The Lesson We Need to Learn

[gaara4158]

This tweet is still up btw

View attachment 293384

Did you read the article?

 

[com7fy8]

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.

I would say you are talking about the Black Lives Matter group. And I would say we do not need to refer to these people as "the group".

I think it is clear that Black Lives Matter officially called for nonviolent protesting. And it seems possible that a lot of violent incidents occurred at night . . . even some time after the end of the official Black Lives Matter nonviolent scheduled protests.

Plus, we see how the Black Lives Matter official protesting has resulted in changes. One of the main concerns of Black Lives Matter representatives has been not only the brutal behavior of certain officers, but the general discrimination culture against black people. And I am noting how now a lot of TV advertising has even more than fifty-percent black actors in advertising, plus mixed couples in advertising reaching to families. So, I would say people get what Black Lives Matter people understand is needed > not merely dealing with rogue police officers, but with the general public's culture of perception.

@Sparagmos > do you agree with this?

But there were violent actors who wanted to highjack the gatherings for other purposes.

Ones possibly hoped to highjack the Black Lives Matter protests into a race war thing.

Others might have been ex-cons who wanted to get revenge, using the protest near a court building as an opportunity to vandalize the building where maybe they had been prosecuted and sentenced.

Others were camouflaging themselves among legitimate protestors until they could use the protest as a cover for their looting, once they saw the police were busy with the protest enough so they would not be protecting properties that got looted.

There were losers who knew they could never get their own thing started; so they tried to turn Black Lives Matter actions to their own purposes. But they did not succeed. More and more non-blacks joined in. Attractive white women marched with them . . . during scheduled daylight marching; I personally know a white mother and girl who took a sign to a gathering, saying, "I love black people". Those Black Lives Matter white people were not doing nighttime violence, were they? I would say not; because violence was not the modus operandi of the legal Black Lives Matter people.

Various locations of Black Lives Matter activities did not have violence. Violence was not the consistent action during scheduled daylight Black Lives Matter activities; so I would say it was not an official thing of their protests.

Of course, I do not personally know the ones who started Black Lives Matter. For all I know, they might have had violent intentions but then certain nonviolent people have highjacked the movement to be nonviolent as much as it was.

Likewise, I would say not all marchers on the Capitol had any intention of doing violence.

So, part of the problem of this stuff is not really that ones condone violence, but that we tend to let a few violent people be representative of the many of a group who did not do violent stuff. Many Black Lives Matter people did no violence; so it does not represent them. Likewise, those intending to storm the Capitol as a protest nonviolent are not represented by the ones who possibly highjacked the situation into what possibly the majority did not mean to do.

 

[com7fy8]

To me it seems that a number of Black Lives Matter people see the need not only for policing the police, but there needs to be a change in how society sees black people.

But it appears to me, how some number of protestors are more upset that police have shot a few black criminals, than they are concerned about the lives of their own children.

If God considers unborn black children to be real people, then abortion is a major problem, and numerous black people are fine with killing their own unborn black children.

Also, there are very dangerous people who smoke around black children, while they act like they are so cool while smoking. And black children feed on their example so later those children will waste money and then even get cancer so they suffer and die while bringing great suffering also on those who care about them. So, I understand black folks themselves need to care about their own children, by being a healthy example for them . . . not indirectly kill and torture them by helping them to suppose they will be cool to smoke.

So, not only does society need to see blacks better, but also blacks need to be more caring about their own selves. They themselves by smoking and abortion have killed more children and caused more suffering than rogue police have, I would say.

And if you say nothing better can be expected of black people, then how can we expect police who are deeply ruined people to do any better?

Be an example . . . like I know a number of black people already are.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why are you assuming the official position of the organization itself is to be dishonest?

Because it is dishonest. If they're against violence, they've got a real problem with their supporters committing violence and they've done nothing about it as far as I can tell .

Are you claiming that Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is committing violence?

