boot, he's losing by a substantial margin to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, according to the poll.
Trump's approval rating is 41% in the poll. That's about where it has been since he took office. It's down 2 points since March, the last time the poll measured his overall approval rating, but his overall disapproval number jumped 5 points to 55%.
His fairly consistent approval number masks significant movement beneath the surface. Almost half the country now — 47% — strongly disapproves of the job he's doing.
It was remarkable when earlier in Trump's presidency, some 40% strongly disapproved of him, but 47%? To put that in context, that's a point higher than the percentage of the popular vote that he got in the 2016 presidential election.
That movement comes largely from independents. Overall, 56% of them disapprove of the job Trump is doing, up from 50% in March. The number of independents now strongly disapproving has jumped 10 points, from 33% to 43%. Source https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Texas.htmlRCP has Texas at effectively a swing state now. Pretty interesting seeing as talks of Texas going purple are becoming more and more evident. Biden is also leading Trump in practically every swing state by almost 1 deviation now in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and PA. Ohio is slowly turning back towards him as well, and he even leads Arizona and NC. That being said, Democrats don't vote, so it will be interesting to see if the Trump effect still follows like in 2016 and the polls are underrepresenting the hidden Trump voter. I doubt it, and I have Biden as the favorite right now. EDIT: quoted the wrong post oops
I read on 538 about the possibility of Texas, Georgia and Arizona turning blue within this election, and the people there don't think it's happening to Texas and Georgia yet, but Texas being this close to striking distance for Democrats makes it a more expensive place to hold for the Republicans.
I've largely repeated the below in a previous post so I won't make you all suffer by reading it.
+ Show Spoiler +I find some people, particularly Trump supporters I've met online, tend to think of this election as a repeat of 2016 with the belief that Biden will be a repeat of Hillary bolstered by their skepticism over early polling, so Trump will prevail. But Trump is the establishment figure now without the outsider appeal, and Biden is performing much better than Hillary with key demographics like white women, independents, seniors (who vote reliably), suburban voters and doing slightly better with white men. Most of the swing states Hillary lost from Obama appear to be trending light blue as well. Even Mattis' rebuke might give a few Trump voters a pause on their decision. I've read some CNN analysis on Biden's lead and they've been saying it's very consistent, unlike Hillary's at the same point, even before the pandemic really hit America I think. This can go awry for Biden and great for Trump if: -The economy shows signs of recovery in the next few months (he's already touting the surprise job numbers released today). -People move on and forget the death toll of the pandemic and the unrest of this week. -Polling carries many caveats and some of Biden's numbers are within the margin of error. -Biden has an enthusiasm problem against Trump (though with this week's events I wouldn't be surprise to see it surge). -Approval in polls doesn't always translate into voting intentions. -Some investigation of Biden opens up from the Senate or DoJ and scares on-the-fence Biden supporters away. But compared to a few weeks ago when I would have thought Trump would win 60-40, I'm feeling closer to 55-45 for Biden now. This opinion piece is a good reminder that bigger leads have been lost and spring advantages can quickly evaporate in the summer and fall.
|
On June 06 2020 08:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2020 07:33 Danglars wrote:On June 06 2020 06:26 Nevuk wrote:So, the proud boys. No one on this board will even make a token attempt to defend them. I think they were too far for even xDaunt when he was still able to post (xDaunt really liked Milo, iirc, but I'm pretty sure Gavin McInnis was too far). Here's their founder describing them. https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1267171557845151744The scary music is unnecessary IMO, as they're frightening enough in the first place. Also note the cops literally ignoring them beating people in some clips. The reason "boys" is in the name is because they deny membership to all women. Imagine a mixture of skinheads, homophobes, islamophobes, misogynists, and trump super-fans (a person can be a super-fan without being the others), but better dressed. When we call them Nazis, that's not hyperbole. They're possibly more extreme than the average neo-nazi. If you ask one if liberals should be put into a holocaust, they won't just say yes, they'll offer to help and ask where they should start. When people scaremonger about Antifa, the most outlandish of those claims are actually TRUE of the proud boys. Remember Charlottesville? That was organized by a proudboys member (since disavowed, for obvious pr reasons). They're basically an admitted right wing terrorist group, who only barely escaped classification as a hategroup in 2018 after the FBI abruptly reversed course on the announcement. (This is just a brief summary of them. There's a whole list on wikipedia of 19 known incidents they've been involved in within the past 3 years). They hit big on misogyny, jingoism, and whatever you want to call violence in the name of "defense of western civilization." But I wouldn't really cite a video mashup, because people do these with just enough clips about Antifa, and you'll hear them advocating for outright justifying murder (similarly to stop an imminent fascist overthrow of Democracy). So I wouldn't link videos of that nature in order to make some broad comparison of how dangerous one group is to another. You can do the same video with Antifa, because they have outlandish members that will say the same kind of shit on camera for a mashup. The danger is membership numbers, willingness to put thought into action, arsenals, expectation of consequences, and other statistics. Not a jump-cut video. We'll see if any claims about Antifa's involvement in the more violent looting events and splinters off from the main protests when the people arrested are investigated and charged. It's not worth putting all the blame on them, or whitewashing the blame. No one is comparing proud boys to antifa. The issue is Oregon police history of collaborating with proud boys and what that means about Oregon police. Please don't assume I'm contradicting a point nobody made, before reading the point in the quoted part that I'm responding to. It's an embarrassing example of assuming the worst about a person, like so-and-so will always argue about straw men, so this is an example of him arguing against straw men. Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 08:05 Nevuk wrote:On June 06 2020 07:33 Danglars wrote:On June 06 2020 06:26 Nevuk wrote:So, the proud boys. No one on this board will even make a token attempt to defend them. I think they were too far for even xDaunt when he was still able to post (xDaunt really liked Milo, iirc, but I'm pretty sure Gavin McInnis was too far). Here's their founder describing them. https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1267171557845151744The scary music is unnecessary IMO, as they're frightening enough in the first place. Also note the cops literally ignoring them beating people in some clips. The reason "boys" is in the name is because they deny membership to all women. Imagine a mixture of skinheads, homophobes, islamophobes, misogynists, and trump super-fans (a person can be a super-fan without being the others), but better dressed. When we call them Nazis, that's not hyperbole. They're possibly more extreme than the average neo-nazi. If you ask one if liberals should be put into a holocaust, they won't just say yes, they'll offer to help and ask where they should start. When people scaremonger about Antifa, the most outlandish of those claims are actually TRUE of the proud boys. Remember Charlottesville? That was organized by a proudboys member (since disavowed, for obvious pr reasons). They're basically an admitted right wing terrorist group, who only barely escaped classification as a hategroup in 2018 after the FBI abruptly reversed course on the announcement. (This is just a brief summary of them. There's a whole list on wikipedia of 19 known incidents they've been involved in within the past 3 years). They hit big on misogyny, jingoism, and whatever you want to call violence in the name of "defense of western civilization." But I wouldn't really cite a video mashup, because people do these with just enough clips about Antifa, and you'll hear them advocating for outright justifying murder (similarly to stop an imminent fascist overthrow of Democracy). So I wouldn't link videos of that nature in order to make some broad comparison of how dangerous one group is to another. You can do the same video with Antifa, because they have outlandish members that will say the same kind of shit on camera for a mashup. The danger is membership numbers, willingness to put thought into action, arsenals, expectation of consequences, and other statistics. Not a jump-cut video. We'll see if any claims about Antifa's involvement in the more violent looting events and splinters off from the main protests when the people arrested are investigated and charged. It's not worth putting all the blame on them, or whitewashing the blame. True, but that is the leader of the proud boys. Not some random member. The jumpcut video isn't great, but I figured a 2 minute highlights video was good enough for someone who had never heard of them. There have also been reports that some violence in the riots is being done by police and right-wing groups (no proud boys affiliation). The average member of antifa groups is very ineffective. Have you all ever interacted with a far leftist besides GH? His groups protest at the 2016 dem convention was like, by far the most coherent group action I've ever seen from them. The ones I knew had their hearts in the right place, but close to zero idea of how to effect political change. One of them became homeless for a year to protest the military industrial complex (I haven't heard from him since...). The only reason you see them when the PB show up is that the PB gave the local leftists a time and place to be. The two problems here are defraying responsibility through multiple chapters, and the fraught effort of comparing levels and threats of extremists. I can't argue that there isn't some local chapter of Antifa that isn't cool with violence against anyone they call fascists. There could be a dozens cities of that type. I just know the ideology has it and the national news reports it. I agree that a lot of these incidents could've been worse if Antifa were a little more effective with their knives, rocks, poles, and makeshift bludgeons. They'll make contact eventually, and suddenly that will be Charlottesville death count. And yes, they appear mostly as a group of unmuscular student-age, and low 30s, "bad boy" students. The hotspots on the west coast where groups like patriot prayer or the proud boys show up to fight Antifa highlight the second problem. It isn't like proud boys get a worse report card because they inflict more damage generally. Both groups show up to fights armed to fight. Antifa members get arrested with knives and the like. Some incidents it's only pure luck that Antifa didn't actually kill somebody with their attacks. I don't think the distinction is worthwhile that I think alt-right groups have a higher scorecard at this point of the game. Antifa's just got a whole lot more glamour on the "down with the system"-type rhetoric, and get a lot more puff pieces written on how they just want to stop Nazis and fascists by any means necessary. Condemn them both, don't make today's scorecard an enduring part of the point, and when Antifa jumps up again, you won't have to change your perspective on the two groups. The DC crew literally broke Tucker Carlson's front door, causing his wife and kids to shelter in a pantry inside, as well as publishing the address. Security video has they talking about pipe bombs. It's insane to call that "disrupting Tucker Carlson's dinner," and I really have a problem with the morals of anyone who would do that. Imagine that was your house and family, and see if they're comfortable huddled in a corner when the door breaks and people are making a tremendous racket outside. I mentioned it in this thread before, but a left wing Antifa professor swung a bike lock at an alt right demonstrator and made heavy contact with that man's skull. He was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon. Thank god nobody died. Berkeley, 2017. (And the bastard got off with probation, I mean cmon) The more recent prominent one involved Antifa beating up journalist Andy Ngo at a demonstration. They followed and attacked him. What was more disturbing were the voices justifying the violence. It isn't just the alt-right and related groups they want to fight, it's journalists they think are biased in the way of fascists. Again, I'm not the best person to document every Antifa protest and who got injured, when it's black bloc nonmembers or not. I think it's enough to show that when they say they're gonna fight fascists in the street, they arm themselves and do that. And given enough time, they'll get better, as heart-rending as that thought is. Democracy plus vigilante stoppage of free speech, apparently.
