The Lesson We Need to Learn

[Vylo]

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.



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

ah you are correct on BLM, i keep forgetting about trayvon and brown.

antifa, while it has always existed in some form since thr 1930s, had withered to a small existence before trump. they were practically unknown to my generation, due to this. as they are typically a response to fascist behavior, they built back up quickly as similar sentiments were pusbed by Trump and co. had trump not run in 2016, i doubt anyone on this forum would know the name antifa at all.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

I encourage people to follow the link and see what a desperate attempt this is. Does anyone have any idea what the link has to do with anything? I mean, I'd try to correct the misunderstanding but I don't even understand what the point is supposed to be. 6+ months ago I apparently made the unforgivable mistake of pointing out a date on a news article and now it has created some rage-filled post. This is not normal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

They must have been shouting for that in between shouting "defund the police".

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

Eesh...this is a related but different problem. People not understanding the difference between opinion and facts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I encourage people to follow the link and see what a desperate attempt this is. Does anyone have any idea what the link has to do with anything? I mean, I'd try to correct the misunderstanding but I don't even understand what the point is supposed to be. 6+ months ago I apparently made the unforgivable mistake of pointing out a date on a news article and now it has created some rage-filled post. This is not normal.

You're saying that you don't regularly defend Antifa?

 

[KCfromNC]

You're saying that you don't regularly defend Antifa?

Says the poster who just claimed the existence of "many many posts" where I did. Thanks for coming clean about that story.
If you actually had evidence of this you wouldn't need to ask. Instead, you post a link to me pointing out the date on an article someone posted last summer. I think it is obvious what is going on, and I'm sure others can see it too. Good luck with your quest here, have fun trying to dig up something slightly more convincing than your last search.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you actually had evidence of this you wouldn't need to ask.

I already know, just wanted to see if you'd admit it.

Instead, you post a link to me pointing out the date on an article someone posted last summer.

In defense of Antifa....just like your other posts in the same thread.

So why do you minimize and defend a group that admits openly to using political violence as a tool?

It's awfully hypocritical to claim others are normalizing political violence when your posting history shows that's what you do.

Why even bother addressing nonsense like that? It serves no purpose other than to legitimize an attempt to normalize politically-motivated violence from the right.

 

[KCfromNC]

So why do you minimize and defend a group that admits openly to using political violence as a tool?

I can only assume if you actually had something substantive to make your point that I wouldn't be reading laughably [mis]leading questions like this. What's next, deeply convincing questions about whether I've stopped beating my wife? lol.

I must have hit a nerve. Empty rhetoric isn't a substitute for self reflection.

 

[Ana the Ist]

ah you are correct on BLM, i keep forgetting about trayvon and brown.

antifa, while it has always existed in some form since thr 1930s, had withered to a small existence before trump. they were practically unknown to my generation, due to this. as they are typically a response to fascist behavior, they built back up quickly as similar sentiments were pusbed by Trump and co. had trump not run in 2016, i doubt anyone on this forum would know the name antifa at all.

It's possible....but I'm far from certain about it.

Antifa might have been a reaction to Trump....in which case we should expect them to disappear. If they were bolstered by these liberal professors who decided to indoctrinate a generation of activists....they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm not trying to lay blame....I'm trying to point out that bipartisan condemnation of political violence is what's needed. Back during the LA riots in the 90s....the left wasn't making excuses for the rioters. They almost universally condemned and supported law enforcement efforts to stamp them out .

That's a far cry from their position in 2020.

 

[childeye 2]

They must have been shouting for that in between shouting "defund the police".

Not exactly.

Eesh...this is a related but different problem. People not understanding the difference between opinion and facts.

Exactly.

 

[cow451]

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.

I would tell but I can’t get on Parler.

 

[perplexed]

M

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.