That's undeniable at this point. There's more examples of police being injured by BLM protesters than I can count. There's multiple examples of them trying to intimidate officials to do things like convict innocent cops, defund the police, or resign.

I don't see how people are upset about protesters going to where government officials work....but they're ok with protesters surrounding the homes of government officials?

What do you base that accusation on?

Reality. Is this a serious question?

Who are "most people"? And why do you feel you're able to speak for them, on their behalf? I don't recall anyone specifically saying that destruction of property is okay...and certainly no one claimed it was legal.

Who, exactly, is saying otherwise? If you have a problem with them saying it, take it up with them.

Support for Black Lives Matter has decreased since June but remains strong among Black Americans

A significant majority of people support Black Lives Matter despite the fact that they routinely engaged in political violence, destruction of property, and intimidation of elected officials.

I'm not calling out anyone specific. Let's be honest though...The Atlantic isn't some fringe publication. The New York Times, CNN, they all ran similar opinion pieces defending riots and supporting the groups doing them.

Now suddenly they're pretending to be against political violence. They aren't news anymore....they're propaganda.

Within reason, sure.



"The Public" doesn't speak as one. If some individuals feel the violence was excusable, that's their opinion; conversely, if another individual feels police should be allowed to use nuclear weapons, that's their opinion, too. The views expressed by some individuals are not shared by all. If you disagree with those views, take it up with those who express them.

Welcome to the thread.

If the group's official statement is to denounce the violence, why would you not believe that?

-- A2SG, or, I dunno, you could blame the people doing stuff for doing that stuff, and not blame the people not doing it....

A2SG....if a group routinely engages in political violence....but claims to be against violence....do you really have to struggle to figure out what their stance on violence is?

Actions speak louder than words. If someone tells me "I don't want to fight you"....and then they start throwing punches, they're lying about not wanting to fight.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would say you are talking about the Black Lives Matter group. And I would say we do not need to refer to these people as "the group".

I think it is clear that Black Lives Matter officially called for nonviolent protesting. And it seems possible that a lot of violent incidents occurred at night . . . even some time after the end of the official Black Lives Matter nonviolent scheduled protests.

Plus, we see how the Black Lives Matter official protesting has resulted in changes. One of the main concerns of Black Lives Matter representatives has been not only the brutal behavior of certain officers, but the general discrimination culture against black people. And I am noting how now a lot of TV advertising has even more than fifty-percent black actors in advertising, plus mixed couples in advertising reaching to families. So, I would say people get what Black Lives Matter people understand is needed > not merely dealing with rogue police officers, but with the general public's culture of perception.

@Sparagmos > do you agree with this?

But there were violent actors who wanted to highjack the gatherings for other purposes.

Ones possibly hoped to highjack the Black Lives Matter protests into a race war thing.

Others might have been ex-cons who wanted to get revenge, using the protest near a court building as an opportunity to vandalize the building where maybe they had been prosecuted and sentenced.

Others were camouflaging themselves among legitimate protestors until they could use the protest as a cover for their looting, once they saw the police were busy with the protest enough so they would not be protecting properties that got looted.

There were losers who knew they could never get their own thing started; so they tried to turn Black Lives Matter actions to their own purposes. But they did not succeed. More and more non-blacks joined in. Attractive white women marched with them . . . during scheduled daylight marching; I personally know a white mother and girl who took a sign to a gathering, saying, "I love black people". Those Black Lives Matter white people were not doing nighttime violence, were they? I would say not; because violence was not the modus operandi of the legal Black Lives Matter people.

Various locations of Black Lives Matter activities did not have violence. Violence was not the consistent action during scheduled daylight Black Lives Matter activities; so I would say it was not an official thing of their protests.

Of course, I do not personally know the ones who started Black Lives Matter. For all I know, they might have had violent intentions but then certain nonviolent people have highjacked the movement to be nonviolent as much as it was.