Though I don't agree with your views a lot of the time, I do appreciate your candor in the thread of late. It -is- nice to get an alternate perspective on certain subjects and not be able to write it off as "Well, this person is actually just a moron". Ultimately, I find myself more willing to accept the nebulous 'organisation' of ANTIFA over an organisation such as The Proud Boys, as opposing fascism is a thing I can get behind, whereas "Choke a Tranny" is not.
|
The Tucker Carlson thing, didn't realize they'd done anything past chant threats and spray paint the driveway - which is how it is described in wikipedia, and was how it it was described in the contemporaneous accounts I read at the time. So I apologize for how I described it.
Did anyone ever get charged or did any group take responsibility? I saw the fbi investigated the local group but no result. The issue with antifa's anonymity is that it is extremely easy to put on a black bandana and say you're part of it, so I literally do not believe attribution without strong proof in claims about antifa attacks.
That's why I put "actual", as in it, without a doubt acknowledged to be antifa (some of the events are things like anonymous letters, which have a long history of being forged in leftist group's names).
My point wasn't necessarily the scorecard of left vs right groups, it was ALL left groups vs this ONE right wing group. If it were just a group of armed milo fanboys, it'd be a lot less alarming to me (though still massively hypocritical from the cops)
I will note many people will claim alt right and nazis are equivalent terms, so fighting with them is expected from those groups. I know they aren't, but a lot of white supremacists have found themselves very comfy in those circles. Juries also seem inclined to agree, which makes prosecuting violence against the alt right really hard (I believe the guy who punched richard spencer was charged 1$ for his crime) and is why that guy got probation (don't know the full facts).
|
On June 06 2020 07:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 06:26 Nevuk wrote:So, the proud boys. No one on this board will even make a token attempt to defend them. I think they were too far for even xDaunt when he was still able to post (xDaunt really liked Milo, iirc, but I'm pretty sure Gavin McInnis was too far). Here's their founder describing them. https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1267171557845151744The scary music is unnecessary IMO, as they're frightening enough in the first place. Also note the cops literally ignoring them beating people in some clips. The reason "boys" is in the name is because they deny membership to all women. Imagine a mixture of skinheads, homophobes, islamophobes, misogynists, and trump super-fans (a person can be a super-fan without being the others), but better dressed. When we call them Nazis, that's not hyperbole. They're possibly more extreme than the average neo-nazi. If you ask one if liberals should be put into a holocaust, they won't just say yes, they'll offer to help and ask where they should start. When people scaremonger about Antifa, the most outlandish of those claims are actually TRUE of the proud boys. Remember Charlottesville? That was organized by a proudboys member (since disavowed, for obvious pr reasons). They're basically an admitted right wing terrorist group, who only barely escaped classification as a hategroup in 2018 after the FBI abruptly reversed course on the announcement. (This is just a brief summary of them. There's a whole list on wikipedia of 19 known incidents they've been involved in within the past 3 years). They hit big on misogyny, jingoism, and whatever you want to call violence in the name of "defense of western civilization." But I wouldn't really cite a video mashup, because people do these with just enough clips about Antifa, and you'll hear them advocating for outright justifying murder (similarly to stop an imminent fascist overthrow of Democracy). So I wouldn't link videos of that nature in order to make some broad comparison of how dangerous one group is to another. You can do the same video with Antifa, because they have outlandish members that will say the same kind of shit on camera for a mashup. The danger is membership numbers, willingness to put thought into action, arsenals, expectation of consequences, and other statistics. Not a jump-cut video. We'll see if any claims about Antifa's involvement in the more violent looting events and splinters off from the main protests when the people arrested are investigated and charged. It's not worth putting all the blame on them, or whitewashing the blame.
You're right, though I do think it makes a difference when it's the group's founder describing its purpose as opposed to clips of individual incidents involving members.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On June 06 2020 05:02 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 04:23 travis wrote:On June 06 2020 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that the person he is talking to is a member of proud boys. If that was made up, then I guess I have egg on my face. Oh and is that helpful for you? Assuming what group people are in, and then deciding what those people are like based on the group? Hmm. I think there is some other sort of pervasive ideology that uses this premise we are all very aware of right now. Can anyone guess what that is? Travis come on. If someone is a nazi, it by default means they harbor some really fucked up and dangerous thoughts. Someone who is black, or whatever other group people might be grouped into, cannot be generalized in a similar manner. Someone self-identifying as a nazi does mean you can generalize them in a negative manner, because being a nazi is a highly negative thing.. You can group someone based on their self-professed ideology or by their nationality or ethnicity or gender or sexual preference. But only their self-professed ideology actually describes their pattern of thinking. And actual nazis have a thoroughly dangerous pattern of thinking.
Proud Boys are many things, but as far as I can tell, Nazis isn't one of them. You're mixing them up with those tiki torch nutters. Proud Boys is varied in their ethnicities, mixed marriages, etc and I have not heard them spouting of the glories of the Third Reich, coded or otherwise.
For contrast: Tiki Torch Lunatics: "We will not be replaced" aka the racist view of the world- the so-called Great Replacement
Proud Boys: Against illegal immigrants. Probably pro-wall.
|
On June 06 2020 07:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 06:51 Chocolate wrote:On June 06 2020 06:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Rasmussen reports - Black voter approval of Trump surges above 40% - (compared to 26% in August 2019) https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1268919228855451654When you've got BLM mobs destroying businesses often owned by black people is anyone surprised?
So, the proud boys. No one on this board will even make a token attempt to defend them. I think they were too far for even xDaunt when he was still able to post (xDaunt really liked Milo, iirc, but I'm pretty sure Gavin McInnis was too far).
Who even are they? Really, in terms of numbers and actual disruption caused there is no comparison to what ANTIFA has 'achieved'. LOL you can’t be serious? Antifa is not even a real group. It’s a rightwing scapegoat for all left wing activism both violent and nonviolent. As far as I can tell the only times you can really attribute something to Antifa is when they counter protest far right protests/rallies I've heard a lot about a far right 'resurgence' in the USA but if you look at actual group membership.... No more than a few thousand.And any time these nutjobs go out they're outnumbered 40-1 by ANTIFA agitating for violent confrontation.It's not an issue at this time.People just like mentioning these nobody far right groups that most people haven't heard of to take heat off ANTIFA. Newsflash if you want to build a wall doesn't necessarily make you far right.You've just (attempted) to move the overton window so far left the past 25 years that things that used to be centrist (go rewatch Clintons 1995 SOTU) is now far right.Which is a huge part of why ANTIFA has become so dangerous now.Trump was right in naming them a terrorist organisation.
Regarding “taking the heat off” it’s literally the opposite. The concept of Antifa as a perennial group of antagonists was invented by the right wing media to provide a “both sides” narrative regarding far right movements and protests. For example in Charlottesville when the far right folks ended up killing someone. I honestly think you don’t know anything about this or watch too much Murdoch media
My experience closely corroborates those of others in this thread regarding anarchists/Antifa.
