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.
On February 05 2025 07:40 Sadist wrote: I just say democrats campaign on the belief for equal rights for all, implement it, and leave it at that. Getting bogged down on specifics is a sure fire way to alienate some people. Just say equal rights and implement the policies. Dont let Republicans try to control the narrative and make everything about trans issues or other issues. Equal rights includes all minority groups by default.
They literally couldn't get people to agree with the statement that black lives matter. That was apparently a bridge too far for America.
And Democrats don’t even want to Make America Great Again? Do they hate America?
Or we can not pretend these slogans are meat to be taken literally and there’s not an ideology attached to them.
It's not at all comparable to MAGA. A better comparison to MAGA would be Build Back Better.
Black lives matter is a response to the observation that issues that disproportionately impact black Americans, such as police brutality, high crime neighbourhoods, lack of access to education, lack of community resources etc. are treated as not important in a way that they would not be if they impacted white Americans. The conclusion is that these issues are not viewed as important because the people whose lives are impacted are not important. That police brutality against black Americans does not matter to the public because black Americans do not matter to public.
It's a very short, very clear, very clean thesis. "You act like you don't care about us because you literally do not care about us". It's all packaged in a neat little bow.
Their statement is also very clean, very concise, very neat. Black lives matter. That's it. We matter, please could society address the issues impacting our communities as if our lives matter.
It doesn't mean voting a certain way, it doesn't have a policy platform, there's no party or political leader attached to it, it's not about that, it's completely incomparable to MAGA. It's literally just that they would like people to act as if black lives were important. That's it.
It was too controversial and so instead we have trucks rolling coal with big "black smoke matters" decals.
Much of the opposition to BLM I’ve encountered absolutely reeks of Men’s Rights energy when it comes to feminism.
‘But what about us/x?’
Which may be totally legitimate, there may be a gap somewhere but you’re bitching that people who did the groundwork for their own specific issues aren’t doing your work for you.
It’ll also be totally wrong in many cases, although tbf not always deliberately.
‘Oh some white guy got shot why didn’t BLM say anything then?’ when it turns out that they very much did.
Absolutely on point (as well as your previous comment). The opposition to BLM was entirely racist, there was no other point to it. The trick racists play is that they brainwash apparent non-racists (useful idiots) with their racist ideas, by toning down their rhetoric so it can pass the bullshit detector from the useful idiots. All Lives Matter was an attempt to subvert BLM, not a sincere call for inclusion of white people who are also facing adversity. It was an exercise in virtue signalling towards a broad range of right-wingers, libertarians, conservatives etc. while also serving as a dog whistle for the definitive racists. Behind the scenes the racists who were undermining BLM were completely open about their views. They strictly deny that black people face oppression to begin with, they blame black people themselves (and they also blame elected Democrats for "turning black neighborhoods into shitholes"). It's a whole fucking scheme. These are not exclusively capital R racists, but their methods run so deep that "little racists" so-to-speak join their ranks. One by one, a whole propaganda machine. Youtube was and still is infested by them.
Boom goes the dynamite.
For fuck’s sake some bloke kneeling at a football match was too much for some sensibilities. The yardstick of what people’s ’real problem with BLM…’ was just kept shifting.
I think that this is the best argument. One guy kneeling before a football match was already too much for these people. I honestly can not think of a more respectful and less intrusive kind of protest. And it still was too much.
At that point it becomes really, really hard to explain the behaviour through anything but massive racism.
I've said this before, but reality for humans has barely anything to do with objective reality and all depends on the constructed narrative of reality. How people feel reality is happening around them is what reality is. This is obviously different for MAGA people versus people like DPB. No matter how much telling them they're objectively wrong will let them change their current experience of reality. What's worse is that many people tie their personalities to these narratives, further entangling both, making it so extremely difficult to get them out. It's the same thing like money or the economy at large. It only works because we all believe it works. The same reason crypto 'works', despite so many people claiming it to be a 'scam' (of which there are many, but that's another discussion), it's doing a thing because enough people believe it to be a thing. Reality is a shared fantasy, not a reflection of the objective universe.
I can't get over the fact that, in response to people defending BLM, BJ posts an article from a subsidiary of Fox News to attack BLM.
We all know where you get your sources from, BJ. But you don't have to make it so apparent. Lately you haven't even tried to conceal where the "information" is coming from.
Here, let me prove that right-wingers did everything in their power to undermine BLM. One far-right extremist went so far as to pose as a BLM protester. He shot 13 times at a police station.
That's only one example. A study found that BLM protesters were disproportionately targeted by police, and that far-right groups sought out to attack BLM (presumably so they could, among other reasons, extract footage of "violent BLM members" for their anti-black propaganda). I've frequently watched footage of these clashes over the last eight years or so. There's always been an organized effort to violently attack BLM.
"I have an acquaintance who even fits the more narrow definitions - thinking that black people are biologically less intelligent than white (and asian) people - which most people will agree is clearly racist, but even he takes great offense at being described as one, because he doesn't dislike black people at all and doesn't want to discriminate against them, he just thinks they're on average less smart."
Drone, that is a hard R racist. Please be real. The old Nazis used the exact same reasoning. "I don't hate them, I just believe they're born with inherent faults". No, screw that. That's a hard R.
If you want an example of soft racism, it's when you generally talk about the crime of black people more and cover white crime less. Fox News is a prime example of that kind of racism. Or it's when you believe that black people could escape their harsh reality by working harder (and not by being less oppressed). That's soft racism.
I said that and also that I have no issues with calling him out. I'm just saying that even in that case, where a huge majority of people will agree 'that's racist', he will think 'wtf I'm not racist, being a racist is a bad thing that describes the guys that are even more racist than I am', and calling him racist will make him retreat and be unwilling to engage with other ideas because he will perceive this as an attack upon him as a person - and thus - he will be more susceptible to voting for the group that doesn't actually call him racist. (Although again I think this person is sufficiently racist and not part of a large enough group that we have to cater to him - it's just an example of the principle that 'virtually nobody accepts being branded as a racist'.)
That said I see I wrote more instead of less so I can take blame for the misunderstanding.
On February 05 2025 07:40 Sadist wrote: I just say democrats campaign on the belief for equal rights for all, implement it, and leave it at that. Getting bogged down on specifics is a sure fire way to alienate some people. Just say equal rights and implement the policies. Dont let Republicans try to control the narrative and make everything about trans issues or other issues. Equal rights includes all minority groups by default.
They literally couldn't get people to agree with the statement that black lives matter. That was apparently a bridge too far for America.
