|
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 |
On June 06 2020 11:29 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 10:52 Wombat_NI 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. 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.
Black lives matter. This is not a political view; this is a statement of fact. It’s not something that should need elaboration; those three words should be able to stand on their own. Stating that black lives matter does not imply that other lives do not matter, or that all police officers are bad people, or that no one else experiences difficulties in their lives. There is also a difference between understanding that everyone’s life has value, and trying to specifically correct or counter the “black lives matter” message with “all lives matter”. While stating that “all lives matter” may be well-intentioned and may be semantically inclusive, the context in which this is being brought up fundamentally distracts and diverts attention away from racism that needs to be addressed. Consider these analogies:
- Would you disrupt a funeral to tell the grieving family and friends that “actually, all deaths are tragic”?
- Would you troll a cancer research facility with the message that “actually, all diseases are important”?
- If your house is on fire, should the fire department ignore your call with “actually, all houses matter”?
- If you and your friends are at a restaurant, and everyone is served their food except for you, should asking for your own food be rejected and met with “actually, all customers matter”?
“Black lives matter” does not mean “Only black lives matter”. It means “Black lives matter too.”
Absorbing “black” into “all” ignores specific, fundamental issues that actually need to be communicated.
Sanders did not push ALM as a specific response to BLM. Also, Rand Paul is a piece of shit anyway.
|
AP is calling Biden with the necessary delegates to win the nomination.
|
If you still don’t get why it’s black lives matter after watching George Floyd get choked to death for the entire video and not all lives matter, you will never get it because you desperately don’t want to get it.
The reasoning is super easy and simple and has explained over and over and over. If all lives mattered, police wouldn’t run into the wrong address, shoot the wife of a man who is legally defending himself from intruders and charge the man who was defending himself while having the NRA stay silent about his right to use his firearm in self defence. If this was an affluent white man, the NRA would be all over this case screaming about how the government is restricting people’s right to defend themselves.
|
On June 06 2020 11:02 Mohdoo 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. 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.
Of course there can be black-centered movements without it being a bad thing for either of us. 100% agree. I don't agree that BLM's MO is it though.
Calling everyone who says "All Lives Matter" a racist and demonizing them won't lead to progress imo.
|
On June 06 2020 11:56 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 11:02 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course there can be black-centered movements without it being a bad thing for either of us. 100% agree. I don't agree that BLM's MO is it though. Calling everyone who says "All Lives Matter" a racist and demonizing them won't lead to progress imo.
If you still don’t get why it’s black lives matter, that’s on you.
At this point there are countless videos, articles, op-eds, interviews about why it is black lives matter. If you can’t be bothered educating yourself, you are purposely staying ignorant and you deserve to get called out.
Even people who are not from America understand why it is black lives matter, even those where English is not a primary language, what foundation do Americans have to argue that they don’t understand why it isn’t all lives matter. Arguing ignorance at this point is not a valid excuse.
|
On June 06 2020 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 11:29 BerserkSword wrote:On June 06 2020 10:52 Wombat_NI 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. 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. Black lives matter. This is not a political view; this is a statement of fact. It’s not something that should need elaboration; those three words should be able to stand on their own. Stating that black lives matter does not imply that other lives do not matter, or that all police officers are bad people, or that no one else experiences difficulties in their lives. There is also a difference between understanding that everyone’s life has value, and trying to specifically correct or counter the “black lives matter” message with “all lives matter”. While stating that “all lives matter” may be well-intentioned and may be semantically inclusive, the context in which this is being brought up fundamentally distracts and diverts attention away from racism that needs to be addressed. Consider these analogies: - Would you disrupt a funeral to tell the grieving family and friends that “actually, all deaths are tragic”? - Would you troll a cancer research facility with the message that “actually, all diseases are important”? - If your house is on fire, should the fire department ignore your call with “actually, all houses matter”? - If you and your friends are at a restaurant, and everyone is served their food except for you, should asking for your own food be rejected and met with “actually, all customers matter”? “Black lives matter” does not mean “Only black lives matter”. It means “Black lives matter too.” Absorbing “black” into “all” ignores specific, fundamental issues that actually need to be communicated. Sanders did not push ALM as a specific response to BLM. Also, Rand Paul is a piece of shit anyway.