Regarding the overton window: remember the S11 and WTO protests? That was the highest profile thing anarchists have done in the Western world in a long time and the closest they ever were to being a coherent group. Oh and that was 20 years ago
|
On June 04 2020 20:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 19:50 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:20 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 18:52 Sr18 wrote:On June 04 2020 18:09 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2020 17:10 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 16:14 ChristianS wrote:
And if the problem really is mere ignorance, how are these people still sufficiently aware to have visceral partisan reactions directly opposing reforming this injustice? Slogans like “stop and frisk,” “blue lives matter,” “boycott the NFL” each in their own way indicate an awareness of, and explicit support for, the exact systems we’re pretending they’re merely ignorant of.
So before you accuse me of ill will or lack of empathy or something again, why don’t you try to describe why you think these people tolerate this injustice and react against calls to reform it (since I apparently lack the empathy and good will to intuit their motivations on my own)? "Stop and frisk" is a slogan? Where? Last I remember, the biggest champion of stop and frisk in the 21st century America just got blown out of the water in an election. "Blue lives matter" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. It's nothing more than a slogan that implicates cop lives matter and I guess that killing a cop should be considered a hate crime. Any assumption one makes about it supporting police brutality is....nothing more than than that - an assumption. "Boycott the NFL" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. You can boycott the NFL and still be against police brutality. I don't know if you realize, but disrespecting the flag is unpalatable to MANY Americans, and in their eyes, the flag does not represent police brutality. Sorry that not everyone feels the same way about the American flag the way Kap does. Personally, I think ignorance of the general electorate is a huge problem, and not in just this issue and not just within certain demographics. Going back to stop and risk and bloomberg - Bloomberg was able to win in NYC, a city in which more than half the population is either Black or Hispanic, an unprecedented THREE TIMES. Let that sink in. There is a general ignorance and dissonance when it comes to the American electorate. Quite hard to know if you are serious. All lives matter or Blue lives matter implies there is no discrimination against black folks and that it's not a racial problem. Cops are not the ones that need to be defended here. The flag represents the country. The country is not giving many of its citizens the most basic rights: equal treatment, dignity, justice. Its own officers, the police, are humiliating, beating, killing black people and don't even get prosecuted for it. I get it, you guys care more about your misplaced patriotism and the well being of businesses than the most elementary rights of people with a browner skin than you. But don't be such a hypocrite and admit that boycott the NFL, Blue lives matter and so on are just a fuck you to BLM and people who fight for this charade to end. All lives matter and blue lives matter do not imply that there is no discrimination against black people. Thinking that they do is just mental gymnastics. There are many ways to look at a flag. The Constitution doesnt sanction any discriminatory PD practices, and the Constitution is the law of the country represented by the flag. No matter what way you want to spin it, someone boycotting the NFL because he/she doesn't view the flag the same way Kap does NOT necessarily make him against police brutality. I don't know what you mean by "you guys" since libertarians place liberty for all above everything. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your narrative, the same narrative that will drive most of the African Americans in this country to vote for the white politician trying to hand out black cards. Personally, I am an All Lives Matter guy and don't believe in any movement that places one race above the rest like BLM. As a brown man, I don't want to pretend that police brutality is a black ONLY problem and I don't want other groups to be marginalized. The idea of working only for the betterment of black people, and that it will somehow spill over to everyone, is flawed and baseless. I care for defending the rights of ALL, and that includes the rights of individuals to their property. I don't believe innocent people should have their rights violated just because another person/group has had theirs violated by a completely different party. I will never be for tolerating the violation of rights against innocent people, not even as an outlet for frustration. I assume BLM doesn't presume to place black lives above white lives, but rather the goal is to have black lives mean just as much as white lives. It is entirely possible to focus on stopping excessive police violence against black people without condoning the same violence against whites. I'd think very few BLM protesters are okay with excessive police violence against white people, it's just not the focus right now. First of all, I don't know why this has to be a white vs black thing. There are other groups in the country and nobody is spared from the problem. Second of all -You're correct - BLM doesn't say black lives are above white lives. Here is what they do believe, though: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/They are putting blacks above others in the discussion of police brutality. I do not believe in their philosophy. I do not believe that fighting only for black people by extension helps all people. This is the same group that bullied Bernie Sanders, we are talking a man who protested on the streets for black people when things were very bad for them, for saying "all lives matter." I do not believe in aggressively ignoring everyone else under the assumption that "things will simply just get better for them too." It leads to marginalization. For example, you will NEVER hear about police brutality against Native Americans, who suffer from police brutality at a rate higher than every single other race in the country, including blacks. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlThe idea that working ONLY for justice for black people leads to justice for everyone is a baseless assumption. As for "it's not the focus right now" - I don't agree. Injustice against everyone should be the focus at all times. This makes little sense to me. Its like attacking a charity set up to help poor immigrants for not also helping poor Americans. Some things are better compartmentalised, when a problem has different qualities or outcomes for different groups of people. I'm sure there are movements or causes which are focusing on general police brutality, but the one that captured the imagination was BLM because justice system outcomes are so much worse for black people. BLM is not like a charity. Charities don't seek to exert political influence and policy change. A charity that helps poor immigrants won't tell charities that help poor American's that those charities are bigots and should instead join their cause, because helping poor immigrants will by extension help poor Americans. I don't think think the issue of Police corruption and police brutality should be compartmentalized by race. When talking about the rights of individuals, I don't believe there is any merit in bringing race up. I don't see why me saying "All lives matter" rather than "black lives matter" is bad. Both say black lives matter, but one includes non-blacks as well who are suffering. I mean, just look at how 'all lives matter' arose. It was a reaction AGAINST BLM. The phrase has much more meaning in context than simply 'all lives matter'. It basically says black lives don't matter - it is a call to arms for the status quo and an admonishment to those who would continually insist that black lives do matter.
All lives matter does not suggest black lives don't matter....
It's just a more inclusive slogan.
It is not a call to arms for the status quo either. It suggests that police brutality should end.
Sorry dude, as a brown man in the U.S., I'm not going to sit here and support [over all lives matter] a movement that believes this:
"We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/)
Fuck that. That is a completely baseless idea, and a potential society in which cops can look at a brown man (or non-black individual) and think "oh there will be no protest/riot/backlash if we teach him a lesson" is not one I will fight for over one in which cops stay in line when dealing with all races.
Police brutality happens to ALL RACES.
|
On June 06 2020 10:40 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 20:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:50 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:20 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 18:52 Sr18 wrote:On June 04 2020 18:09 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2020 17:10 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 16:14 ChristianS wrote:
And if the problem really is mere ignorance, how are these people still sufficiently aware to have visceral partisan reactions directly opposing reforming this injustice? Slogans like “stop and frisk,” “blue lives matter,” “boycott the NFL” each in their own way indicate an awareness of, and explicit support for, the exact systems we’re pretending they’re merely ignorant of.