And Democrats don’t even want to Make America Great Again? Do they hate America?
Or we can not pretend these slogans are meat to be taken literally and there’s not an ideology attached to them.
It's not at all comparable to MAGA. A better comparison to MAGA would be Build Back Better.
Black lives matter is a response to the observation that issues that disproportionately impact black Americans, such as police brutality, high crime neighbourhoods, lack of access to education, lack of community resources etc. are treated as not important in a way that they would not be if they impacted white Americans. The conclusion is that these issues are not viewed as important because the people whose lives are impacted are not important. That police brutality against black Americans does not matter to the public because black Americans do not matter to public.
It's a very short, very clear, very clean thesis. "You act like you don't care about us because you literally do not care about us". It's all packaged in a neat little bow.
Their statement is also very clean, very concise, very neat. Black lives matter. That's it. We matter, please could society address the issues impacting our communities as if our lives matter.
It doesn't mean voting a certain way, it doesn't have a policy platform, there's no party or political leader attached to it, it's not about that, it's completely incomparable to MAGA. It's literally just that they would like people to act as if black lives were important. That's it.
It was too controversial and so instead we have trucks rolling coal with big "black smoke matters" decals.
Much of the opposition to BLM I’ve encountered absolutely reeks of Men’s Rights energy when it comes to feminism.
‘But what about us/x?’
Which may be totally legitimate, there may be a gap somewhere but you’re bitching that people who did the groundwork for their own specific issues aren’t doing your work for you.
It’ll also be totally wrong in many cases, although tbf not always deliberately.
‘Oh some white guy got shot why didn’t BLM say anything then?’ when it turns out that they very much did.
Absolutely on point (as well as your previous comment). The opposition to BLM was entirely racist, there was no other point to it. The trick racists play is that they brainwash apparent non-racists (useful idiots) with their racist ideas, by toning down their rhetoric so it can pass the bullshit detector from the useful idiots.
There might have been some opposition to the burning down cities thing, which Back The Blue or Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter or any other mattering lives movement don't seem to have done.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: All Lives Matter was an attempt to subvert BLM, not a sincere call for inclusion of white people who are also facing adversity. It was an exercise in virtue signalling towards a broad range of right-wingers, libertarians, conservatives etc. while also serving as a dog whistle for the definitive racists.
"white people" These sentences represent the gross (in both ways) misapprehension that the US is divided between white and black people. It's not, and that's a critical thing to have missed. Reminds me of the phone experiment's same fundamental mistake.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: Behind the scenes the racists who were undermining BLM were completely open about their views. They strictly deny that black people face oppression to begin with, they blame black people themselves (and they also blame elected Democrats for "turning black neighborhoods into shitholes"). It's a whole fucking scheme. These are not exclusively capital R racists, but their methods run so deep that "little racists" so-to-speak join their ranks. One by one, a whole propaganda machine. Youtube was and still is infested by them.
Most random BLM supporters, when surveyed in the streets, especially at that time before people have wisened up, when asked to estimate, they assume thousands of unarmed black people are killed by police every year. In reality, no. The truth is not only nowhere near that, but that once you control for other factors, there is either no difference or unarmed black people are slightly less likely to get shot than unarmed white people.
After BLM (or its predecessors honestly, or its adjacents, but whoever) achieved the transparency of body cameras for police, there's not much left to do. But for BLM professionals, the perpetuation of the existence of an issue, or perception thereof, is necessary to maintain the grift. They continue to take X Y or Z tragedy, in an enormous country, and blow it up as emblematic. People got fed up with the sanctimonious blowhardness of it all and rightly wondered where the knees for any victims of drugs and crime were.
The issue of why decades of Democrat control of blue cities in blue states hasn't always seemed to benefit the minority communities that live there, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with BLM. Someone supporting BLM could definitely look to Democrats to see why they govern and run their police departments and courts in a certain way, and be dissatisfied with that.
On February 05 2025 22:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: I said that and also that I have no issues with calling him out. I'm just saying that even in that case, where a huge majority of people will agree 'that's racist', he will think 'wtf I'm not racist, being a racist is a bad thing that describes the guys that are even more racist than I am', and calling him racist will make him retreat and be unwilling to engage with other ideas because he will perceive this as an attack upon him as a person - and thus - he will be more susceptible to voting for the group that doesn't actually call him racist. (Although again I think this person is sufficiently racist and not part of a large enough group that we have to cater to him - it's just an example of the principle that 'virtually nobody accepts being branded as a racist'.)
Yeah that's cool. I misinterpreted your comment, my bad.
And I also largely agree that calling all people racist who hold racist views isn't going to accomplish anything in the grand scheme of things. Real change can't come from hurtful accusations, even when they're true. Racists accuse the "inferior" group. Therefore accusing them of also being an "inferior" group (racists) won't do anything, because that's effectively the same angle - the belief in the inferiority of groups. He'll feel justified in othering if he's also being othered. The core of racism is othering, which is the opposite of inclusion. Othering him won't turn his mindset towards inclusion.
On February 05 2025 07:40 Sadist wrote: I just say democrats campaign on the belief for equal rights for all, implement it, and leave it at that. Getting bogged down on specifics is a sure fire way to alienate some people. Just say equal rights and implement the policies. Dont let Republicans try to control the narrative and make everything about trans issues or other issues. Equal rights includes all minority groups by default.
They literally couldn't get people to agree with the statement that black lives matter. That was apparently a bridge too far for America.
Black lives matter, its too specific. Need to be more generic. It also couldve used a too on the end sadly.
Not the greatest of slogans unfortunately.
Honestly never thought about this but adding 'too' would've been great. Takes the entire wind out of the 'all lives matter' counter, because the statement already includes everyone else, while also doing a better job highlighting that they currently matter less than the lives of others.
A bit late to the racism party but I agree with the group saying that calling out the 'casual/unconscious' racists as racists tends to be counter-productive. You can call out specific instances of behavior as racist/racist-adjecent without describing the person in question as racist and maybe it'll result in some positive introspection, but overall, be careful.
The reason is that racist isn't all that strictly defined, it has very different connotations to different people, where what people agree with is that 'it's bad' and 'it's not what I'm doing'. Basically - to some people it means 'hates black people for being black', not 'uses language with some inherent meaning they were unaware of' or 'thinks immigrants from different cultures can be difficult to integrate into our society', or even 'thinks Islam is not compatible with western values'. All of these latter three will by some and can by some definitions be argued to be some degree of racist - but all three groups will generally very much object to the idea that they're racist, because they sure as hell don't hate black people for being black, which is how they understand the phrase. I have an acquaintance who even fits the more narrow definitions - thinking that black people are biologically less intelligent than white (and asian) people - which most people will agree is clearly racist, but even he takes great offense at being described as one, because he doesn't dislike black people at all and doesn't want to discriminate against them, he just thinks they're on average less smart. Tbh in his case I don't mind people calling him out but in general, there are very few words that are as efficient at pushing people away from you as racist, is. I tend to have these discussions with my pupils and people really aren't in agreement.