Why post this article? Do you think there are people here that think it is OK attack police for leftist causes ? You seem to imply the article applies to half of America

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why post this article? Do you think there are people here that think it is OK attack police for leftist causes ? You seem to imply the article applies to half of America

1. The article is a great example of the kind of justification for the rioting seen over last summer.

2. Yes. Despite multiple examples of the same groups rioting and attacking the police....support for thess groups reached unprecedented levels. I don't know if it's exactly "half" of the population.. but it's certainly a large percentage of the population.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can only assume if *snip*.

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.

At one point you laughably compare them to the police....as if public servants that arrest murderers and rapists are comparable to a pack of fools who group up to attack innocent civilians who dare have different political opinions.

It's bizarre to see you here suggesting that other people are normalizing political violence.

 

[A2SG]

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 .

Just to be clear, are you claiming that an organization is responsible for every single action made by those who support it? Even if those actions go against the stated goals of that organization and are specifically denounced by that organization?

Because that is definitely an interesting idea....I'm gonna have to keep that standard in mind.

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?

I don't recall anyone saying they are okay with the actions you describe. Who do you assume is okay with them, and on what basis do you assume that?

Reality. Is this a serious question?

Yes, but that answer is very vague. Could you give me specific examples to support your assumptions?

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.

Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. does not engage in those actions. In fact, they have publicly denounced them.

Again, if you want to claim they're lying about their own stated goals, you're gonna have to back that up with something more concrete than vague assumptions.

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.

Then take your arguments up with the ones who wrote those pieces. Why would you think anyone here is in a position to defend someone else's opinion?

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

I'm not exactly sure who you're referring to as "them" here (this is where vagueness on your part doesn't help) but, whoever "they" are, if you want to claim they are lying about being against violence, you'll need to back that up with more than vague assumptions.

And so far, that's all you've presented.

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?

If you're claiming that Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is specifically and intentionally engaging in political violence, you'll need specific evidence to support that accusation, not vague assumptions.

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.

Did Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. throw that punch, or did someone else? If you want to accuse someone of a crime, you'd better be able to prove they actually did it.

-- A2SG, even someone with no more legal experience than an episode or two of Ally McBeal knows that.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just to be clear, are you claiming that an organization is responsible for every single action made by those who support it? Even if those actions go against the stated goals of that organization and are specifically denounced by that organization?

Would I say that?? Depends on the organization really.

I think the more important question is....does Black Lives Matter say that? When it comes to the police....yes, they absolutely do. In fact, they even hold the entire US population to that standard when they claim that if you aren't supporting them, you're part of the problem, silence is violence, and so on.

So while I probably wouldn't typically hold an entire group responsible in that way ...it seems like the only appropriate way to judge BLM.

I don't recall anyone saying they are okay with the actions you describe. Who do you assume is okay with them, and on what basis do you assume that?

Did you read the article in the OP?

Yes, but that answer is very vague. Could you give me specific examples to support your assumptions?



Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. does not engage in those actions. In fact, they have publicly denounced them.

Again, if you want to claim they're lying about their own stated goals, you're gonna have to back that up with something more concrete than vague assumptions.



Then take your arguments up with the ones who wrote those pieces. Why would you think anyone here is in a position to defend someone else's opinion?



I'm not exactly sure who you're referring to as "them" here (this is where vagueness on your part doesn't help) but, whoever "they" are, if you want to claim they are lying about being against violence, you'll need to back that up with more than vague assumptions.

And so far, that's all you've presented.



If you're claiming that Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is specifically and intentionally engaging in political violence, you'll need specific evidence to support that accusation, not vague assumptions.



Did Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. throw that punch, or did someone else? If you want to accuse someone of a crime, you'd better be able to prove they actually did it.

-- A2SG, even someone with no more legal experience than an episode or two of Ally McBeal knows that.....

You're getting into some weird semantic nonsense here and frankly, I don't think you actually believe....

If someone told you, hypothetically, that they were a Nazi under the third Reich....would it be fair to assume they supported killing jews? They supported the organization, the organization did kill jews.....

Or would you say that because they did a lot of other things than kill jews and the number of nazis who actually carried out the executions is small....it would be unfair to say they supported killing jews?

 

[A2SG]

Would I say that??

You did seem to imply it, which is why I'm trying to be clear.