So before you accuse me of ill will or lack of empathy or something again, why don’t you try to describe why you think these people tolerate this injustice and react against calls to reform it (since I apparently lack the empathy and good will to intuit their motivations on my own)? "Stop and frisk" is a slogan? Where? Last I remember, the biggest champion of stop and frisk in the 21st century America just got blown out of the water in an election. "Blue lives matter" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. It's nothing more than a slogan that implicates cop lives matter and I guess that killing a cop should be considered a hate crime. Any assumption one makes about it supporting police brutality is....nothing more than than that - an assumption. "Boycott the NFL" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. You can boycott the NFL and still be against police brutality. I don't know if you realize, but disrespecting the flag is unpalatable to MANY Americans, and in their eyes, the flag does not represent police brutality. Sorry that not everyone feels the same way about the American flag the way Kap does. Personally, I think ignorance of the general electorate is a huge problem, and not in just this issue and not just within certain demographics. Going back to stop and risk and bloomberg - Bloomberg was able to win in NYC, a city in which more than half the population is either Black or Hispanic, an unprecedented THREE TIMES. Let that sink in. There is a general ignorance and dissonance when it comes to the American electorate. Quite hard to know if you are serious. All lives matter or Blue lives matter implies there is no discrimination against black folks and that it's not a racial problem. Cops are not the ones that need to be defended here. The flag represents the country. The country is not giving many of its citizens the most basic rights: equal treatment, dignity, justice. Its own officers, the police, are humiliating, beating, killing black people and don't even get prosecuted for it. I get it, you guys care more about your misplaced patriotism and the well being of businesses than the most elementary rights of people with a browner skin than you. But don't be such a hypocrite and admit that boycott the NFL, Blue lives matter and so on are just a fuck you to BLM and people who fight for this charade to end. All lives matter and blue lives matter do not imply that there is no discrimination against black people. Thinking that they do is just mental gymnastics. There are many ways to look at a flag. The Constitution doesnt sanction any discriminatory PD practices, and the Constitution is the law of the country represented by the flag. No matter what way you want to spin it, someone boycotting the NFL because he/she doesn't view the flag the same way Kap does NOT necessarily make him against police brutality. I don't know what you mean by "you guys" since libertarians place liberty for all above everything. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your narrative, the same narrative that will drive most of the African Americans in this country to vote for the white politician trying to hand out black cards. Personally, I am an All Lives Matter guy and don't believe in any movement that places one race above the rest like BLM. As a brown man, I don't want to pretend that police brutality is a black ONLY problem and I don't want other groups to be marginalized. The idea of working only for the betterment of black people, and that it will somehow spill over to everyone, is flawed and baseless. I care for defending the rights of ALL, and that includes the rights of individuals to their property. I don't believe innocent people should have their rights violated just because another person/group has had theirs violated by a completely different party. I will never be for tolerating the violation of rights against innocent people, not even as an outlet for frustration. I assume BLM doesn't presume to place black lives above white lives, but rather the goal is to have black lives mean just as much as white lives. It is entirely possible to focus on stopping excessive police violence against black people without condoning the same violence against whites. I'd think very few BLM protesters are okay with excessive police violence against white people, it's just not the focus right now. First of all, I don't know why this has to be a white vs black thing. There are other groups in the country and nobody is spared from the problem. Second of all -You're correct - BLM doesn't say black lives are above white lives. Here is what they do believe, though: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/They are putting blacks above others in the discussion of police brutality. I do not believe in their philosophy. I do not believe that fighting only for black people by extension helps all people. This is the same group that bullied Bernie Sanders, we are talking a man who protested on the streets for black people when things were very bad for them, for saying "all lives matter." I do not believe in aggressively ignoring everyone else under the assumption that "things will simply just get better for them too." It leads to marginalization. For example, you will NEVER hear about police brutality against Native Americans, who suffer from police brutality at a rate higher than every single other race in the country, including blacks. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlThe idea that working ONLY for justice for black people leads to justice for everyone is a baseless assumption. As for "it's not the focus right now" - I don't agree. Injustice against everyone should be the focus at all times. This makes little sense to me. Its like attacking a charity set up to help poor immigrants for not also helping poor Americans. Some things are better compartmentalised, when a problem has different qualities or outcomes for different groups of people. I'm sure there are movements or causes which are focusing on general police brutality, but the one that captured the imagination was BLM because justice system outcomes are so much worse for black people. BLM is not like a charity. Charities don't seek to exert political influence and policy change. A charity that helps poor immigrants won't tell charities that help poor American's that those charities are bigots and should instead join their cause, because helping poor immigrants will by extension help poor Americans. I don't think think the issue of Police corruption and police brutality should be compartmentalized by race. When talking about the rights of individuals, I don't believe there is any merit in bringing race up. I don't see why me saying "All lives matter" rather than "black lives matter" is bad. Both say black lives matter, but one includes non-blacks as well who are suffering. I mean, just look at how 'all lives matter' arose. It was a reaction AGAINST BLM. The phrase has much more meaning in context than simply 'all lives matter'. It basically says black lives don't matter - it is a call to arms for the status quo and an admonishment to those who would continually insist that black lives do matter. All lives matter does not suggest black lives don't matter.... It's just a more inclusive slogan. It is not a call to arms for the status quo either. It suggests that police brutality should end. Sorry dude, as a brown man in the U.S., I'm not going to sit here and support [over all lives matter] a movement that believes this: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Fuck that. That is a completely baseless idea, and a potential society in which cops can look at a brown man (or non-black individual) and think "oh there will be no protest/riot/backlash if we teach him a lesson" is not one I will fight for over one in which cops stay in line when dealing with all races. Police brutality happens to ALL RACES.
Which brown are you? I'm Hispanic and pretending I have it close to as bad as Black People doesn't make sense
|
Northern Ireland23957 Posts
On June 06 2020 10:40 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 20:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:50 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:20 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 18:52 Sr18 wrote:On June 04 2020 18:09 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2020 17:10 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 16:14 ChristianS wrote:
And if the problem really is mere ignorance, how are these people still sufficiently aware to have visceral partisan reactions directly opposing reforming this injustice? Slogans like “stop and frisk,” “blue lives matter,” “boycott the NFL” each in their own way indicate an awareness of, and explicit support for, the exact systems we’re pretending they’re merely ignorant of.
So before you accuse me of ill will or lack of empathy or something again, why don’t you try to describe why you think these people tolerate this injustice and react against calls to reform it (since I apparently lack the empathy and good will to intuit their motivations on my own)? "Stop and frisk" is a slogan? Where? Last I remember, the biggest champion of stop and frisk in the 21st century America just got blown out of the water in an election. "Blue lives matter" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. It's nothing more than a slogan that implicates cop lives matter and I guess that killing a cop should be considered a hate crime. Any assumption one makes about it supporting police brutality is....nothing more than than that - an assumption. "Boycott the NFL" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. You can boycott the NFL and still be against police brutality. I don't know if you realize, but disrespecting the flag is unpalatable to MANY Americans, and in their eyes, the flag does not represent police brutality. Sorry that not everyone feels the same way about the American flag the way Kap does. Personally, I think ignorance of the general electorate is a huge problem, and not in just this issue and not just within certain demographics. Going back to stop and risk and bloomberg - Bloomberg was able to win in NYC, a city in which more than half the population is either Black or Hispanic, an unprecedented THREE TIMES. Let that sink in. There is a general ignorance and dissonance when it comes to the American electorate. Quite hard to know if you are serious. All lives matter or Blue lives matter implies there is no discrimination against black folks and that it's not a racial problem. Cops are not the ones that need to be defended here. The flag represents the country. The country is not giving many of its citizens the most basic rights: equal treatment, dignity, justice. Its own officers, the police, are humiliating, beating, killing black people and don't even get prosecuted for it. I get it, you guys care more about your misplaced patriotism and the well being of businesses than the most elementary rights of people with a browner skin than you. But don't be such a hypocrite and admit that boycott the NFL, Blue lives matter and so on are just a fuck you to BLM and people who fight for this charade to end. All lives matter and blue lives matter do not imply that there is no discrimination against black people. Thinking that they do is just mental gymnastics. There are many ways to look at a flag. The Constitution doesnt sanction any discriminatory PD practices, and the Constitution is the law of the country represented by the flag. No matter what way you want to spin it, someone boycotting the NFL because he/she doesn't view the flag the same way Kap does NOT necessarily make him against police brutality. I don't know what you mean by "you guys" since libertarians place liberty for all above everything. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your narrative, the same narrative that will drive most of the African Americans in this country to vote for the white politician trying to hand out black cards. Personally, I am an All Lives Matter guy and don't believe in any movement that places one race above the rest like BLM. As a brown man, I don't want to pretend that police brutality is a black ONLY problem and I don't want other groups to be marginalized. The idea of working only for the betterment of black people, and that it will somehow spill over to everyone, is flawed and baseless. I care for defending the rights of ALL, and that includes the rights of individuals to their property. I don't believe innocent people should have their rights violated just because another person/group has had theirs violated by a completely different party. I will never be for tolerating the violation of rights against innocent people, not even as an outlet for frustration. I assume BLM doesn't presume to place black lives above white lives, but rather the goal is to have black lives mean just as much as white lives. It is entirely possible to focus on stopping excessive police violence against black people without condoning the same violence against whites. I'd think very few BLM protesters are okay with excessive police violence against white people, it's just not the focus right now. First of all, I don't know why this has to be a white vs black thing. There are other groups in the country and nobody is spared from the problem. Second of all -You're correct - BLM doesn't say black lives are above white lives. Here is what they do believe, though: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/They are putting blacks above others in the discussion of police brutality. I do not believe in their philosophy. I do not believe that fighting only for black people by extension helps all people. This is the same group that bullied Bernie Sanders, we are talking a man who protested on the streets for black people when things were very bad for them, for saying "all lives matter." I do not believe in aggressively ignoring everyone else under the assumption that "things will simply just get better for them too." It leads to marginalization. For example, you will NEVER hear about police brutality against Native Americans, who suffer from police brutality at a rate higher than every single other race in the country, including blacks. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlThe idea that working ONLY for justice for black people leads to justice for everyone is a baseless assumption. As for "it's not the focus right now" - I don't agree. Injustice against everyone should be the focus at all times. This makes little sense to me. Its like attacking a charity set up to help poor immigrants for not also helping poor Americans. Some things are better compartmentalised, when a problem has different qualities or outcomes for different groups of people. I'm sure there are movements or causes which are focusing on general police brutality, but the one that captured the imagination was BLM because justice system outcomes are so much worse for black people. BLM is not like a charity. Charities don't seek to exert political influence and policy change. A charity that helps poor immigrants won't tell charities that help poor American's that those charities are bigots and should instead join their cause, because helping poor immigrants will by extension help poor Americans. I don't think think the issue of Police corruption and police brutality should be compartmentalized by race. When talking about the rights of individuals, I don't believe there is any merit in bringing race up. I don't see why me saying "All lives matter" rather than "black lives matter" is bad. Both say black lives matter, but one includes non-blacks as well who are suffering. I mean, just look at how 'all lives matter' arose. It was a reaction AGAINST BLM. The phrase has much more meaning in context than simply 'all lives matter'. It basically says black lives don't matter - it is a call to arms for the status quo and an admonishment to those who would continually insist that black lives do matter. All lives matter does not suggest black lives don't matter.... It's just a more inclusive slogan. It is not a call to arms for the status quo either. It suggests that police brutality should end. Sorry dude, as a brown man in the U.S., I'm not going to sit here and support [over all lives matter] a movement that believes this: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Fuck that. That is a completely baseless idea, and a potential society in which cops can look at a brown man (or non-black individual) and think "oh there will be no protest/riot/backlash if we teach him a lesson" is not one I will fight for over one in which cops stay in line when dealing with all races. Police brutality happens to ALL RACES.