I never said "black lives matter" is not a statement of fact. That's why I believe all lives matter. Blacks are including in "all".....black lives DO matter obviously. That is a fact.
Here's the important part though - BLM IS a political movement. One will well-defined doctrines. Like I said it has noble goals but that doesn't mean anything with regards to their plan towards achieving them.
Those analogies are not congruent. A cancer researcher is not going to tell you "by finding the cure to cancer, we can find the cure to all diseases!!!!" You're ignoring the BLM core beliefs.
I keep saying this over and over - BLM claims that everyone's problems will be solved if black problems are solved.
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/31/427851451/democratic-candidates-stumble-over-black-lives-matter-movement
Bernie sanders responded "black lives matter. white lives matter. hispanic lives matter" when asked about BLM...so yes he essentially did repsond with "all lives matter" as a specific response to BLM
As for your opinion of Rand Paul, enjoy the further collapse of your left progressive movement 
|
I think entertaining BS's argument just gives it credibility it doesn't deserve, but I was reminded of the best excuse for it not being BLM but something else.
How about People of Color Lives Matter? Let's start a new movement #PoCLM.
BLM will always be banelings, lings, mutas.
|
Northern Ireland24419 Posts
On June 06 2020 11:29 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 10:52 Wombat_NI 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. 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.
Do they actually do anything?
|
Northern Ireland24419 Posts
As has been reiterated numerous times in the thread if All Lives Matter was an actual group that did advocacy and action and proposed things, and was out protesting then that’s an argument to be had. One could argue whose messaging was best.
It isn’t. It’s not a group that advocates for change, it’s a slogan. A slogan that is wilfully appropriated by right wing causes who actively seek to keep the status quo intact.
Enabled by wilful idiots who think they’re making some point for true egalitarianism by using it.
|
On June 06 2020 12:03 StalkerTL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 11:56 BerserkSword wrote:On June 06 2020 11:02 Mohdoo wrote: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:[quote] 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. Of course there can be black-centered movements without it being a bad thing for either of us. 100% agree. I don't agree that BLM's MO is it though. Calling everyone who says "All Lives Matter" a racist and demonizing them won't lead to progress imo. If you still don’t get why it’s black lives matter, that’s on you. At this point there are countless videos, articles, op-eds, interviews about why it is black lives matter. If you can’t be bothered educating yourself, you are purposely staying ignorant and you deserve to get called out. Even people who are not from America understand why it is black lives matter, even those where English is not a primary language, what foundation do Americans have to argue that they don’t understand why it isn’t all lives matter. Arguing ignorance at this point is not a valid excuse.
I am sufficiently educated on the matter. In fact I am the only one, in this whole conversation, who has cited BLM itself. I have yet to see someone explain how ending police brutality against black people, will, by extension, necessarily end police brutality against all people.
You can call people out in your echo chambers all you want lol.
|
Northern Ireland24419 Posts
On June 06 2020 12:23 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 12:03 StalkerTL wrote:On June 06 2020 11:56 BerserkSword wrote:On June 06 2020 11:02 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course there can be black-centered movements without it being a bad thing for either of us. 100% agree. I don't agree that BLM's MO is it though. Calling everyone who says "All Lives Matter" a racist and demonizing them won't lead to progress imo. If you still don’t get why it’s black lives matter, that’s on you. At this point there are countless videos, articles, op-eds, interviews about why it is black lives matter. If you can’t be bothered educating yourself, you are purposely staying ignorant and you deserve to get called out. Even people who are not from America understand why it is black lives matter, even those where English is not a primary language, what foundation do Americans have to argue that they don’t understand why it isn’t all lives matter. Arguing ignorance at this point is not a valid excuse. I am sufficiently educated on the matter. In fact I am the only one, in this whole conversation, who has cited BLM itself. I have yet to see someone explain how ending police brutality against black people, will, by extension, necessarily end police brutality against all people. You can call people out in your echo chambers all you want lol.
