The Lesson We Need to Learn

A2SG · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
An official quote? They adopted it as a slogan in 2020.

The Meaning Behind ACAB

Um, that article had nothing to do with the slogan you referred to previously.

If you want official quotes, I can pull them directly from their website but to be honest....the stuff they say on there is a lot worse. We're all white supremacists bent on destroying black lives and black culture according to them.

See, when you make claims like that, based on an assumption, and avoid actually quoting directly from the organization itself, you don't exactly make your case seem very credible.

The more you ask me for official statements....the more it looks like you haven't ever read anything they wrote. Is that the case?

It's not about me. It's about what YOU are claiming, and what YOU are basing those claims on. If you want to maintain that BLM stands for something that is the opposite of what they, themselves, claim to stand for, you're gonna need to back it up.

Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude you're mistaken...or you're just making stuff up.

Did you read the pdf? It's straight from their official website. Here's the relevant passage....

White communities are used to consciously and unconsciously maintaining the racist policies and practices that led to Trayvon’s death—and, as white people, we must speak out against those policies and practices. When we remain silent and on the sidelines, we are complicit in maintaining these unjust systems. Our work is to get more white people who support us to take action toward racial justice—and to change the hearts and minds of those white people who are not yet with us.

I don't know how much more clearly you need it spelled out. They claim if you're white and silent (not repeating their propaganda) then you are a part of the problem.

That's their words....straight from their website.

And I see nothing in those words that supports or condones violence.

So when you claim they do, in fact, condone violence, what do you base that assumption on?

Follow these easy logical steps....

1. They believe you're guilty of injustice against black people....simply by not speaking up for their cause and being white.

2. That's called collective guilt. If you are white, they believe that you're guilty of injustice against blacks, because some white people are guilty of injustice against blacks.

3. If they hold everyone else to this standard....it's not only fair, it's appropriate to hold them to the same standard.

4. Therefore, when Black Lives Matter supporters or protesters commit violence ....Black Lives Matter is guilty of violence.

They believe in collective guilt....so it's appropriate to hold them responsible for the actions of their supporters.

Is that easy enough to follow?

Sure.

It means you are saying that you believe every organization or group is directly responsible for the actions of everyone who supports it, even when that organization disagrees with and denounces those actions.

If you are not saying that, then you disagree with what you think BLM is saying. But clearly, since you feel they should be held to the standard you describe, you do, in fact, agree with it.

Personally, I disagree with you on this point, by the way, but since it's clear I'm not going to be able to change your pre-judgments about this organization or the people who support it, I don't suppose there is much more I can say.

-- A2SG, you may want to check your assumptions, though...I think a few of them may have led you astray......

A2SG · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
Also....where do you get the idea that they don't support violence? They list this BLM organizer's arrest and conviction amongst their achievements on their website...

Has Black Lives Matter Cut Ties with Pasadena Organizer Jasmine Abdullah Richards? – Pasadena Now

Richards was initially arrested for inciting a riot, child endangerment, delaying and obstructing peace officers in the discharge of their duties, and the “lynching,” a technical term describing the California offense of an attempt by a rioter to force a detainee from police custody. That term has since been changed in California law, however continued to be used in press reports.

Rioting, child endangerment, using force to unlawfully obstruct police and take someone from police custody. We're talking about an official BLM organizer.

Did you read that story before you posted it?

Here's the very first line:

Black Lives Matter Pasadena organizer Jasmine Abdullah Richards, who became the focus of the national press when she was charged with “felony lynching” in a highly publicized incident in 2015, apparently has been asked to disassociate herself from the Southern California Black Lives Matter movement and to stay away from their events.

Not only did BLM not condone her actions, they asked her to leave the group and not attend their events because of them.

If you want to claim BLM supports violence, maybe a story where they condemn someone who commits acts of violence and asks that person to leave isn't the way to go.

-- A2SG, just sayin'.....

KCfromNC · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
The link works, right? We can all read your posts. You attempt to minimize the political violence perpetrated by a group that was created to perpetrate political violence.