Are you being wilfully dense here?
A million people have said in this very thread that ‘all lives matter’ is a slogan used to redirect anger from reform in keeping the status quo as it is. And is used by genuinely hostile actors
Literally says it in your quote that you’ve injected "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people."
By extension, all people. It’s there in the quote you chose to use.
Suck it up and deal with it or don’t.
All Lives Matter isn’t a movement. It doesn’t do anything. It’s only used to redirect legitimate grievances, or actively deflect from them being redressed.
If it was a movement agitating on the streets, proposing actual things then sure, they have a noble aim.
They don’t do that, you can’t claim that they do and you have no real basis to moan about BLM stealing this hypothetical group’s momentum
|
On June 06 2020 10:40 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 20:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:50 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:20 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 18:52 Sr18 wrote:On June 04 2020 18:09 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2020 17:10 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 16:14 ChristianS wrote:
And if the problem really is mere ignorance, how are these people still sufficiently aware to have visceral partisan reactions directly opposing reforming this injustice? Slogans like “stop and frisk,” “blue lives matter,” “boycott the NFL” each in their own way indicate an awareness of, and explicit support for, the exact systems we’re pretending they’re merely ignorant of.
So before you accuse me of ill will or lack of empathy or something again, why don’t you try to describe why you think these people tolerate this injustice and react against calls to reform it (since I apparently lack the empathy and good will to intuit their motivations on my own)? "Stop and frisk" is a slogan? Where? Last I remember, the biggest champion of stop and frisk in the 21st century America just got blown out of the water in an election. "Blue lives matter" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. It's nothing more than a slogan that implicates cop lives matter and I guess that killing a cop should be considered a hate crime. Any assumption one makes about it supporting police brutality is....nothing more than than that - an assumption. "Boycott the NFL" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. You can boycott the NFL and still be against police brutality. I don't know if you realize, but disrespecting the flag is unpalatable to MANY Americans, and in their eyes, the flag does not represent police brutality. Sorry that not everyone feels the same way about the American flag the way Kap does. Personally, I think ignorance of the general electorate is a huge problem, and not in just this issue and not just within certain demographics. Going back to stop and risk and bloomberg - Bloomberg was able to win in NYC, a city in which more than half the population is either Black or Hispanic, an unprecedented THREE TIMES. Let that sink in. There is a general ignorance and dissonance when it comes to the American electorate. Quite hard to know if you are serious. All lives matter or Blue lives matter implies there is no discrimination against black folks and that it's not a racial problem. Cops are not the ones that need to be defended here. The flag represents the country. The country is not giving many of its citizens the most basic rights: equal treatment, dignity, justice. Its own officers, the police, are humiliating, beating, killing black people and don't even get prosecuted for it. I get it, you guys care more about your misplaced patriotism and the well being of businesses than the most elementary rights of people with a browner skin than you. But don't be such a hypocrite and admit that boycott the NFL, Blue lives matter and so on are just a fuck you to BLM and people who fight for this charade to end. All lives matter and blue lives matter do not imply that there is no discrimination against black people. Thinking that they do is just mental gymnastics. There are many ways to look at a flag. The Constitution doesnt sanction any discriminatory PD practices, and the Constitution is the law of the country represented by the flag. No matter what way you want to spin it, someone boycotting the NFL because he/she doesn't view the flag the same way Kap does NOT necessarily make him against police brutality. I don't know what you mean by "you guys" since libertarians place liberty for all above everything. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your narrative, the same narrative that will drive most of the African Americans in this country to vote for the white politician trying to hand out black cards. Personally, I am an All Lives Matter guy and don't believe in any movement that places one race above the rest like BLM. As a brown man, I don't want to pretend that police brutality is a black ONLY problem and I don't want other groups to be marginalized. The idea of working only for the betterment of black people, and that it will somehow spill over to everyone, is flawed and baseless. I care for defending the rights of ALL, and that includes the rights of individuals to their property. I don't believe innocent people should have their rights violated just because another person/group has had theirs violated by a completely different party. I will never be for tolerating the violation of rights against innocent people, not even as an outlet for frustration. I assume BLM doesn't presume to place black lives above white lives, but rather the goal is to have black lives mean just as much as white lives. It is entirely possible to focus on stopping excessive police violence against black people without condoning the same violence against whites. I'd think very few BLM protesters are okay with excessive police violence against white people, it's just not the focus right now. First of all, I don't know why this has to be a white vs black thing. There are other groups in the country and nobody is spared from the problem. Second of all -You're correct - BLM doesn't say black lives are above white lives. Here is what they do believe, though: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/They are putting blacks above others in the discussion of police brutality. I do not believe in their philosophy. I do not believe that fighting only for black people by extension helps all people. This is the same group that bullied Bernie Sanders, we are talking a man who protested on the streets for black people when things were very bad for them, for saying "all lives matter." I do not believe in aggressively ignoring everyone else under the assumption that "things will simply just get better for them too." It leads to marginalization. For example, you will NEVER hear about police brutality against Native Americans, who suffer from police brutality at a rate higher than every single other race in the country, including blacks. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlThe idea that working ONLY for justice for black people leads to justice for everyone is a baseless assumption. As for "it's not the focus right now" - I don't agree. Injustice against everyone should be the focus at all times. This makes little sense to me. Its like attacking a charity set up to help poor immigrants for not also helping poor Americans. Some things are better compartmentalised, when a problem has different qualities or outcomes for different groups of people. I'm sure there are movements or causes which are focusing on general police brutality, but the one that captured the imagination was BLM because justice system outcomes are so much worse for black people. BLM is not like a charity. Charities don't seek to exert political influence and policy change. A charity that helps poor immigrants won't tell charities that help poor American's that those charities are bigots and should instead join their cause, because helping poor immigrants will by extension help poor Americans. I don't think think the issue of Police corruption and police brutality should be compartmentalized by race. When talking about the rights of individuals, I don't believe there is any merit in bringing race up. I don't see why me saying "All lives matter" rather than "black lives matter" is bad. Both say black lives matter, but one includes non-blacks as well who are suffering. I mean, just look at how 'all lives matter' arose. It was a reaction AGAINST BLM. The phrase has much more meaning in context than simply 'all lives matter'. It basically says black lives don't matter - it is a call to arms for the status quo and an admonishment to those who would continually insist that black lives do matter. All lives matter does not suggest black lives don't matter.... It's just a more inclusive slogan. It is not a call to arms for the status quo either. It suggests that police brutality should end. Sorry dude, as a brown man in the U.S., I'm not going to sit here and support [over all lives matter] a movement that believes this: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Fuck that. That is a completely baseless idea, and a potential society in which cops can look at a brown man (or non-black individual) and think "oh there will be no protest/riot/backlash if we teach him a lesson" is not one I will fight for over one in which cops stay in line when dealing with all races. Police brutality happens to ALL RACES.
Which brown are you? I'm Hispanic and pretending I have it close to as bad as Black People doesn't make sense
|
On June 06 2020 10:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 10:40 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 20:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:50 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:20 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 18:52 Sr18 wrote:On June 04 2020 18:09 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2020 17:10 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
"Stop and frisk" is a slogan? Where? Last I remember, the biggest champion of stop and frisk in the 21st century America just got blown out of the water in an election.
"Blue lives matter" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. It's nothing more than a slogan that implicates cop lives matter and I guess that killing a cop should be considered a hate crime. Any assumption one makes about it supporting police brutality is....nothing more than than that - an assumption.
"Boycott the NFL" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. You can boycott the NFL and still be against police brutality. I don't know if you realize, but disrespecting the flag is unpalatable to MANY Americans, and in their eyes, the flag does not represent police brutality. Sorry that not everyone feels the same way about the American flag the way Kap does.