That said: I think there's one element that is overlooked when examining Kamala's loss to Trump. 2024 was an election year in a lot of countries. The incumbent party did terribly almost everywhere. Hardly matters how they aligned politically, too, it's just that people experience the world as worse than it was 4 years ago and the party in power gets the blame. I think Harris' loss of votes compared to Biden's performance in 2020 is actually lower than the average incumbent party worldwide. In Norway, we had no election, but our governing parties got 26.5% and 13.5% of the vote in 2021. The last polls from january 2025 put them at 19% and 6.2% respectively, meaning that 33% of their 2021 voters were now looking elsewhere. And honestly while I'm not really fond of our current government I don't think they're worse than average in terms of competence.
It doesn’t exclude anyone else in its current form either to be fair. There are serious, serious ‘why isn’t there about International Men’s Day?’ vibes with the ‘All Lives Matter’ crowd.
I’d be more inclined to think, ‘OK that’s perhaps a slightly better branding that might have helped’, if I believed most of the opposition to its current title was something other than hugely disingenuous.
Yeah, good point. I think incidences of ‘you are a racist to the core of your soul’ charges are actually considerably less common than ‘that thing you did/said was a bit racist’. At least in actual interpersonal interactions.
I am not an insane person, I recognise that there’s plenty of the former, especially online!
But it is quite a fundamental difference between the ‘you can’t say anything these days without being called a racist!’ and ‘you can’t say racist things without being criticised for those racist things’. Or alternatively ‘you may not realise this but here’s why x is racist’.
Could you elaborate a bit about your experiences with this sort of thing with students? Be interested to hear more!
I was pondering why kids, or young adults are somewhat malleable, and while there may be a bit of shame in getting called out for errant behaviour, it is a shame directed to reflection and correction. With adults, it manifests in stubbornness and defensiveness almost regardless of how one approaches it.
I imagine some of it is that you’re still in the orbit of authority figures who have a vested interest in who you are as a person. Parents obviously, but could be a beloved Liquidian educator, or a sports coach you look up to.
Secondly, for better or worse you’re extremely socially accountable in the school environment. Hey you might be rich but nobody cares if you’re an unlikeable asshole. If you go around being racist, well that may not end up going well for you. Of course there are massive negatives to this as well, bullying simply for being a bit different being a rather obvious one.
Once you’re in the workplace, and living a more atomised life and less accountable in these ways I guess. Your boss has authority over you, but rarely in any kind of holistic, well-being kind of way. If you’re a good worker and don’t bring it the workplace, hey they don’t really care if you’re a racist in your own time. Likewise the relationship with co-workers is less socially involved generally than that between students.
Hey I’m spitballing, but I think the quite detached social nature of adult life definitely plays some kind of role here.
Ultimately I know a lot about what doesn’t work, I’m trying to find what does! I got the ‘don’t call people a racist/sexist/Nazi etc if you want to win them round’ memo the guts of a decade ago. It’s why you tend not to see me doing it.
I feel I’m pretty open-minded even in my advancing years (other posters are free to disagree!), hell my grandad’s views were still evolving when he was in his 80s. But I’ve peers who’ve seemingly lost an ability they once possessed in spades.
What I think goes under the radar is there’s actually a hell of a lot of people who had that ‘Hm, calling out racists really doesn’t seem to have the desired effect. For me it was the twin Brexit/Trump 2016 (today’s mention). I’m sure those two are common, but others may have different triggers for that penny dropping.
And accordingly folks altered their approach and messaging, in pretty appreciable numbers too. Especially many political parties themselves, but plenty of internet comrades like yours truly.
Now, has that worked? There are pockets going against trend ofc, but the US is looking considerably bleaker than in 2016. Ireland has now entered the ‘modern world’ in having a sizeable cohort of xenophobic bigots who especially hate Islam. Something they’d culturally resisted for quite a considerable time. We’ve far right parties making inroads all over Europe, with actual far right platforms, not ‘oh you can’t have a limited migration policy or people will call you far-right’. The UK still has it IMO, we’ve just temporarily swept it under the carpet because the Tories were so, so shit that Labour basically couldn’t lose the last election.
Can’t speak too far beyond those domains. It’s Europe and a bit of the Anglosphere that are my beat really.
One curious thing is how linked it is. It’s almost as cosmopolitan and internationalist as Communism aspires to be. You’ve got all sorts of alliances between far right groups in Europe, that previously wouldn’t have happened because nationalism is nationalism and differences there bring friction. Now it’s sorta morphed to some nebulous idea of ‘Western values’ and everyone’s getting along.
To the degree that the outrage fuel happens, even when it has zero actual applicability to people’s lives. I used to joke, less so in today’s depressing climate that if you really like not seeing many people who aren’t white, come live in Northern Ireland. That’s still the case today, especially outside of Belfast. However, that doesn’t stop people here frothing on the topic, because they’re consuming media from all over the place where non-white immigration is a very real phenomenon.
Anyway I’m into totally uncharacteristic rambling territory, but I’m really at a loss on some of this. Shaming doesnae work, things like pesky facts don’t work and all the time I’m seeing a collective slide in the world towards more hate, more bigotry and less hope.
On February 05 2025 07:40 Sadist wrote: I just say democrats campaign on the belief for equal rights for all, implement it, and leave it at that. Getting bogged down on specifics is a sure fire way to alienate some people. Just say equal rights and implement the policies. Dont let Republicans try to control the narrative and make everything about trans issues or other issues. Equal rights includes all minority groups by default.
They literally couldn't get people to agree with the statement that black lives matter. That was apparently a bridge too far for America.
And Democrats don’t even want to Make America Great Again? Do they hate America?
Or we can not pretend these slogans are meat to be taken literally and there’s not an ideology attached to them.
It's not at all comparable to MAGA. A better comparison to MAGA would be Build Back Better.
Black lives matter is a response to the observation that issues that disproportionately impact black Americans, such as police brutality, high crime neighbourhoods, lack of access to education, lack of community resources etc. are treated as not important in a way that they would not be if they impacted white Americans. The conclusion is that these issues are not viewed as important because the people whose lives are impacted are not important. That police brutality against black Americans does not matter to the public because black Americans do not matter to public.