Have you even gone on their website? It’s pretty clear how (theoretically) they think that actualisation of their aims would benefit everyone
|
Geez, I wonder how increased police accountability would benefit all people! As I said, you’re purposely ignorant if you still can’t comprehend how black lives matter inherently includes all people and why it is black lives matter in the first place. White people - who are a majority population in the USA might I remind you - aren’t getting killed in their own home by police who can’t read addresses. When they are, you’re welcome to come back and tell me that it should be all lives matter.
Apparently my echo chamber hasn’t told me how police have a brutality quota and not beating black people means white people have to get some of the beatings. How stupid of me to not comprehend why it should be all lives matter.
It’s funny that the all lives matter crew are talking about echo chambers when they’re the sort of guys to whine about kneeling protests bringing politics into their football games.
|
Northern Ireland24419 Posts
On June 06 2020 12:23 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 12:03 StalkerTL wrote:On June 06 2020 11:56 BerserkSword wrote:On June 06 2020 11:02 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course there can be black-centered movements without it being a bad thing for either of us. 100% agree. I don't agree that BLM's MO is it though. Calling everyone who says "All Lives Matter" a racist and demonizing them won't lead to progress imo. If you still don’t get why it’s black lives matter, that’s on you. At this point there are countless videos, articles, op-eds, interviews about why it is black lives matter. If you can’t be bothered educating yourself, you are purposely staying ignorant and you deserve to get called out. Even people who are not from America understand why it is black lives matter, even those where English is not a primary language, what foundation do Americans have to argue that they don’t understand why it isn’t all lives matter. Arguing ignorance at this point is not a valid excuse. I am sufficiently educated on the matter. In fact I am the only one, in this whole conversation, who has cited BLM itself. I have yet to see someone explain how ending police brutality against black people, will, by extension, necessarily end police brutality against all people. You can call people out in your echo chambers all you want lol.
Even a if that’s a direct 100% issue, who cares? A significant improvement in the treatment of black people by police is still a big improvement.
Even if I t doesn’t impact a single white person it’s a big improvement from where we are now. Which is a big net improvement
Black people are allowed their protest movement as a single issue movement, if benefits expand outwards great. If not, who cares?
I’ll add my insignificant voice to it wholeheartedly, and believe that when vague equity is met that ‘all lives matter’ will be a topic that will be shifted to.
|
On June 06 2020 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 11:29 BerserkSword wrote:On June 06 2020 10:52 Wombat_NI 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. 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. Black lives matter. This is not a political view; this is a statement of fact. It’s not something that should need elaboration; those three words should be able to stand on their own. Stating that black lives matter does not imply that other lives do not matter, or that all police officers are bad people, or that no one else experiences difficulties in their lives. There is also a difference between understanding that everyone’s life has value, and trying to specifically correct or counter the “black lives matter” message with “all lives matter”. While stating that “all lives matter” may be well-intentioned and may be semantically inclusive, the context in which this is being brought up fundamentally distracts and diverts attention away from racism that needs to be addressed. Consider these analogies: - Would you disrupt a funeral to tell the grieving family and friends that “actually, all deaths are tragic”?
- Would you troll a cancer research facility with the message that “actually, all diseases are important”?
- If your house is on fire, should the fire department ignore your call with “actually, all houses matter”?
- If you and your friends are at a restaurant, and everyone is served their food except for you, should asking for your own food be rejected and met with “actually, all customers matter”? “Black lives matter” does not mean “Only black lives matter”. It means “Black lives matter too.” Absorbing “black” into “all” ignores specific, fundamental issues that actually need to be communicated. Sanders did not push ALM as a specific response to BLM. Also, Rand Paul is a piece of shit anyway.