Personally, I think ignorance of the general electorate is a huge problem, and not in just this issue and not just within certain demographics. Going back to stop and risk and bloomberg - Bloomberg was able to win in NYC, a city in which more than half the population is either Black or Hispanic, an unprecedented THREE TIMES. Let that sink in. There is a general ignorance and dissonance when it comes to the American electorate. Quite hard to know if you are serious. All lives matter or Blue lives matter implies there is no discrimination against black folks and that it's not a racial problem. Cops are not the ones that need to be defended here. The flag represents the country. The country is not giving many of its citizens the most basic rights: equal treatment, dignity, justice. Its own officers, the police, are humiliating, beating, killing black people and don't even get prosecuted for it. I get it, you guys care more about your misplaced patriotism and the well being of businesses than the most elementary rights of people with a browner skin than you. But don't be such a hypocrite and admit that boycott the NFL, Blue lives matter and so on are just a fuck you to BLM and people who fight for this charade to end. All lives matter and blue lives matter do not imply that there is no discrimination against black people. Thinking that they do is just mental gymnastics. There are many ways to look at a flag. The Constitution doesnt sanction any discriminatory PD practices, and the Constitution is the law of the country represented by the flag. No matter what way you want to spin it, someone boycotting the NFL because he/she doesn't view the flag the same way Kap does NOT necessarily make him against police brutality. I don't know what you mean by "you guys" since libertarians place liberty for all above everything. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your narrative, the same narrative that will drive most of the African Americans in this country to vote for the white politician trying to hand out black cards. Personally, I am an All Lives Matter guy and don't believe in any movement that places one race above the rest like BLM. As a brown man, I don't want to pretend that police brutality is a black ONLY problem and I don't want other groups to be marginalized. The idea of working only for the betterment of black people, and that it will somehow spill over to everyone, is flawed and baseless. I care for defending the rights of ALL, and that includes the rights of individuals to their property. I don't believe innocent people should have their rights violated just because another person/group has had theirs violated by a completely different party. I will never be for tolerating the violation of rights against innocent people, not even as an outlet for frustration. I assume BLM doesn't presume to place black lives above white lives, but rather the goal is to have black lives mean just as much as white lives. It is entirely possible to focus on stopping excessive police violence against black people without condoning the same violence against whites. I'd think very few BLM protesters are okay with excessive police violence against white people, it's just not the focus right now. First of all, I don't know why this has to be a white vs black thing. There are other groups in the country and nobody is spared from the problem. Second of all -You're correct - BLM doesn't say black lives are above white lives. Here is what they do believe, though: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/They are putting blacks above others in the discussion of police brutality. I do not believe in their philosophy. I do not believe that fighting only for black people by extension helps all people. This is the same group that bullied Bernie Sanders, we are talking a man who protested on the streets for black people when things were very bad for them, for saying "all lives matter." I do not believe in aggressively ignoring everyone else under the assumption that "things will simply just get better for them too." It leads to marginalization. For example, you will NEVER hear about police brutality against Native Americans, who suffer from police brutality at a rate higher than every single other race in the country, including blacks. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlThe idea that working ONLY for justice for black people leads to justice for everyone is a baseless assumption. As for "it's not the focus right now" - I don't agree. Injustice against everyone should be the focus at all times. This makes little sense to me. Its like attacking a charity set up to help poor immigrants for not also helping poor Americans. Some things are better compartmentalised, when a problem has different qualities or outcomes for different groups of people. I'm sure there are movements or causes which are focusing on general police brutality, but the one that captured the imagination was BLM because justice system outcomes are so much worse for black people. BLM is not like a charity. Charities don't seek to exert political influence and policy change. A charity that helps poor immigrants won't tell charities that help poor American's that those charities are bigots and should instead join their cause, because helping poor immigrants will by extension help poor Americans. I don't think think the issue of Police corruption and police brutality should be compartmentalized by race. When talking about the rights of individuals, I don't believe there is any merit in bringing race up. I don't see why me saying "All lives matter" rather than "black lives matter" is bad. Both say black lives matter, but one includes non-blacks as well who are suffering. I mean, just look at how 'all lives matter' arose. It was a reaction AGAINST BLM. The phrase has much more meaning in context than simply 'all lives matter'. It basically says black lives don't matter - it is a call to arms for the status quo and an admonishment to those who would continually insist that black lives do matter. All lives matter does not suggest black lives don't matter.... It's just a more inclusive slogan. It is not a call to arms for the status quo either. It suggests that police brutality should end. Sorry dude, as a brown man in the U.S., I'm not going to sit here and support [over all lives matter] a movement that believes this: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Fuck that. That is a completely baseless idea, and a potential society in which cops can look at a brown man (or non-black individual) and think "oh there will be no protest/riot/backlash if we teach him a lesson" is not one I will fight for over one in which cops stay in line when dealing with all races. Police brutality happens to ALL RACES. Which brown are you? I'm Hispanic and pretending I have it close to as bad as Black People doesn't make sense
I'm afghan
I never said I have it as bad as black people. What is this, a measuring contest?
Native Americans, do, though.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.html
And yet, nobody really talks about their plight.
I don't believe in marginalization. That's what happens when you pretend a widespread problem is an issue revolving around one group.
|
On June 06 2020 10:57 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 10:44 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2020 10:40 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 20:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:50 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:20 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 18:52 Sr18 wrote:On June 04 2020 18:09 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Quite hard to know if you are serious.
All lives matter or Blue lives matter implies there is no discrimination against black folks and that it's not a racial problem. Cops are not the ones that need to be defended here.
The flag represents the country. The country is not giving many of its citizens the most basic rights: equal treatment, dignity, justice. Its own officers, the police, are humiliating, beating, killing black people and don't even get prosecuted for it.
I get it, you guys care more about your misplaced patriotism and the well being of businesses than the most elementary rights of people with a browner skin than you. But don't be such a hypocrite and admit that boycott the NFL, Blue lives matter and so on are just a fuck you to BLM and people who fight for this charade to end. All lives matter and blue lives matter do not imply that there is no discrimination against black people. Thinking that they do is just mental gymnastics. There are many ways to look at a flag. The Constitution doesnt sanction any discriminatory PD practices, and the Constitution is the law of the country represented by the flag. No matter what way you want to spin it, someone boycotting the NFL because he/she doesn't view the flag the same way Kap does NOT necessarily make him against police brutality. I don't know what you mean by "you guys" since libertarians place liberty for all above everything. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your narrative, the same narrative that will drive most of the African Americans in this country to vote for the white politician trying to hand out black cards. Personally, I am an All Lives Matter guy and don't believe in any movement that places one race above the rest like BLM. As a brown man, I don't want to pretend that police brutality is a black ONLY problem and I don't want other groups to be marginalized. The idea of working only for the betterment of black people, and that it will somehow spill over to everyone, is flawed and baseless. I care for defending the rights of ALL, and that includes the rights of individuals to their property. I don't believe innocent people should have their rights violated just because another person/group has had theirs violated by a completely different party. I will never be for tolerating the violation of rights against innocent people, not even as an outlet for frustration. I assume BLM doesn't presume to place black lives above white lives, but rather the goal is to have black lives mean just as much as white lives. It is entirely possible to focus on stopping excessive police violence against black people without condoning the same violence against whites. I'd think very few BLM protesters are okay with excessive police violence against white people, it's just not the focus right now. First of all, I don't know why this has to be a white vs black thing. There are other groups in the country and nobody is spared from the problem. Second of all -You're correct - BLM doesn't say black lives are above white lives. Here is what they do believe, though: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/They are putting blacks above others in the discussion of police brutality. I do not believe in their philosophy. I do not believe that fighting only for black people by extension helps all people. This is the same group that bullied Bernie Sanders, we are talking a man who protested on the streets for black people when things were very bad for them, for saying "all lives matter." I do not believe in aggressively ignoring everyone else under the assumption that "things will simply just get better for them too." It leads to marginalization. For example, you will NEVER hear about police brutality against Native Americans, who suffer from police brutality at a rate higher than every single other race in the country, including blacks. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlThe idea that working ONLY for justice for black people leads to justice for everyone is a baseless assumption. As for "it's not the focus right now" - I don't agree. Injustice against everyone should be the focus at all times. This makes little sense to me. Its like attacking a charity set up to help poor immigrants for not also helping poor Americans. Some things are better compartmentalised, when a problem has different qualities or outcomes for different groups of people. I'm sure there are movements or causes which are focusing on general police brutality, but the one that captured the imagination was BLM because justice system outcomes are so much worse for black people. BLM is not like a charity. Charities don't seek to exert political influence and policy change. A charity that helps poor immigrants won't tell charities that help poor American's that those charities are bigots and should instead join their cause, because helping poor immigrants will by extension help poor Americans. I don't think think the issue of Police corruption and police brutality should be compartmentalized by race. When talking about the rights of individuals, I don't believe there is any merit in bringing race up. I don't see why me saying "All lives matter" rather than "black lives matter" is bad. Both say black lives matter, but one includes non-blacks as well who are suffering. I mean, just look at how 'all lives matter' arose. It was a reaction AGAINST BLM. The phrase has much more meaning in context than simply 'all lives matter'. It basically says black lives don't matter - it is a call to arms for the status quo and an admonishment to those who would continually insist that black lives do matter. All lives matter does not suggest black lives don't matter.... It's just a more inclusive slogan. It is not a call to arms for the status quo either. It suggests that police brutality should end. Sorry dude, as a brown man in the U.S., I'm not going to sit here and support [over all lives matter] a movement that believes this: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Fuck that. That is a completely baseless idea, and a potential society in which cops can look at a brown man (or non-black individual) and think "oh there will be no protest/riot/backlash if we teach him a lesson" is not one I will fight for over one in which cops stay in line when dealing with all races. Police brutality happens to ALL RACES. Which brown are you? I'm Hispanic and pretending I have it close to as bad as Black People doesn't make sense I'm afghan I never said I have it as bad as black people. What is this, a measuring contest? Native Americans, do, though. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlAnd yet, nobody really talks about their plight. I don't believe in marginalization. That's what happens when you pretend a widespread problem is an issue revolving around one group.