Likewise, I would say not all marchers on the Capitol had any intention of doing violence.

So, part of the problem of this stuff is not really that ones condone violence, but that we tend to let a few violent people be representative of the many of a group who did not do violent stuff. Many Black Lives Matter people did no violence; so it does not represent them. Likewise, those intending to storm the Capitol as a protest nonviolent are not represented by the ones who possibly highjacked the situation into what possibly the majority did not mean to do.

It's not just black lives matter....Antifa has regularly been defended by left wing publications and some liberals despite advocating political violence. I can't count the number of times posters on here tried to minimize the violence perpetrated by Antifa.

I can even remember posters openly arguing that sometimes political violence is necessary.

The Capitol riot is the result of the normalization of political violence. 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.

 

[childeye 2]

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.

Basically, we first need to see that stopping a policeman from killing a citizen in the manner George Floyd was killed, is not comparable to an attempt to change the outcome of an election based on a false allegation of voter fraud by a sitting President. The first cause is just and the second is unjust.

The lesson we need to learn is to not be fooled by any propaganda that tries to make them the same.

 

[mark46]

.
It's extremely hypocritical to expect them to suddenly crack down on protesters just because the cause they're protesting isn't something the left supports.

Law enforcement in the capitol has no problem protecting against black protesters. Should we expect at least the same protection when law enforcement was warned for weeks?

I suspect that the president made it clear that these were his folks, who he supported and loved.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's the same story as the last four years. "The left made us do it."

I present to you the party of personal responsibility.

 

[CitizenD]

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

You don't get to ask me to "pay attention to my anger" if that anger was whipped up by politicians feeding lies to people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If that were the case, all support should have ended for Trump before he was elected and his ralliers attacked people.

You may never have had a Trump getting the nomination in the first place if protesters weren't running around destroying statues and monuments and fighting any right wing protesters under the guise of fighting "fascism".

I'm all for accounting of the normalization of political violence....but let's start at the beginning.

 

[KCfromNC]

You may never have had a Trump getting the nomination in the first place if protesters weren't running around destroying statues and monuments and fighting any right wing protesters under the guise of fighting "fascism".

Hey look, another claim that it is Democrats' fault that the GOP elected and covered for Donald's actions.

 

[cow451]

The evil doers in their volcano lairs buying off the politicians with ill gotten gains.

Or something similar.

Name one. Got no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Larniavc]

Name one. Got no idea what you are talking about.

Sigh.

Okay I meant lobbyists and people like the Koch brothers.

I didn’t want to say it out loud in case they heard me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You don't get to ask me to "pay attention to my anger" if that anger was whipped up by politicians feeding lies to people.

That and the media is 99% of it....regardless of what side of the aisle you're on.

 

[Sparagmos]

I would say you are talking about the Black Lives Matter group. And I would say we do not need to refer to these people as "the group".

I think it is clear that Black Lives Matter officially called for nonviolent protesting. And it seems possible that a lot of violent incidents occurred at night . . . even some time after the end of the official Black Lives Matter nonviolent scheduled protests.

Plus, we see how the Black Lives Matter official protesting has resulted in changes. One of the main concerns of Black Lives Matter representatives has been not only the brutal behavior of certain officers, but the general discrimination culture against black people. And I am noting how now a lot of TV advertising has even more than fifty-percent black actors in advertising, plus mixed couples in advertising reaching to families. So, I would say people get what Black Lives Matter people understand is needed > not merely dealing with rogue police officers, but with the general public's culture of perception.

@Sparagmos > do you agree with this?

But there were violent actors who wanted to highjack the gatherings for other purposes.

Ones possibly hoped to highjack the Black Lives Matter protests into a race war thing.

Others might have been ex-cons who wanted to get revenge, using the protest near a court building as an opportunity to vandalize the building where maybe they had been prosecuted and sentenced.

Others were camouflaging themselves among legitimate protestors until they could use the protest as a cover for their looting, once they saw the police were busy with the protest enough so they would not be protecting properties that got looted.