It would be as asinine as protesting the 4th of July celebrations because All Countries Matter, or a moment of silence for 9/11 remembrance because All Buildings Matter.
|
On June 06 2020 12:47 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2020 11:29 BerserkSword wrote:On June 06 2020 10:52 Wombat_NI 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:
[quote]
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. Black lives matter. This is not a political view; this is a statement of fact. It’s not something that should need elaboration; those three words should be able to stand on their own. Stating that black lives matter does not imply that other lives do not matter, or that all police officers are bad people, or that no one else experiences difficulties in their lives. There is also a difference between understanding that everyone’s life has value, and trying to specifically correct or counter the “black lives matter” message with “all lives matter”. While stating that “all lives matter” may be well-intentioned and may be semantically inclusive, the context in which this is being brought up fundamentally distracts and diverts attention away from racism that needs to be addressed. Consider these analogies: - Would you disrupt a funeral to tell the grieving family and friends that “actually, all deaths are tragic”?
- Would you troll a cancer research facility with the message that “actually, all diseases are important”?
- If your house is on fire, should the fire department ignore your call with “actually, all houses matter”?
- If you and your friends are at a restaurant, and everyone is served their food except for you, should asking for your own food be rejected and met with “actually, all customers matter”? “Black lives matter” does not mean “Only black lives matter”. It means “Black lives matter too.” Absorbing “black” into “all” ignores specific, fundamental issues that actually need to be communicated. Sanders did not push ALM as a specific response to BLM. Also, Rand Paul is a piece of shit anyway. It would be as asinine as protesting the 4th of July celebrations because All Countries Matter, or a moment of silence for 9/11 remembrance because All Buildings Matter.
My favorite comparison is "protect the rainforest"
"wow, why does my forest not matter?"
|
On June 06 2020 10:28 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 07:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: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) 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? 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
They are a perennial group of antagonists. And just because people oversell the "both sides," doesn't dismiss this fact at all. 2017 assaulted a peaceful far right protest (including felony assault with a deadly weapon professor), 2018 "unite the right" fireworks and assaulting journalists, 2018 broke Tucker Carlson's front door, published his address, terrorized his family with talk of pipe bombs, 2019 beat up on a journalist.
So, please, you don't have to say they've killed more than far-right groups, or they have a central structure, or they're "morally worse," but they definitely meet the definition of perennial antagonist. There's been a melee in the street in Portland or Seattle pretty much every year for the last four years with Antifa squaring off against some other extremist group.
I am looking for a little consistency in describing extremist groups on both sides, because assaulting journalists and fighting with makeshift weapons is not so easily dismissed as some "Fox News made up conspiracy." Just cuz Trump is trying to blame them for everything, doesn't mean the only logical response is hugging them close and forgiving their sins.
|
Northern Ireland24419 Posts
On June 06 2020 13:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 10:28 Chocolate wrote:On June 06 2020 07:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: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 They are a perennial group of antagonists. And just because people oversell the "both sides," doesn't dismiss this fact at all. 2017 assaulted a peaceful far right protest (including felony assault with a deadly weapon professor), 2018 "unite the right" fireworks and assaulting journalists, 2018 broke Tucker Carlson's front door, published his address, terrorized his family with talk of pipe bombs, 2019 beat up on a journalist. So, please, you don't have to say they've killed more than far-right groups, or they have a central structure, or they're "morally worse," but they definitely meet the definition of perennial antagonist. There's been a melee in the street in Portland or Seattle pretty much every year for the last four years with Antifa squaring off against some other extremist group. I am looking for a little consistency in describing extremist groups on both sides, because assaulting journalists and fighting with makeshift weapons is not so easily dismissed as some "Fox News made up conspiracy." Just cuz Trump is trying to blame them for everything, doesn't mean the only logical response is hugging them close and forgiving their sins.