Black People have a very specific, very pronounced problem with police that dates back to the inception of many police forces in our country. Prejudice against Black People specifically goes much deeper than anything the other races face. It isn't a measuring contest. Hispanics and people from the Middle East have our own struggles, but that isn't the focus of Floyd protests.
I think your resentment for the BLM messaging is off-base. There can be a black-centered movement without it being a bad thing for either of us. And really, progress made towards stomping out racism towards Black People will likely have hugely positive impacts on both of us.
|
Northern Ireland23957 Posts
On June 06 2020 10:57 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 10:44 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2020 10:40 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 20:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:50 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:20 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 18:52 Sr18 wrote:On June 04 2020 18:09 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Quite hard to know if you are serious.
All lives matter or Blue lives matter implies there is no discrimination against black folks and that it's not a racial problem. Cops are not the ones that need to be defended here.
The flag represents the country. The country is not giving many of its citizens the most basic rights: equal treatment, dignity, justice. Its own officers, the police, are humiliating, beating, killing black people and don't even get prosecuted for it.
I get it, you guys care more about your misplaced patriotism and the well being of businesses than the most elementary rights of people with a browner skin than you. But don't be such a hypocrite and admit that boycott the NFL, Blue lives matter and so on are just a fuck you to BLM and people who fight for this charade to end. All lives matter and blue lives matter do not imply that there is no discrimination against black people. Thinking that they do is just mental gymnastics. There are many ways to look at a flag. The Constitution doesnt sanction any discriminatory PD practices, and the Constitution is the law of the country represented by the flag. No matter what way you want to spin it, someone boycotting the NFL because he/she doesn't view the flag the same way Kap does NOT necessarily make him against police brutality. I don't know what you mean by "you guys" since libertarians place liberty for all above everything. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your narrative, the same narrative that will drive most of the African Americans in this country to vote for the white politician trying to hand out black cards. Personally, I am an All Lives Matter guy and don't believe in any movement that places one race above the rest like BLM. As a brown man, I don't want to pretend that police brutality is a black ONLY problem and I don't want other groups to be marginalized. The idea of working only for the betterment of black people, and that it will somehow spill over to everyone, is flawed and baseless. I care for defending the rights of ALL, and that includes the rights of individuals to their property. I don't believe innocent people should have their rights violated just because another person/group has had theirs violated by a completely different party. I will never be for tolerating the violation of rights against innocent people, not even as an outlet for frustration. I assume BLM doesn't presume to place black lives above white lives, but rather the goal is to have black lives mean just as much as white lives. It is entirely possible to focus on stopping excessive police violence against black people without condoning the same violence against whites. I'd think very few BLM protesters are okay with excessive police violence against white people, it's just not the focus right now. First of all, I don't know why this has to be a white vs black thing. There are other groups in the country and nobody is spared from the problem. Second of all -You're correct - BLM doesn't say black lives are above white lives. Here is what they do believe, though: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/They are putting blacks above others in the discussion of police brutality. I do not believe in their philosophy. I do not believe that fighting only for black people by extension helps all people. This is the same group that bullied Bernie Sanders, we are talking a man who protested on the streets for black people when things were very bad for them, for saying "all lives matter." I do not believe in aggressively ignoring everyone else under the assumption that "things will simply just get better for them too." It leads to marginalization. For example, you will NEVER hear about police brutality against Native Americans, who suffer from police brutality at a rate higher than every single other race in the country, including blacks. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlThe idea that working ONLY for justice for black people leads to justice for everyone is a baseless assumption. As for "it's not the focus right now" - I don't agree. Injustice against everyone should be the focus at all times. This makes little sense to me. Its like attacking a charity set up to help poor immigrants for not also helping poor Americans. Some things are better compartmentalised, when a problem has different qualities or outcomes for different groups of people. I'm sure there are movements or causes which are focusing on general police brutality, but the one that captured the imagination was BLM because justice system outcomes are so much worse for black people. BLM is not like a charity. Charities don't seek to exert political influence and policy change. A charity that helps poor immigrants won't tell charities that help poor American's that those charities are bigots and should instead join their cause, because helping poor immigrants will by extension help poor Americans. I don't think think the issue of Police corruption and police brutality should be compartmentalized by race. When talking about the rights of individuals, I don't believe there is any merit in bringing race up. I don't see why me saying "All lives matter" rather than "black lives matter" is bad. Both say black lives matter, but one includes non-blacks as well who are suffering. I mean, just look at how 'all lives matter' arose. It was a reaction AGAINST BLM. The phrase has much more meaning in context than simply 'all lives matter'. It basically says black lives don't matter - it is a call to arms for the status quo and an admonishment to those who would continually insist that black lives do matter. All lives matter does not suggest black lives don't matter.... It's just a more inclusive slogan. It is not a call to arms for the status quo either. It suggests that police brutality should end. Sorry dude, as a brown man in the U.S., I'm not going to sit here and support [over all lives matter] a movement that believes this: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Fuck that. That is a completely baseless idea, and a potential society in which cops can look at a brown man (or non-black individual) and think "oh there will be no protest/riot/backlash if we teach him a lesson" is not one I will fight for over one in which cops stay in line when dealing with all races. Police brutality happens to ALL RACES. Which brown are you? I'm Hispanic and pretending I have it close to as bad as Black People doesn't make sense I'm afghan I never said I have it as bad as black people. What is this, a measuring contest? Native Americans, do, though. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlAnd yet, nobody really talks about their plight. I don't believe in marginalization. That's what happens when you pretend a widespread problem is an issue revolving around one group.
Which is why you’ve bemoaned the plight of native Americans so frequently in this thread prior to this aye?
|
On June 06 2020 11:04 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 10:57 BerserkSword wrote:On June 06 2020 10:44 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2020 10:40 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 20:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:50 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:20 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 18:52 Sr18 wrote:On June 04 2020 18:09 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
All lives matter and blue lives matter do not imply that there is no discrimination against black people. Thinking that they do is just mental gymnastics.
There are many ways to look at a flag. The Constitution doesnt sanction any discriminatory PD practices, and the Constitution is the law of the country represented by the flag. No matter what way you want to spin it, someone boycotting the NFL because he/she doesn't view the flag the same way Kap does NOT necessarily make him against police brutality.
I don't know what you mean by "you guys" since libertarians place liberty for all above everything. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your narrative, the same narrative that will drive most of the African Americans in this country to vote for the white politician trying to hand out black cards.
Personally, I am an All Lives Matter guy and don't believe in any movement that places one race above the rest like BLM. As a brown man, I don't want to pretend that police brutality is a black ONLY problem and I don't want other groups to be marginalized. The idea of working only for the betterment of black people, and that it will somehow spill over to everyone, is flawed and baseless.