It's a very short, very clear, very clean thesis. "You act like you don't care about us because you literally do not care about us". It's all packaged in a neat little bow.
Their statement is also very clean, very concise, very neat. Black lives matter. That's it. We matter, please could society address the issues impacting our communities as if our lives matter.
It doesn't mean voting a certain way, it doesn't have a policy platform, there's no party or political leader attached to it, it's not about that, it's completely incomparable to MAGA. It's literally just that they would like people to act as if black lives were important. That's it.
It was too controversial and so instead we have trucks rolling coal with big "black smoke matters" decals.
Much of the opposition to BLM I’ve encountered absolutely reeks of Men’s Rights energy when it comes to feminism.
‘But what about us/x?’
Which may be totally legitimate, there may be a gap somewhere but you’re bitching that people who did the groundwork for their own specific issues aren’t doing your work for you.
It’ll also be totally wrong in many cases, although tbf not always deliberately.
‘Oh some white guy got shot why didn’t BLM say anything then?’ when it turns out that they very much did.
Absolutely on point (as well as your previous comment). The opposition to BLM was entirely racist, there was no other point to it. The trick racists play is that they brainwash apparent non-racists (useful idiots) with their racist ideas, by toning down their rhetoric so it can pass the bullshit detector from the useful idiots.
There might have been some opposition to the burning down cities thing, which Back The Blue or Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter or any other mattering lives movement don't seem to have done.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: All Lives Matter was an attempt to subvert BLM, not a sincere call for inclusion of white people who are also facing adversity. It was an exercise in virtue signalling towards a broad range of right-wingers, libertarians, conservatives etc. while also serving as a dog whistle for the definitive racists.
"white people" These sentences represent the gross (in both ways) misapprehension that the US is divided between white and black people. It's not, and that's a critical thing to have missed. Reminds me of the phone experiment's same fundamental mistake.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: Behind the scenes the racists who were undermining BLM were completely open about their views. They strictly deny that black people face oppression to begin with, they blame black people themselves (and they also blame elected Democrats for "turning black neighborhoods into shitholes"). It's a whole fucking scheme. These are not exclusively capital R racists, but their methods run so deep that "little racists" so-to-speak join their ranks. One by one, a whole propaganda machine. Youtube was and still is infested by them.
Most random BLM supporters, when surveyed in the streets, especially at that time before people have wisened up, when asked to estimate, they assume thousands of unarmed black people are killed by police every year. In reality, no. The truth is not only nowhere near that, but that once you control for other factors, there is either no difference or unarmed black people are slightly less likely to get shot than unarmed white people.
After BLM (or its predecessors honestly, or its adjacents, but whoever) achieved the transparency of body cameras for police, there's not much left to do. But for BLM professionals, the perpetuation of the existence of an issue, or perception thereof, is necessary to maintain the grift. They continue to take X Y or Z tragedy, in an enormous country, and blow it up as emblematic. People got fed up with the sanctimonious blowhardness of it all and rightly wondered where the knees for any victims of drugs and crime were.
The issue of why decades of Democrat control of blue cities in blue states hasn't always seemed to benefit the minority communities that live there, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with BLM. Someone supporting BLM could definitely look to Democrats to see why they govern and run their police departments and courts in a certain way, and be dissatisfied with that.
I don't care one bit about how many black people exactly get killed by police. Thousands? Hundreds? Doesn't make a difference, it's both too much. It was roughly 300 in 2024 if I'm not mistaken. That's way way way too many and if you disagree then you can kindly keep that to yourself.
I care about the fact that they are being killed, and in many or most instances it could've been prevented with humane policing rather than the aggressive approach US police forces are trained in. It is an absolutely undeniable fact that a ton of police encounters with black people are unjustified to begin with, don't follow procedure, and are often conducted by trigger-happy police officers. I've seen dozens of instances with my own eyes over the last few years. And that's just the stuff that was recorded and uploaded, and that I was able to get my hands on. There's way more than that. This has to change. BLM is right.
Some of the violence by BLM directed at police officers is a direct consequence of police violence directed at black people and at BLM protesters. The police are in many instances the true instigators and BLM is fighting back against police violence. That's the whole point: BLM is mainly about police violence to begin with. That's the very thing they're protesting against, and it's the very thing that's also being used against BLM. Violent police fuel the cycle of violence. This is something that right-wingers never mention in their "reports". Like what should we expect? This is the logical conclusion of police violence. The oppressor cries out in anger as the victim punches back. Right-wing media reports on the punching back. How truthful of them.
For the people who want to understand BLM better and why some of them have turned violent, here's a pretty good video on it.
I just can't get over the contrast between Biden and Trump as far as doing things.
Trump's illegally flying migrants to GITMO while Biden couldn't circumvent the parliamentarian (who served at Democrats will and Republicans have overruled before) to raise minimum wage.
We've seen Trump talking with random reporters (not scheduled/recorded interviews) more in his first weeks than we saw Biden and Harris their entire campaign.
On February 05 2025 07:40 Sadist wrote: I just say democrats campaign on the belief for equal rights for all, implement it, and leave it at that. Getting bogged down on specifics is a sure fire way to alienate some people. Just say equal rights and implement the policies. Dont let Republicans try to control the narrative and make everything about trans issues or other issues. Equal rights includes all minority groups by default.
They literally couldn't get people to agree with the statement that black lives matter. That was apparently a bridge too far for America.
And Democrats don’t even want to Make America Great Again? Do they hate America?
Or we can not pretend these slogans are meat to be taken literally and there’s not an ideology attached to them.
It's not at all comparable to MAGA. A better comparison to MAGA would be Build Back Better.
Black lives matter is a response to the observation that issues that disproportionately impact black Americans, such as police brutality, high crime neighbourhoods, lack of access to education, lack of community resources etc. are treated as not important in a way that they would not be if they impacted white Americans. The conclusion is that these issues are not viewed as important because the people whose lives are impacted are not important. That police brutality against black Americans does not matter to the public because black Americans do not matter to public.
It's a very short, very clear, very clean thesis. "You act like you don't care about us because you literally do not care about us". It's all packaged in a neat little bow.
Their statement is also very clean, very concise, very neat. Black lives matter. That's it. We matter, please could society address the issues impacting our communities as if our lives matter.
It doesn't mean voting a certain way, it doesn't have a policy platform, there's no party or political leader attached to it, it's not about that, it's completely incomparable to MAGA. It's literally just that they would like people to act as if black lives were important. That's it.