I’d largely agree with you, ideally
Frankly I don’t have a huge amount of faith that institutions don’t give platforms to repugnant people, so if it’s Antifa or nothing I’ll take the former.
I spent about a good 4 years being free speech zealot only to see the far right abusive my good faith, so my position has somewhat changed here.
|
On June 06 2020 13:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 10:28 Chocolate wrote:On June 06 2020 07:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: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 They are a perennial group of antagonists. And just because people oversell the "both sides," doesn't dismiss this fact at all. 2017 assaulted a peaceful far right protest (including felony assault with a deadly weapon professor), 2018 "unite the right" fireworks and assaulting journalists, 2018 broke Tucker Carlson's front door, published his address, terrorized his family with talk of pipe bombs, 2019 beat up on a journalist. So, please, you don't have to say they've killed more than far-right groups, or they have a central structure, or they're "morally worse," but they definitely meet the definition of perennial antagonist. There's been a melee in the street in Portland or Seattle pretty much every year for the last four years with Antifa squaring off against some other extremist group. I am looking for a little consistency in describing extremist groups on both sides, because assaulting journalists and fighting with makeshift weapons is not so easily dismissed as some "Fox News made up conspiracy." Just cuz Trump is trying to blame them for everything, doesn't mean the only logical response is hugging them close and forgiving their sins.
They've done some bad things, but it's mostly molehills vs mountains issues to me.
I'll freely condemn when they step way over the line (like with Carlson). Leave his family out of it. It's a continuation of the dumb, feel-good in the moment, does nothing for their cause (or actively harms their cause) gesture that I think the far left is way too fond of as a whole. As noted, the fragmentation means that I'm most condemning the leftists in the area.
Wasn't Unite the Right in 2017? That was Charlottesville with the assault with cars. It seemed to turn into an all and all melee, where things get really chaotic. People credited antifa with saving their life as well, it was just a mess. Need some sort of historian to do a deep dive to figure out what really happened all day, tbh.
I want to talk about that 2019 journalist case, because I dug into it and it's wild.
There is something of a common issue with the far right journalists. They frequently blur the line between activist and journalist.
The 2019 journalist you're talking about, Andy Ngo, has this fun section on his wiki page :
Portland Mercury covered a video that showed Ngo with members of Patriot Prayer, the far-right group active in Portland, as they planned violence at a bar frequented by left-wing activists.[5][54][67] Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is alleged to be smiling and laughing at the discussion.[51][40] (this left at least one person with a damaged vertebra )
(https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3apyv/super-awkward-for-right-wing-blogger-andy-ngo-to-make-a-cameo-in-video-of-plot-against-antifa for indepth coverage)
This video was taken months BEFORE the attack on him. Patriot Prayer (another far right extremist group, though its leader is now jailed) also had members stating they had an "understanding" and would protect each other (Ngo and them). Now, that's not necessarily wrong - Journalists protect their sources all the time! But it is definitely understandable how someone could have mistaken him for a member (something I believe the local antifa still maintains). The line between Journalist sympathetic to the cause and full fledged member seems really thin here.
Now, the REALLY problematic part (for me) comes in how Ngo described this attack(that multiple people are now jailed for): "antifa brawl", when it was a premeditated act of violence that he watched the preparation for (including donning of body armor and gathering of weapons).