Yeah, my pointing out the date on a linked article was quite sinister. Might as well report me to the FBI. lol. I guess this is the sort of empty rhetoric I'd expect to see if posts were made with zero substance behind the assertions in them.

Ana the Ist · Jan 14, 2021

A2SG said:
Um, that article had nothing to do with the slogan you referred to previously.

See, when you make claims like that, based on an assumption, and avoid actually quoting directly from the organization itself, you don't exactly make your case seem very credible.

It's not about me. It's about what YOU are claiming, and what YOU are basing those claims on. If you want to maintain that BLM stands for something that is the opposite of what they, themselves, claim to stand for, you're gonna need to back it up.

Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude you're mistaken...or you're just making stuff up.

And I see nothing in those words that supports or condones violence.

So when you claim they do, in fact, condone violence, what do you base that assumption on?

Sure.

It means you are saying that you believe every organization or group is directly responsible for the actions of everyone who supports it, even when that organization disagrees with and denounces those actions.

If you are not saying that, then you disagree with what you think BLM is saying. But clearly, since you feel they should be held to the standard you describe, you do, in fact, agree with it.

Personally, I disagree with you on this point, by the way, but since it's clear I'm not going to be able to change your pre-judgments about this organization or the people who support it, I don't suppose there is much more I can say.

-- A2SG, you may want to check your assumptions, though...I think a few of them may have led you astray......

Here's the problem....

I make a completely benign claim that's blatantly true to anyone who was alive in 2020 like "BLM blames all cops...not just ones who commit shootings".

It's obvious because they protested outside police departments that had nothing to do with any shooting. It's obvious because they shout slogans like defund and abolish the police. They use slogans like ACAB....literally blaming all police.

Then you ask me for proof they blame all police.

I tell you it's all over their website. I give you links to pdfs from the website.

You act like this isn't enough proof.

I then copy and paste the words directly from the pdf.

You then ignore it and ask for proof for something else.

It's extremely tedious and pretty obvious that you're going to deny anything I show you....

Do you want me to read their official website to you? It's one thing to ask for proof and it's another thing to pretend it doesn't exist once it's given to you.

Now you're asking for what? The leaders of BLM explicitly stating they support violence?

You've reached peak levels of cognitive dissonance. I don't recall anyone who stormed the Capitol directly stating that they support violence.....so you must think they're all peaceful, right?

Ana the Ist · Jan 14, 2021

KCfromNC said:
Yeah, my pointing out the date on a linked article was quite sinister.

You know you made other posts in that thread, right?

Would you prefer I quote those?

Ana the Ist · Jan 14, 2021

A2SG said:
Did you read that story before you posted it?

Here's the very first line:

Black Lives Matter Pasadena organizer Jasmine Abdullah Richards, who became the focus of the national press when she was charged with “felony lynching” in a highly publicized incident in 2015, apparently has been asked to disassociate herself from the Southern California Black Lives Matter movement and to stay away from their events.

Not only did BLM not condone her actions, they asked her to leave the group and not attend their events because of them.

If you want to claim BLM supports violence, maybe a story where they condemn someone who commits acts of violence and asks that person to leave isn't the way to go.

-- A2SG, just sayin'.....

As I said before....they BLM listed this woman's crimes on their list of "accomplishments".

Screenshot_20210114-051802_Samsung Internet.jpg

There's a screenshot so we don't have to waste time transcribing it for you....then explaining what the words mean. It's taken directly from their website.

KCfromNC · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
You know you made other posts in that thread, right?

Would you prefer I quote those?

Hey look, another post with leading questions and zero facts. I mean, I guess there's something to be said for consistency.

Ana the Ist · Jan 14, 2021

KCfromNC said:
Yeah, my pointing out the date on a linked article was quite sinister. Might as well report me to the FBI. lol. I guess this is the sort of empty rhetoric I'd expect to see if posts were made with zero substance behind the assertions in them.

Here....maybe you forgot about the posts where you tried (poorly) to minimize political violence...