I care for defending the rights of ALL, and that includes the rights of individuals to their property. I don't believe innocent people should have their rights violated just because another person/group has had theirs violated by a completely different party. I will never be for tolerating the violation of rights against innocent people, not even as an outlet for frustration. I assume BLM doesn't presume to place black lives above white lives, but rather the goal is to have black lives mean just as much as white lives. It is entirely possible to focus on stopping excessive police violence against black people without condoning the same violence against whites. I'd think very few BLM protesters are okay with excessive police violence against white people, it's just not the focus right now. First of all, I don't know why this has to be a white vs black thing. There are other groups in the country and nobody is spared from the problem. Second of all -You're correct - BLM doesn't say black lives are above white lives. Here is what they do believe, though: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/They are putting blacks above others in the discussion of police brutality. I do not believe in their philosophy. I do not believe that fighting only for black people by extension helps all people. This is the same group that bullied Bernie Sanders, we are talking a man who protested on the streets for black people when things were very bad for them, for saying "all lives matter." I do not believe in aggressively ignoring everyone else under the assumption that "things will simply just get better for them too." It leads to marginalization. For example, you will NEVER hear about police brutality against Native Americans, who suffer from police brutality at a rate higher than every single other race in the country, including blacks. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlThe idea that working ONLY for justice for black people leads to justice for everyone is a baseless assumption. As for "it's not the focus right now" - I don't agree. Injustice against everyone should be the focus at all times. This makes little sense to me. Its like attacking a charity set up to help poor immigrants for not also helping poor Americans. Some things are better compartmentalised, when a problem has different qualities or outcomes for different groups of people. I'm sure there are movements or causes which are focusing on general police brutality, but the one that captured the imagination was BLM because justice system outcomes are so much worse for black people. BLM is not like a charity. Charities don't seek to exert political influence and policy change. A charity that helps poor immigrants won't tell charities that help poor American's that those charities are bigots and should instead join their cause, because helping poor immigrants will by extension help poor Americans. I don't think think the issue of Police corruption and police brutality should be compartmentalized by race. When talking about the rights of individuals, I don't believe there is any merit in bringing race up. I don't see why me saying "All lives matter" rather than "black lives matter" is bad. Both say black lives matter, but one includes non-blacks as well who are suffering. I mean, just look at how 'all lives matter' arose. It was a reaction AGAINST BLM. The phrase has much more meaning in context than simply 'all lives matter'. It basically says black lives don't matter - it is a call to arms for the status quo and an admonishment to those who would continually insist that black lives do matter. All lives matter does not suggest black lives don't matter.... It's just a more inclusive slogan. It is not a call to arms for the status quo either. It suggests that police brutality should end. Sorry dude, as a brown man in the U.S., I'm not going to sit here and support [over all lives matter] a movement that believes this: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Fuck that. That is a completely baseless idea, and a potential society in which cops can look at a brown man (or non-black individual) and think "oh there will be no protest/riot/backlash if we teach him a lesson" is not one I will fight for over one in which cops stay in line when dealing with all races. Police brutality happens to ALL RACES. Which brown are you? I'm Hispanic and pretending I have it close to as bad as Black People doesn't make sense I'm afghan I never said I have it as bad as black people. What is this, a measuring contest? Native Americans, do, though. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlAnd yet, nobody really talks about their plight. I don't believe in marginalization. That's what happens when you pretend a widespread problem is an issue revolving around one group. Which is why you’ve bemoaned the plight of native Americans so frequently in this thread prior to this aye?
When people decide to talk about things is almost as important as what they talk about.
|
On June 06 2020 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 10:40 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 20:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:50 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 04 2020 19:20 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 18:52 Sr18 wrote:On June 04 2020 18:09 BerserkSword wrote:On June 04 2020 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2020 17:10 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
"Stop and frisk" is a slogan? Where? Last I remember, the biggest champion of stop and frisk in the 21st century America just got blown out of the water in an election.
"Blue lives matter" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. It's nothing more than a slogan that implicates cop lives matter and I guess that killing a cop should be considered a hate crime. Any assumption one makes about it supporting police brutality is....nothing more than than that - an assumption.
"Boycott the NFL" does not indicate an explicit support for police brutality. You can boycott the NFL and still be against police brutality. I don't know if you realize, but disrespecting the flag is unpalatable to MANY Americans, and in their eyes, the flag does not represent police brutality. Sorry that not everyone feels the same way about the American flag the way Kap does.
Personally, I think ignorance of the general electorate is a huge problem, and not in just this issue and not just within certain demographics. Going back to stop and risk and bloomberg - Bloomberg was able to win in NYC, a city in which more than half the population is either Black or Hispanic, an unprecedented THREE TIMES. Let that sink in. There is a general ignorance and dissonance when it comes to the American electorate. Quite hard to know if you are serious. All lives matter or Blue lives matter implies there is no discrimination against black folks and that it's not a racial problem. Cops are not the ones that need to be defended here. The flag represents the country. The country is not giving many of its citizens the most basic rights: equal treatment, dignity, justice. Its own officers, the police, are humiliating, beating, killing black people and don't even get prosecuted for it. I get it, you guys care more about your misplaced patriotism and the well being of businesses than the most elementary rights of people with a browner skin than you. But don't be such a hypocrite and admit that boycott the NFL, Blue lives matter and so on are just a fuck you to BLM and people who fight for this charade to end. All lives matter and blue lives matter do not imply that there is no discrimination against black people. Thinking that they do is just mental gymnastics. There are many ways to look at a flag. The Constitution doesnt sanction any discriminatory PD practices, and the Constitution is the law of the country represented by the flag. No matter what way you want to spin it, someone boycotting the NFL because he/she doesn't view the flag the same way Kap does NOT necessarily make him against police brutality. I don't know what you mean by "you guys" since libertarians place liberty for all above everything. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your narrative, the same narrative that will drive most of the African Americans in this country to vote for the white politician trying to hand out black cards. Personally, I am an All Lives Matter guy and don't believe in any movement that places one race above the rest like BLM. As a brown man, I don't want to pretend that police brutality is a black ONLY problem and I don't want other groups to be marginalized. The idea of working only for the betterment of black people, and that it will somehow spill over to everyone, is flawed and baseless. I care for defending the rights of ALL, and that includes the rights of individuals to their property. I don't believe innocent people should have their rights violated just because another person/group has had theirs violated by a completely different party. I will never be for tolerating the violation of rights against innocent people, not even as an outlet for frustration. I assume BLM doesn't presume to place black lives above white lives, but rather the goal is to have black lives mean just as much as white lives. It is entirely possible to focus on stopping excessive police violence against black people without condoning the same violence against whites. I'd think very few BLM protesters are okay with excessive police violence against white people, it's just not the focus right now. First of all, I don't know why this has to be a white vs black thing. There are other groups in the country and nobody is spared from the problem. Second of all -You're correct - BLM doesn't say black lives are above white lives. Here is what they do believe, though: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/They are putting blacks above others in the discussion of police brutality. I do not believe in their philosophy. I do not believe that fighting only for black people by extension helps all people. This is the same group that bullied Bernie Sanders, we are talking a man who protested on the streets for black people when things were very bad for them, for saying "all lives matter." I do not believe in aggressively ignoring everyone else under the assumption that "things will simply just get better for them too." It leads to marginalization. For example, you will NEVER hear about police brutality against Native Americans, who suffer from police brutality at a rate higher than every single other race in the country, including blacks. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.htmlThe idea that working ONLY for justice for black people leads to justice for everyone is a baseless assumption. As for "it's not the focus right now" - I don't agree. Injustice against everyone should be the focus at all times. This makes little sense to me. Its like attacking a charity set up to help poor immigrants for not also helping poor Americans. Some things are better compartmentalised, when a problem has different qualities or outcomes for different groups of people. I'm sure there are movements or causes which are focusing on general police brutality, but the one that captured the imagination was BLM because justice system outcomes are so much worse for black people. BLM is not like a charity. Charities don't seek to exert political influence and policy change. A charity that helps poor immigrants won't tell charities that help poor American's that those charities are bigots and should instead join their cause, because helping poor immigrants will by extension help poor Americans. I don't think think the issue of Police corruption and police brutality should be compartmentalized by race. When talking about the rights of individuals, I don't believe there is any merit in bringing race up. I don't see why me saying "All lives matter" rather than "black lives matter" is bad. Both say black lives matter, but one includes non-blacks as well who are suffering. I mean, just look at how 'all lives matter' arose. It was a reaction AGAINST BLM. The phrase has much more meaning in context than simply 'all lives matter'. It basically says black lives don't matter - it is a call to arms for the status quo and an admonishment to those who would continually insist that black lives do matter. All lives matter does not suggest black lives don't matter.... It's just a more inclusive slogan. It is not a call to arms for the status quo either. It suggests that police brutality should end. Sorry dude, as a brown man in the U.S., I'm not going to sit here and support [over all lives matter] a movement that believes this: "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." (https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) Fuck that. That is a completely baseless idea, and a potential society in which cops can look at a brown man (or non-black individual) and think "oh there will be no protest/riot/backlash if we teach him a lesson" is not one I will fight for over one in which cops stay in line when dealing with all races. Police brutality happens to ALL RACES. Are you being wilfully dense here? A million people have said in this very thread that ‘all lives matter’ is a slogan used to redirect anger from reform in keeping the status quo as it is. And is used by genuinely hostile actors Literally says it in your quote that you’ve injected "We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people." By extension, all people. It’s there in the quote you chose to use. Suck it up and deal with it or don’t. All Lives Matter isn’t a movement. It doesn’t do anything. It’s only used to redirect legitimate grievances, or actively deflect from them being redressed. If it was a movement agitating on the streets, proposing actual things then sure, they have a noble aim. They don’t do that, you can’t claim that they do and you have no real basis to moan about BLM stealing this hypothetical group’s momentum
I never said BLM doesnt have a noble goal. I agree with their STATED purpose of freedom and justice....for all people. They think they will achieve justice for all by focusing only on black people. I think that is a noble goal, but it's an obviously flawed and baseless idea. There is nothing for me to suck up. I won't support that which courses in the direction of marginalization. All Lives Matter is a superior option in my book.
All Lives Matter was used as a slogan for change by many people, politicians and celebrities included, to lead to change.
Bernie Sanders, O Maley, Hillary Clinton, for example, used all lives matter before outrage made them flip iirc. Rand Paul believes in All Lives Matter over BLM. In fact the Libertarian Party rejects the concept espoused by BLM - they talk about justice for all civilians, and, when talking about minorities, they talk about all minorities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