It was too controversial and so instead we have trucks rolling coal with big "black smoke matters" decals.
Much of the opposition to BLM I’ve encountered absolutely reeks of Men’s Rights energy when it comes to feminism.
‘But what about us/x?’
Which may be totally legitimate, there may be a gap somewhere but you’re bitching that people who did the groundwork for their own specific issues aren’t doing your work for you.
It’ll also be totally wrong in many cases, although tbf not always deliberately.
‘Oh some white guy got shot why didn’t BLM say anything then?’ when it turns out that they very much did.
Absolutely on point (as well as your previous comment). The opposition to BLM was entirely racist, there was no other point to it. The trick racists play is that they brainwash apparent non-racists (useful idiots) with their racist ideas, by toning down their rhetoric so it can pass the bullshit detector from the useful idiots.
There might have been some opposition to the burning down cities thing, which Back The Blue or Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter or any other mattering lives movement don't seem to have done.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: All Lives Matter was an attempt to subvert BLM, not a sincere call for inclusion of white people who are also facing adversity. It was an exercise in virtue signalling towards a broad range of right-wingers, libertarians, conservatives etc. while also serving as a dog whistle for the definitive racists.
"white people" These sentences represent the gross (in both ways) misapprehension that the US is divided between white and black people. It's not, and that's a critical thing to have missed. Reminds me of the phone experiment's same fundamental mistake.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: Behind the scenes the racists who were undermining BLM were completely open about their views. They strictly deny that black people face oppression to begin with, they blame black people themselves (and they also blame elected Democrats for "turning black neighborhoods into shitholes"). It's a whole fucking scheme. These are not exclusively capital R racists, but their methods run so deep that "little racists" so-to-speak join their ranks. One by one, a whole propaganda machine. Youtube was and still is infested by them.
Most random BLM supporters, when surveyed in the streets, especially at that time before people have wisened up, when asked to estimate, they assume thousands of unarmed black people are killed by police every year. In reality, no. The truth is not only nowhere near that, but that once you control for other factors, there is either no difference or unarmed black people are slightly less likely to get shot than unarmed white people.
After BLM (or its predecessors honestly, or its adjacents, but whoever) achieved the transparency of body cameras for police, there's not much left to do. But for BLM professionals, the perpetuation of the existence of an issue, or perception thereof, is necessary to maintain the grift. They continue to take X Y or Z tragedy, in an enormous country, and blow it up as emblematic. People got fed up with the sanctimonious blowhardness of it all and rightly wondered where the knees for any victims of drugs and crime were.
The issue of why decades of Democrat control of blue cities in blue states hasn't always seemed to benefit the minority communities that live there, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with BLM. Someone supporting BLM could definitely look to Democrats to see why they govern and run their police departments and courts in a certain way, and be dissatisfied with that.
If, for example BLM had done their thing for forever, and after a year or whatever you start getting blowback from folks who were just sick of it, think it’s more nuanced, or detracting from discourse on other issues. Then sure, there’s that natural instinct to fatigue. Except you had hostility from day fucking dot.
You seem to forget at times that yanno, the rest of us were also about at the time and recall things. You’re not grandpa oBlade going ‘gather round kids and let me tell you of the times of BLM’.
‘What about the victims of crime?’ has always been a diversionary red herring. An obviously real problem but ‘the folks given a monopoly over legitimate violence by the state shouldn’t be killing people unless absolutely necessary’ is a specific complaint.
If IDK, my local hospital had a really atypical rate of deaths on the operating table, and some investigative journalist uncovered this, and also found that many doctors were untrained, and the good ones were working 20 hour shifts on the regular, people would be rightfully outraged. If someone said ‘OK yeah but why are you not also campaigning that people eat more healthily?’ it would be similarly diversionary.
It doesn’t mean that dealing with crime, or poor health are innately bad ambitions to have, quite the opposite indeed. But within the context of a basically single-issue campaign it’s really just deflecting bullshit
If unarmed white folks are shot at similar rates, then my natural inclination would be ‘hm these BLM folks have really punched through, let’s ride that particular wave and ally up, or do something productive in parallel.’ Not ‘Back the Blue’, or sniping at BLM while doing shit all about an issue I supposedly care about. I will also note I recall BLM pumping out quite a few pressers on non-black police shooting victims as well.
It is a fair criticism that folks should have some decent gauge of the numerical significance of whatever problem ideally. Sure.
But I mean go straw poll some conservatives and ask them to estimate how many sexual assaults are perpetrated by trans people in bathrooms and they’re going to be gigantically inflated as well.
On February 05 2025 07:40 Sadist wrote: I just say democrats campaign on the belief for equal rights for all, implement it, and leave it at that. Getting bogged down on specifics is a sure fire way to alienate some people. Just say equal rights and implement the policies. Dont let Republicans try to control the narrative and make everything about trans issues or other issues. Equal rights includes all minority groups by default.
They literally couldn't get people to agree with the statement that black lives matter. That was apparently a bridge too far for America.
And Democrats don’t even want to Make America Great Again? Do they hate America?
Or we can not pretend these slogans are meat to be taken literally and there’s not an ideology attached to them.
It's not at all comparable to MAGA. A better comparison to MAGA would be Build Back Better.
Black lives matter is a response to the observation that issues that disproportionately impact black Americans, such as police brutality, high crime neighbourhoods, lack of access to education, lack of community resources etc. are treated as not important in a way that they would not be if they impacted white Americans. The conclusion is that these issues are not viewed as important because the people whose lives are impacted are not important. That police brutality against black Americans does not matter to the public because black Americans do not matter to public.
It's a very short, very clear, very clean thesis. "You act like you don't care about us because you literally do not care about us". It's all packaged in a neat little bow.
Their statement is also very clean, very concise, very neat. Black lives matter. That's it. We matter, please could society address the issues impacting our communities as if our lives matter.
It doesn't mean voting a certain way, it doesn't have a policy platform, there's no party or political leader attached to it, it's not about that, it's completely incomparable to MAGA. It's literally just that they would like people to act as if black lives were important. That's it.
It was too controversial and so instead we have trucks rolling coal with big "black smoke matters" decals.
Much of the opposition to BLM I’ve encountered absolutely reeks of Men’s Rights energy when it comes to feminism.
‘But what about us/x?’
Which may be totally legitimate, there may be a gap somewhere but you’re bitching that people who did the groundwork for their own specific issues aren’t doing your work for you.
It’ll also be totally wrong in many cases, although tbf not always deliberately.