KCfromNC said:
And yet all we have posted here is one example from a year and a half ago.

Kind feels like if we went police killings vs. "antifa" violence the police killings would win.

That's where you made a ridiculous comparison between the legal and often necessary violence that comes with being the police in the US....and the completely unnecessary and always illegal violence of politically motivated mobs.

Why do you defend political violence?

KCfromNC · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
That's where you made a ridiculous comparison between the legal and often necessary violence that comes with being the police in the US

Oh, I think I see where your confusion is. No, that was just me explaining that the evidence you linked to earlier in the thread was really flimsy - as in you wouldn't accept it as an indictment of a group you weren't already predisposed to hate for whatever reason. Happy to help clear up your misunderstanding ... although I can't help but think if you had read the whole discussion in context it would have been obvious.

I'm surprised that me showing you to be wrong had such an impact on you then that you remember it after all those months. Didn't mean for you to take it so personally.

Ana the Ist · Jan 14, 2021

KCfromNC said:
Oh, I think I see where your confusion is.

No confusion...you frequently jump to Antifa's defense. Here's another instance....

Trump considering labeling antifa a terrorist organization

Why do you defend political violence?

Ana the Ist · Jan 14, 2021

In regards to the OP...my main point was that too many people were willing to excuse or defend political violence as long as it was being perpetrated by their side...or for causes that they believed in.

I'd like to thank the multiple posters who proved this point for me in case anyone actually doubted the truth of what I said. You have at least one poster flat out admitting he thinks political violence is necessary to achieve political goals. You have multiple posters who believe their cause was valid and it justified political violence. You've got another poster repeatedly defending a group that openly admits to using political violence. You've got another poster who refuses to hold a group responsible for political violence they've committed.

That is the problem folks. It should be easy for both sides of the political aisle to agree that all political violence is wrong and condemn the groups committing it.

Sadly, that's not the case.

perplexed · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
Here's the problem....

I make a completely benign claim that's blatantly true to anyone who was alive in 2020 like "BLM blames all cops...not just ones who commit shootings".

If someone says they agree with BLMs goal of reducing innocent people getting shot by police are they also saying it is OK to murder police officers at random to keep them in line

Speedwell · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
No confusion...you frequently jump to Antifa's defense. Here's another instance....

Trump considering labeling antifa a terrorist organization

Why do you defend political violence?

There is nothing in that post which defends violence.

iluvatar5150 · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
Many people are upset about the Capitol incident....and rightly so. It is upsetting. I'm not afraid of an insurrection or coup though....that's not going to happen. It's certainly not going to happen at the hands of the clowns that stormed the Capitol.

I'm more afraid that the average person doesn't understand the role they played in things getting to this point. It's all about the behavior that you're willing to support, make excuses for, or even just tolerate.

Let's take a look at this article from the Atlantic at the beginning of June 2020.

The Double Standard of the American Riot

The article is pretty clear....violence and rebellion against the authority of the US government is justified if you feel your cause is important enough.

Various forms of this argument were made and propped up by left wing media for the next three months. During those three months, many people were willing to excuse violence against police and the intimidation of government officials. They would say the don't condone violence out of one side of their mouth.....then they'd express support for the group doing the violence in the very next breath.

The message there is pretty clear....violence is excusable if you feel really strongly about your cause.

During those months many people were scared when the violence was in their cities, on their streets....or right in their faces. A lot of those people were mocked, or made fun of. Mayors and governors declared their support for the rioters and looters and blamed the police or federal officers who tried to restore the rule of law. People continually expressed their support for the groups committing these acts....and repeatedly blamed police for using any force against them. They donated bail to the guilty....they donated money to the group responsible for the violence.

So now when a group of Trump supporters decided to protest at the Capitol and it quickly turned into violence, destruction of property, and intimidation of public officials.....people want someone to blame. The reality is that if you were willing to ignore the violence and rioting over the summer and supported those doing it....then you are to blame.