Ngo claims that he wasn't paying attention at all to what happened around him as his defense (and way to avoid felony charges), but his description of the incident was that antifa attacked them unprovoked. So he's either the most unobservant journalist on Earth or one who is fine with lying. I still don't think he should have been attacked, though.
|
On June 06 2020 14:35 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 13:34 Danglars wrote:On June 06 2020 10:28 Chocolate wrote:On June 06 2020 07:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: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 They are a perennial group of antagonists. And just because people oversell the "both sides," doesn't dismiss this fact at all. 2017 assaulted a peaceful far right protest (including felony assault with a deadly weapon professor), 2018 "unite the right" fireworks and assaulting journalists, 2018 broke Tucker Carlson's front door, published his address, terrorized his family with talk of pipe bombs, 2019 beat up on a journalist. So, please, you don't have to say they've killed more than far-right groups, or they have a central structure, or they're "morally worse," but they definitely meet the definition of perennial antagonist. There's been a melee in the street in Portland or Seattle pretty much every year for the last four years with Antifa squaring off against some other extremist group. I am looking for a little consistency in describing extremist groups on both sides, because assaulting journalists and fighting with makeshift weapons is not so easily dismissed as some "Fox News made up conspiracy." Just cuz Trump is trying to blame them for everything, doesn't mean the only logical response is hugging them close and forgiving their sins. They've done some bad things, but it's mostly molehills vs mountains issues to me. I'll freely condemn when they step way over the line (like with Carlson). Leave his family out of it. It's a continuation of the dumb, feel-good in the moment, does nothing for their cause (or actively harms their cause) gesture that I think the far left is way too fond of as a whole. As noted, the fragmentation means that I'm most condemning the leftists in the area. Wasn't Unite the Right in 2017? That was Charlottesville with the assault with cars. It seemed to turn into an all and all melee, where things get really chaotic. People credited antifa with saving their life as well, it was just a mess. Need some sort of historian to do a deep dive to figure out what really happened all day, tbh. I want to talk about that 2019 journalist case, because I dug into it and it's wild. There is something of a common issue with the far right journalists. They frequently blur the line between activist and journalist. The 2019 journalist you're talking about, Andy Ngo, has this fun section on his wiki page : Show nested quote +Portland Mercury covered a video that showed Ngo with members of Patriot Prayer, the far-right group active in Portland, as they planned violence at a bar frequented by left-wing activists.[5][54][67] Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is alleged to be smiling and laughing at the discussion.[51][40] (this left at least one person with a damaged vertebra ) (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3apyv/super-awkward-for-right-wing-blogger-andy-ngo-to-make-a-cameo-in-video-of-plot-against-antifa for indepth coverage) This video was taken months BEFORE the attack on him. Patriot Prayer (another far right extremist group, though its leader is now jailed) also had members stating they had an "understanding" and would protect each other (Ngo and them). Now, that's not necessarily wrong - Journalists protect their sources all the time! But it is definitely understandable how someone could have mistaken him for a member (something I believe the local antifa still maintains). The line between Journalist sympathetic to the cause and full fledged member seems really thin here. Now, the REALLY problematic part (for me) comes in how Ngo described this attack(that multiple people are now jailed for): "antifa brawl", when it was a premeditated act of violence that he watched the preparation for (including donning of body armor and gathering of weapons). Ngo claims that he wasn't paying attention at all to what happened around him as his defense (and way to avoid felony charges), but his description of the incident was that antifa attacked them unprovoked. So he's either the most unobservant journalist on Earth or one who is fine with lying. I still don't think he should have been attacked, though.
Yes I screwed up the dates thanks. 2018 was a different violent protest.
The Andy Ngo incident was videotaped, showing identification of him and following/harassing. I’m not totally following beating up a gay Asian journalist because one video showed him chummy with one group beforehand. It’s no excuse for violence, and he had another videotaping him to show he wasn’t threatening or provoking anyone. Antifa should know about embedded sympathetic journalists, because they routinely allow a couple to write puff pieces and threaten the unaligned.
I don’t jot down any consorting with the enemy as provoking to violence. Not for any journalist.
|
Andy Ngo was beat up because he instigating far left people. ThAts common knowledge. Also I just got awoken by flash bangs or tear gas shots outside of my apartment window. As far as I’m aware, the protests have been peaceful today until police start throwing these fucking “bombs”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