‘Oh some white guy got shot why didn’t BLM say anything then?’ when it turns out that they very much did.
Absolutely on point (as well as your previous comment). The opposition to BLM was entirely racist, there was no other point to it. The trick racists play is that they brainwash apparent non-racists (useful idiots) with their racist ideas, by toning down their rhetoric so it can pass the bullshit detector from the useful idiots.
There might have been some opposition to the burning down cities thing, which Back The Blue or Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter or any other mattering lives movement don't seem to have done.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: All Lives Matter was an attempt to subvert BLM, not a sincere call for inclusion of white people who are also facing adversity. It was an exercise in virtue signalling towards a broad range of right-wingers, libertarians, conservatives etc. while also serving as a dog whistle for the definitive racists.
"white people" These sentences represent the gross (in both ways) misapprehension that the US is divided between white and black people. It's not, and that's a critical thing to have missed. Reminds me of the phone experiment's same fundamental mistake.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: Behind the scenes the racists who were undermining BLM were completely open about their views. They strictly deny that black people face oppression to begin with, they blame black people themselves (and they also blame elected Democrats for "turning black neighborhoods into shitholes"). It's a whole fucking scheme. These are not exclusively capital R racists, but their methods run so deep that "little racists" so-to-speak join their ranks. One by one, a whole propaganda machine. Youtube was and still is infested by them.
Most random BLM supporters, when surveyed in the streets, especially at that time before people have wisened up, when asked to estimate, they assume thousands of unarmed black people are killed by police every year. In reality, no. The truth is not only nowhere near that, but that once you control for other factors, there is either no difference or unarmed black people are slightly less likely to get shot than unarmed white people.
After BLM (or its predecessors honestly, or its adjacents, but whoever) achieved the transparency of body cameras for police, there's not much left to do. But for BLM professionals, the perpetuation of the existence of an issue, or perception thereof, is necessary to maintain the grift. They continue to take X Y or Z tragedy, in an enormous country, and blow it up as emblematic. People got fed up with the sanctimonious blowhardness of it all and rightly wondered where the knees for any victims of drugs and crime were.
The issue of why decades of Democrat control of blue cities in blue states hasn't always seemed to benefit the minority communities that live there, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with BLM. Someone supporting BLM could definitely look to Democrats to see why they govern and run their police departments and courts in a certain way, and be dissatisfied with that.
I don't care one bit about how many black people exactly get killed by police. Thousands? Hundreds? Doesn't make a difference, it's both too much. It was roughly 300 in 2024 if I'm not mistaken. That's way way way too many and if you disagree then you can kindly keep that to yourself.
You have rapidly pivoted away from "unarmed," which either obfuscates the issue, or reveals that you don't recognize the government's right to use force and violence to enforce laws whatsoever.
If someone is shooting at police or citizens, I don't care one bit if they don't make it. No matter what color they are. If you disagree, please let us know.
On February 05 2025 23:31 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the violence by BLM directed at police officers is a direct consequence of police violence directed at black people and at BLM protesters. The police are in many instances the true instigators and BLM is fighting back against police violence. That's the whole point: BLM is mainly about police violence to begin with. That's the very thing they're protesting against, and it's the very thing that's also being used against BLM. Violent police fuel the cycle of violence. This is something that right-wingers never mention in their "reports". Like what should we expect? This is the logical conclusion of police violence. The oppressor cries out in anger as the victim punches back. Right-wing media reports on the punching back. How truthful of them.
Okay first, I won't stoop to asking what a car dealership did to black people that it deserved to be reciprocally burned down. We're above that so I'll just take it for granted.
So secondly "black people" and "BLM protestors" are different. Even wildly different. This is why when Rittenhouse got attacked, he had to shoot three white men, for example. My real question is where a white radical left rioter gets the natural moral authority to burn down the car dealership for the police's crimes against black people. Does he need to be anointed as a soldier of the movement first, or can he just start burning things down of his own free will?
Third, I found your theory of reciprocal violence interesting. The idea that police violence is the cause of counter violence, "punching back," by extremists against police. So the hundreds of injured police officers, and the dead innocents, can be thought of as a kind of collateral damage. (Despite whether the specific individuals had ever actually oppressed a minority - except simply by existing of course.) Perhaps you're more cynical and would call it karma. I found it a fascinating theory. So it got me thinking. Why would police just randomly choose to be like this? Are they inherently psychopathic? Bored? On a power trip? Racist? Is there a secret society controlling what kind of oppressive violence they enact on citizens every day? Why would they start it?
That's when it hit me: they're the police.
They have a mandate to use force and violence. Including outside of self defense. Law enforcement is unique in our society in bearing that responsibility. And their job is dealing with violent, armed, criminals and killers. Felons and drug dealers and gang members. And then I realized, there must be hundreds of thousands of those. So if the justified (except for anarchists) application of police force in the pursuit of enforcing laws in that environment, leads to a small portion of said violence ending up being unjustified, or manslaughter, or murder - then it would obviously just be collateral damage. I found the next step, the root cause. Since looking one step up the chain, we obviously see that criminals started it, not police. So I definitely see the big picture better.
that is such a myopic and immature take. these are grown adults who know what judgement is. not three year olds where such an argument would hold water.
that big picture is just big enough to fill your etch-a-sketch.
Here's a fact checking article about BLM violence after George Floyd's death. Noteworthy is the language used: "started with violence". That doesn't mean all of the protesters were initially violent. What it means is that a level of violence was observed among each of the BLM protests early on. Later that violence subsided. But right-wing media painted that as the protests being entirely violent, and they of course inflated the damage caused and the harm done. That same right-wing media also didn't make a distinction between BLM and unrelated protest groups, and failed to distinguish between the instigating side (which is difficult to prove). They also failed to acknowledge that right-wing counter-protesters likewise took part in that violence.
None of this biased reporting is accidental. They want to undermine BLM not because BLM is violent but simply because they don't like to hear what BLM is saying.
On February 05 2025 07:40 Sadist wrote: I just say democrats campaign on the belief for equal rights for all, implement it, and leave it at that. Getting bogged down on specifics is a sure fire way to alienate some people. Just say equal rights and implement the policies. Dont let Republicans try to control the narrative and make everything about trans issues or other issues. Equal rights includes all minority groups by default.
They literally couldn't get people to agree with the statement that black lives matter. That was apparently a bridge too far for America.
And Democrats don’t even want to Make America Great Again? Do they hate America?
Or we can not pretend these slogans are meat to be taken literally and there’s not an ideology attached to them.
It's not at all comparable to MAGA. A better comparison to MAGA would be Build Back Better.