There were losers who knew they could never get their own thing started; so they tried to turn Black Lives Matter actions to their own purposes. But they did not succeed. More and more non-blacks joined in. Attractive white women marched with them . . . during scheduled daylight marching; I personally know a white mother and girl who took a sign to a gathering, saying, "I love black people". Those Black Lives Matter white people were not doing nighttime violence, were they? I would say not; because violence was not the modus operandi of the legal Black Lives Matter people.

Various locations of Black Lives Matter activities did not have violence. Violence was not the consistent action during scheduled daylight Black Lives Matter activities; so I would say it was not an official thing of their protests.

Of course, I do not personally know the ones who started Black Lives Matter. For all I know, they might have had violent intentions but then certain nonviolent people have highjacked the movement to be nonviolent as much as it was.

Likewise, I would say not all marchers on the Capitol had any intention of doing violence.

So, part of the problem of this stuff is not really that ones condone violence, but that we tend to let a few violent people be representative of the many of a group who did not do violent stuff. Many Black Lives Matter people did no violence; so it does not represent them. Likewise, those intending to storm the Capitol as a protest nonviolent are not represented by the ones who possibly highjacked the situation into what possibly the majority did not mean to do.

Yes, I generally agree with what you said above before tagging me. All social movements that I’m aware of have included some violence and property destruction (two different things), and the people or groups engaged in that should be held accountable, not the much larger number of people involved in the movement. While the Trump supporters aren’t a movement, the same goes for them and no one who was peacefully protesting outside the capital should be blamed for what happened inside, unless they were egging it on. Trump, however, has a far greater responsibility as President and as the person the rioters were fighting on behalf of. He had the power to prevent it, to call it off, and to call off future attacks but he has been silent in that regard. Contrast that with the fact that nothing leaders of BLM said at the beginning of marches was able to stop the Antifa-types who wanted to destroy property. They don’t even believe in leaders and would physically fight any protesters who tried to intervene. But Trump supporters and the Q cult worship him. They literally think they were following his wishes when they stormed the capital and if he explicitly told them to stop, they would.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Basically, we first need to see that stopping a policeman from killing a citizen in the manner George Floyd was killed, is not comparable to an attempt to change the outcome of an election based on a false allegation of voter fraud by a sitting President. The first cause is just and the second is unjust.

In your opinion. In the George Floyd case....the police responsible were charged. If that's the result people want....what justified the riots that followed?

The lesson we need to learn is to not be fooled by any propaganda that tries to make them the same.

Your opinion is not the same thing as facts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hey look, another claim that it is Democrats' fault that the GOP elected and covered for Donald's actions.

Hey look....here's KCfromNC in one of his many many posts defending Antifa, a group who's stated methods include political violence.

No sign of Antifa in civil unrest cases...

Stop normalizing political violence.

 

[Vylo]

You may never have had a Trump getting the nomination in the first place if protesters weren't running around destroying statues and monuments and fighting any right wing protesters under the guise of fighting "fascism".

I'm all for accounting of the normalization of political violence....but let's start at the beginning.

blm and the antifa resurgence were after trump took office. if you want to go back to the beginning, dial up the queen and tell her she can have her colony back.

 

[Ana the Ist]

blm and the antifa resurgence were after trump took office.

Resurgence?

BLM was starting riots back in the Obama years. Antifa may have become more well known after Trump, but they didn't start there.

if you want to go back to the beginning, dial up the queen and tell her she can have her colony back.

I see....it's all justified? I guess we should ignore any of your complaints about political violence then.

 

[childeye 2]

In your opinion. In the George Floyd case....the police responsible were charged. If that's the result people want....what justified the riots that followed?

What people mostly want is a change in Police policy, stricter recruitment criteria, and better training.

Your opinion is not the same thing as facts.

It's only your opinion that it's my opinion.