We shouldn't allow this kind of behavior ever. There's no justification for rioting and violence and destruction of property or intimidating officials....at all. The Atlantic, the New York Times, CNN, and every other publication that made excuses for these people are wrong.

The moment that a protest results in violence against the police....it's no longer justified. We should support the police when they use force to stop it. We should stop supporting any group that decides to attack police and tries to intimidate public officials.

People have a right to protest peacefully. If they go around destroying property, they should be arrested and the protest ended. If they go around surrounding and intimidating public officials...they should be considered terrorists. If any group regularly engages in such behavior, they should be declared a terrorist organization and it's supporters should be arrested. We should support the police in stopping these people and that includes allowing the police to decide when to use force.

If we do this....and consistently condemn the groups who are guilty of these things....I'm certain we can avoid any incidents like the Capitol riot in the future.

I'm afraid that won't happen though. I'm afraid that both sides will feel justified in supporting the violence their side does and only condemning it from the other side. If that continues, I'm afraid this will escalate to full scale bloodshed here in the US.

It's entirely avoidable....but only if we support the rule of law consistently for everyone....no matter what they are protesting. As I said at the beginning of this post, it's all about the behavior you're willing to support, make excuses for, or even just tolerate.

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I agree - and it's because I agree that I've argued elsewhere (not on this site) that between this and the BLM riots, this was the more appropriate manifestation of anti-government violence. There's a debate to be had over whether or not any form of political violence is okay and there's a debate to be had over what justifies political violence (Trump's election lies certainly don't), but IMO, once you meet those standards, if the perceived oppression is coming from government, then violence should target the seats of civic power, not random shop owners.

com7fy8 · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
It won't matter if Trump gets thrown in jail for the next 20 years. This stuff will continue until we demand accountability for protesters who commit violence.

Thank you for taking the time to explain what you have to say, I would say in a respectful way.

I think the problem of violence is not only at the political level, though.

People argue and abuse, at home, in order to get what they want. What we see in public could be the tip of a cultural iceberg.

And I understand it might not be the same thing, but the United States started with bloodshed. And Americans used violence to take land away from sovereign nations of the Native Americans and Mexico. But once certain United States people had used violence to get an advantage, then ones could be so upset if someone else came along and used violence toward them.

It is considered to be a tool. I personally limit its use to mosquitos, as well as I can.

A2SG · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
As I said before....they BLM listed this woman's crimes on their list of "accomplishments".

View attachment 293425

There's a screenshot so we don't have to waste time transcribing it for you....then explaining what the words mean. It's taken directly from their website.

I don't see it listed as an "accomplishment" anywhere. It appears to simply be a news story. But, regardless, they cut ties with her and asked that she no longer attend any BLM events.

Not sure why you think that translates to promoting or supporting violence, exactly, but.....

-- A2SG, you do you, I guess.....

A2SG · Jan 14, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
Here's the problem....

I make a completely benign claim that's blatantly true to anyone who was alive in 2020 like "BLM blames all cops...not just ones who commit shootings".

It's obvious because they protested outside police departments that had nothing to do with any shooting. It's obvious because they shout slogans like defund and abolish the police. They use slogans like ACAB....literally blaming all police.

Then you ask me for proof they blame all police.

I tell you it's all over their website. I give you links to pdfs from the website.

You act like this isn't enough proof.

I then copy and paste the words directly from the pdf.

You then ignore it and ask for proof for something else.

It's extremely tedious and pretty obvious that you're going to deny anything I show you....

Do you want me to read their official website to you? It's one thing to ask for proof and it's another thing to pretend it doesn't exist once it's given to you.

Now you're asking for what? The leaders of BLM explicitly stating they support violence?

You've reached peak levels of cognitive dissonance. I don't recall anyone who stormed the Capitol directly stating that they support violence.....so you must think they're all peaceful, right?

You're missing my point.

You've made several claims against BLM, the organization itself. Claims, such as that they support and promote violence, are contradicted by the organization itself. I asked what the basis was for your conclusion they were lying. You offered a bunch of assumptions, and some examples of tortured logic involving other issues.