Black lives matter is a response to the observation that issues that disproportionately impact black Americans, such as police brutality, high crime neighbourhoods, lack of access to education, lack of community resources etc. are treated as not important in a way that they would not be if they impacted white Americans. The conclusion is that these issues are not viewed as important because the people whose lives are impacted are not important. That police brutality against black Americans does not matter to the public because black Americans do not matter to public.
It's a very short, very clear, very clean thesis. "You act like you don't care about us because you literally do not care about us". It's all packaged in a neat little bow.
Their statement is also very clean, very concise, very neat. Black lives matter. That's it. We matter, please could society address the issues impacting our communities as if our lives matter.
It doesn't mean voting a certain way, it doesn't have a policy platform, there's no party or political leader attached to it, it's not about that, it's completely incomparable to MAGA. It's literally just that they would like people to act as if black lives were important. That's it.
It was too controversial and so instead we have trucks rolling coal with big "black smoke matters" decals.
Much of the opposition to BLM I’ve encountered absolutely reeks of Men’s Rights energy when it comes to feminism.
‘But what about us/x?’
Which may be totally legitimate, there may be a gap somewhere but you’re bitching that people who did the groundwork for their own specific issues aren’t doing your work for you.
It’ll also be totally wrong in many cases, although tbf not always deliberately.
‘Oh some white guy got shot why didn’t BLM say anything then?’ when it turns out that they very much did.
Absolutely on point (as well as your previous comment). The opposition to BLM was entirely racist, there was no other point to it. The trick racists play is that they brainwash apparent non-racists (useful idiots) with their racist ideas, by toning down their rhetoric so it can pass the bullshit detector from the useful idiots.
There might have been some opposition to the burning down cities thing, which Back The Blue or Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter or any other mattering lives movement don't seem to have done.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: All Lives Matter was an attempt to subvert BLM, not a sincere call for inclusion of white people who are also facing adversity. It was an exercise in virtue signalling towards a broad range of right-wingers, libertarians, conservatives etc. while also serving as a dog whistle for the definitive racists.
"white people" These sentences represent the gross (in both ways) misapprehension that the US is divided between white and black people. It's not, and that's a critical thing to have missed. Reminds me of the phone experiment's same fundamental mistake.
On February 05 2025 12:53 Magic Powers wrote: Behind the scenes the racists who were undermining BLM were completely open about their views. They strictly deny that black people face oppression to begin with, they blame black people themselves (and they also blame elected Democrats for "turning black neighborhoods into shitholes"). It's a whole fucking scheme. These are not exclusively capital R racists, but their methods run so deep that "little racists" so-to-speak join their ranks. One by one, a whole propaganda machine. Youtube was and still is infested by them.
Most random BLM supporters, when surveyed in the streets, especially at that time before people have wisened up, when asked to estimate, they assume thousands of unarmed black people are killed by police every year. In reality, no. The truth is not only nowhere near that, but that once you control for other factors, there is either no difference or unarmed black people are slightly less likely to get shot than unarmed white people.
After BLM (or its predecessors honestly, or its adjacents, but whoever) achieved the transparency of body cameras for police, there's not much left to do. But for BLM professionals, the perpetuation of the existence of an issue, or perception thereof, is necessary to maintain the grift. They continue to take X Y or Z tragedy, in an enormous country, and blow it up as emblematic. People got fed up with the sanctimonious blowhardness of it all and rightly wondered where the knees for any victims of drugs and crime were.
The issue of why decades of Democrat control of blue cities in blue states hasn't always seemed to benefit the minority communities that live there, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with BLM. Someone supporting BLM could definitely look to Democrats to see why they govern and run their police departments and courts in a certain way, and be dissatisfied with that.
I don't care one bit about how many black people exactly get killed by police. Thousands? Hundreds? Doesn't make a difference, it's both too much. It was roughly 300 in 2024 if I'm not mistaken. That's way way way too many and if you disagree then you can kindly keep that to yourself.
You have rapidly pivoted away from "unarmed," which either obfuscates the issue, or reveals that you don't recognize the government's right to use force and violence to enforce laws whatsoever.
If someone is shooting at police or citizens, I don't care one bit if they don't make it. No matter what color they are. If you disagree, please let us know.
On February 05 2025 23:31 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the violence by BLM directed at police officers is a direct consequence of police violence directed at black people and at BLM protesters. The police are in many instances the true instigators and BLM is fighting back against police violence. That's the whole point: BLM is mainly about police violence to begin with. That's the very thing they're protesting against, and it's the very thing that's also being used against BLM. Violent police fuel the cycle of violence. This is something that right-wingers never mention in their "reports". Like what should we expect? This is the logical conclusion of police violence. The oppressor cries out in anger as the victim punches back. Right-wing media reports on the punching back. How truthful of them.
Okay first, I won't stoop to asking what a car dealership did to black people that it deserved to be reciprocally burned down. We're above that so I'll just take it for granted.
So secondly "black people" and "BLM protestors" are different. Even wildly different. This is why when Rittenhouse got attacked, he had to shoot three white men, for example. My real question is where a white radical left rioter gets the natural moral authority to burn down the car dealership for the police's crimes against black people. Does he need to be anointed as a soldier of the movement first, or can he just start burning things down of his own free will?
Third, I found your theory of reciprocal violence interesting. The idea that police violence is the cause of counter violence, "punching back," by extremists against police. So the hundreds of injured police officers, and the dead innocents, can be thought of as a kind of collateral damage. (Despite whether the specific individuals had ever actually oppressed a minority - except simply by existing of course.) Perhaps you're more cynical and would call it karma. I found it a fascinating theory. So it got me thinking. Why would police just randomly choose to be like this? Are they inherently psychopathic? Bored? On a power trip? Racist? Is there a secret society controlling what kind of oppressive violence they enact on citizens every day? Why would they start it?
That's when it hit me: they're the police.
They have a mandate to use force and violence. Including outside of self defense. Law enforcement is unique in our society in bearing that responsibility. And their job is dealing with violent, armed, criminals and killers. Felons and drug dealers and gang members. And then I realized, there must be hundreds of thousands of those. So if the justified (except for anarchists) application of police force in the pursuit of enforcing laws in that environment, leads to a small portion of said violence ending up being unjustified, or manslaughter, or murder - then it would obviously just be collateral damage. I found the next step, the root cause. Since looking one step up the chain, we obviously see that criminals started it, not police. So I definitely see the big picture better.
If Rittenhouse hadn't openly carried a gun, he wouldn't have become a target of violence to begin with. The people attacking him were afraid of him. They were wrong to be attacking him, but it was yet another example of a preventable escalation. Openly carrying a gun in the middle of a protest that you don't belong to can cause your death or the death of others. Rittenhouse is a crybully.
On February 06 2025 00:32 Magic Powers wrote: Here's a fact checking article about BLM violence after George Floyd's death. Noteworthy is the language used: "started with violence". That doesn't mean all of the protesters were initially violent. What it means is that a level of violence was observed among each of the BLM protests early on. Later that violence subsided. But right-wing media painted that as the protests being entirely violent, and they of course inflated the damage caused and the harm done. That same right-wing media also didn't make a distinction between BLM and unrelated protest groups, and failed to distinguish between the instigating side (which is difficult to prove). They also failed to acknowledge that right-wing counter-protesters likewise took part in that violence.
The politifact article is "debunking" the notion that BLM as an official organization caused the violence. It's a kind of no true Scotsman issue dealing with BLM, which is not relevant. It's a distraction. I'm not chasing this moving definition of "true" BLM. Before you're telling us how great this huge movement with supporters is and how necessary it is to grow and fight police v iolence. Now you're linking the newest first google result telling me wait wait, there's no proof that every single person involved was a card-carrying dues-paying BLM member. As though that un-breaks bones or reseals skin or un-concusses people's heads.
You just fucking justified the violence as reciprocal and are now here telling me the violence isn't that bad. And that anyway it's actually other people's fault and there's no proof that every single person at BLM riots causing injury and damage are connected to BLM. No shit. I'm not playing these fucking games.
Hundreds of injured. Even 300 is too many if you ask me (and if you ask... you, as you already claimed). And dead people. I don't care if they were "good" BLM rioters or the "rotten egg" BLM rioters. The well-intentioned ones who participated while allowing radicals to coopt their space to hurt people are just as guilty.
On February 06 2025 00:32 brian wrote: that is such a myopic and immature take. these are grown adults who know what judgement is. not three year olds where such an argument would hold water.
that big picture is just big enough to fill your etch-a-sketch.
What is "know what judgement is?" I can't decipher this esoteric snark. Are you saying police should be trained and be able to use good judgment to prevent unnecessary injury and death, because they're adults? Because you just interrupted me explaining to someone else, who is not you, why rioters should know not to just burn down and destroy and hurt and kill whatever the fuck they want just because they feel like it.
Link me your gofundme, I'll fill it with enough dollars to get you that shift key.
On February 06 2025 00:32 Magic Powers wrote: Here's a fact checking article about BLM violence after George Floyd's death. Noteworthy is the language used: "started with violence". That doesn't mean all of the protesters were initially violent. What it means is that a level of violence was observed among each of the BLM protests early on. Later that violence subsided. But right-wing media painted that as the protests being entirely violent, and they of course inflated the damage caused and the harm done. That same right-wing media also didn't make a distinction between BLM and unrelated protest groups, and failed to distinguish between the instigating side (which is difficult to prove). They also failed to acknowledge that right-wing counter-protesters likewise took part in that violence.
The politifact article is "debunking" the notion that BLM as an official organization caused the violence. It's a kind of no true Scotsman issue dealing with BLM, which is not relevant. It's a distraction. I'm not chasing this moving definition of "true" BLM. Before you're telling us how great this huge movement with supporters is and how necessary it is to grow and fight police v iolence. Now you're linking the newest first google result telling me wait wait, there's no proof that every single person involved was a card-carrying dues-paying BLM member. As though that un-breaks bones or reseals skin or un-concusses people's heads.
You just fucking justified the violence as reciprocal and are now here telling me the violence isn't that bad. And that anyway it's actually other people's fault and there's no proof that every single person at BLM riots causing injury and damage are connected to BLM. No shit. I'm not playing these fucking games.
Hundreds of injured. Even 300 is too many if you ask me (and if you ask... you, as you already claimed). And dead people. I don't care if they were "good" BLM rioters or the "rotten egg" BLM rioters. The well-intentioned ones who participated while allowing radicals to coopt their space to hurt people are just as guilty.
"Even 300 injured police officers is too many if you ask me" Oh. Interesting.
On February 05 2025 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I just can't get over the contrast between Biden and Trump as far as doing things.
Trump's illegally flying migrants to GITMO while Biden couldn't circumvent the parliamentarian (who served at Democrats will and Republicans have overruled before) to raise minimum wage.
We've seen Trump talking with random reporters (not scheduled/recorded interviews) more in his first weeks than we saw Biden and Harris their entire campaign.
I am completely baffled by what you're trying to prove or expose here. trump is a narcissistic assbooger. He craves the attention. His dumbfuckery is more important than him being in front of cameras. Biden and Harris had shit to do and was working on getting it done. Literally everything he's done that's fuckin the world is being drafted by someone else and he's just signing it. He's a fuckin puppet and you're...praising him?
On February 06 2025 00:32 Magic Powers wrote: Here's a fact checking article about BLM violence after George Floyd's death. Noteworthy is the language used: "started with violence". That doesn't mean all of the protesters were initially violent. What it means is that a level of violence was observed among each of the BLM protests early on. Later that violence subsided. But right-wing media painted that as the protests being entirely violent, and they of course inflated the damage caused and the harm done. That same right-wing media also didn't make a distinction between BLM and unrelated protest groups, and failed to distinguish between the instigating side (which is difficult to prove). They also failed to acknowledge that right-wing counter-protesters likewise took part in that violence.
The politifact article is "debunking" the notion that BLM as an official organization caused the violence. It's a kind of no true Scotsman issue dealing with BLM, which is not relevant. It's a distraction. I'm not chasing this moving definition of "true" BLM. Before you're telling us how great this huge movement with supporters is and how necessary it is to grow and fight police v iolence. Now you're linking the newest first google result telling me wait wait, there's no proof that every single person involved was a card-carrying dues-paying BLM member. As though that un-breaks bones or reseals skin or un-concusses people's heads.
You just fucking justified the violence as reciprocal and are now here telling me the violence isn't that bad. And that anyway it's actually other people's fault and there's no proof that every single person at BLM riots causing injury and damage are connected to BLM. No shit. I'm not playing these fucking games.
Hundreds of injured. Even 300 is too many if you ask me (and if you ask... you, as you already claimed). And dead people. I don't care if they were "good" BLM rioters or the "rotten egg" BLM rioters. The well-intentioned ones who participated while allowing radicals to coopt their space to hurt people are just as guilty.
"Even 300 injured police officers is too many if you ask me" Oh. Interesting.
EPT