All you really needed to was provide a specific example of Black Lives Matter itself, the organization, unequivocally promoting or supporting violent acts.

Do that, and you'll have made your case.

Otherwise, well, we can go back and forth over and over again if you like.

A2SG, I really should be working on my book instead of procrastinating, but it's either this or watch Battlestar Galactica, so.....

Ana the Ist · Jan 15, 2021

A2SG said:
Claims, such as that they support and promote violence, are contradicted by the organization itself.

Where are they contradicted by the organization?

You've made this claim repeatedly.

All you really needed to was provide a specific example of Black Lives Matter itself, the organization, unequivocally promoting or supporting violent acts.

They listed a BLM organizer getting arrested for rioting, child endangerment, and attempted lynching as one of their accomplishments.

I even screenshot the page for you.

That is supporting violence.

Again, we're in this situation where you asked for evidence....I gave you the evidence....and you act like it never happened.

You saw the screenshot, right? Do you need the link to the webpage it was on? You understand that BLM organizer was convicted, don't you?

She committed a violent crime....and BLM listed that crime as an accomplishment they were celebrating.....as if it was something they were proud of.

Surely that counts as supporting violence even to you?

A2SG · Jan 15, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
Where are they contradicted by the organization?

You've made this claim repeatedly.

Not my claim, it's BLM's:

Utah Black Lives Matter leaders condemn violence and vandalism at protests

Black Lives Matter condemns Dallas shootings, plans protests

Black Lives Matter 757 speaks out against riots, looting

Black Lives Matter Leader Condemns Violence at St. Paul Protest

Why not let them speak for themselves?

They listed a BLM organizer getting arrested for rioting, child endangerment, and attempted lynching as one of their accomplishments.

I even screenshot the page for you.

That is supporting violence.

I didn't see the violence listed as an "accomplishment" anywhere, and let me point out, again, that BLM cut ties with this person and asked that she not go to BLM events.

I don't see how you can see that as BLM promoting or supporting violence at all.

Again, we're in this situation where you asked for evidence....I gave you the evidence....and you act like it never happened.

Your "evidence" did not show BLM promoting or supporting violence.

You saw the screenshot, right? Do you need the link to the webpage it was on? You understand that BLM organizer was convicted, don't you?

She committed a violent crime....and BLM listed that crime as an accomplishment they were celebrating.....as if it was something they were proud of.

Surely that counts as supporting violence even to you?

At no point in that article did it state that BLM, the organization, was promoting or showing support for that person's violent acts.

You'll have to point out where BLM specifically states that the organization promotes and supports violent acts.

That is what you claimed, so that is what you need to show to make your case.

No assumptions, no conclusions, no hints or allegations. Unless they specifically and unequivocally state they promote and support violence, you have not made your case.

-- A2SG, pre-judged opinions are just that...opinions.....

KCfromNC · Jan 15, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
No confusion...

And yet instead of addressing your incorrect characterization of the post you previously quoted, you jump on to yet another attempt. Gosh, it is almost as if this is a clear demonstrations that your accusations are indefensible.

you frequently jump to Antifa's defense.

Continuing to post claims like this after running away from chances to prove it is starting to feel like goading...

Not to mention that based on the evidence, frequently in this case means less than once a year, and "jump to Antifa's defense" means "ask for the evidence supporting right wing propaganda". Oh, the huge manatee...

Here's another instance....

Trump considering labeling antifa a terrorist organization

Why do you defend political violence?

Uh, you view asking for evidence of a claim as a bad thing? Kinda makes me wonder how you come to the conclusions you do if you're so threatened by people looking at the actual facts surrounding claims about a group. I'll keep this in mind in the future when you start making random claims about other group's we're supposed to be terrified of because reasons and stuff.

The Lesson We Need to Learn

Gumby

Gumby

Regular Member

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Regular Member

Aggressively serene!

Regular Member

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Gumby

Gumby

Aggressively serene!

Gumby

Regular Member

Similar threads