Depends on the organization really.

I think the more important question is....does Black Lives Matter say that? When it comes to the police....yes, they absolutely do. In fact, they even hold the entire US population to that standard when they claim that if you aren't supporting them, you're part of the problem, silence is violence, and so on.

That isn't the same as saying everyone is responsible for the actions of every police officer. If that's what you're claiming BLM means, you'll need to show where they officially said any such thing.

So while I probably wouldn't typically hold an entire group responsible in that way ...it seems like the only appropriate way to judge BLM.

Well, you've clearly pre-judged them already, so that probably means there will be no evidence or reasoned arguments forthcoming.

But don't let that stop you from providing any, if you have some.

Did you read the article in the OP?

Some of it. Ms. Jackson has the right to express her opinion.

If you disagree with her, then take it up with her.

You're getting into some weird semantic nonsense here and frankly, I don't think you actually believe....

My beliefs aren't really the issue here, all I'm doing is asking you questions about the accusations and assumptions you've presented, since they are pretty vague.

If someone told you, hypothetically, that they were a Nazi under the third Reich....would it be fair to assume they supported killing jews? They supported the organization, the organization did kill jews.....Or would you say that because they did a lot of other things than kill jews and the number of nazis who actually carried out the executions is small....it would be unfair to say they supported killing jews?

You know, I really wasn't expecting to get hit with Godwin's law here. But, anyway....

The assumption that a Nazi would support killing jews is a pretty solid one, since the Nazi party actually did, officially and publicly, support the killing of jews.

BLM, on the other hand, officially and publicly denounces violence, so this example doesn't help make your case that they are lying about their own stated goals.

-- A2SG, but this was fun, I haven't been Godwinned in a while......

 

[Ana the Ist]

You did seem to imply it, which is why I'm trying to be clear.



That isn't the same as saying everyone is responsible for the actions of every police officer. If that's what you're claiming BLM means, you'll need to show where they officially said any such thing.

I can't tell if you're deliberately trying to misinterpret what I said or not...so I'll be as clear as possible.

BLM claims all police are the problem....not just the few who are guilty of murder.

Furthermore, they blame everyone who doesn't support them as being part of the problem they claim the police are. That's why they adopted the slogan "silence is violence" in 2020. They blame everyone who doesn't support them.

Here's a link to a BLM pdf explaining how white people are guilty of being complicit with "unjust systems" and blah blah blah....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAKegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2dl8ign9sBKgU8XYQ1Vj2O

The point is pretty easy to follow.....they believe in collective guilt.

Why then wouldn't we judge Black Lives Matter by the same standards they judge everyone else?

 

[A2SG]

I can't tell if you're deliberately trying to misinterpret what I said or not...

I'm not trying to misrepresent you at all. That's why I'm asking if you mean what you seem to mean.

so I'll be as clear as possible.

Cool.

BLM claims all police are the problem....not just the few who are guilty of murder.

I don't believe they claimed that, at least not as you've worded it. If you could provide an official quote from the organization saying exactly that, though, that might make your case.

Furthermore, they blame everyone who doesn't support them as being part of the problem they claim the police are. That's why they adopted the slogan "silence is violence" in 2020. They blame everyone who doesn't support them.

That slogan does not seem to be the official slogan of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc., so I'm not sure who adopted it, or what they intended it to mean. If you'd provide some specific details to back up this assertion, it would help.

Here's a link to a BLM pdf explaining how white people are guilty of being complicit with "unjust systems" and blah blah blah....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAKegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2dl8ign9sBKgU8XYQ1Vj2O

The point is pretty easy to follow.....they believe in collective guilt.

So? That's their opinion, and they are entitled to express it. If you disagree, take it up with them.

The question I asked is why do you assume they're lying about not supporting violence. That is a claim you have yet to back up.

Why then wouldn't we judge Black Lives Matter by the same standards they judge everyone else?

What standard is that, exactly? Should we assume all organizations are lying about their stated goals or about actions they denounce?

Out of curiosity, what other organizations do you similarly think are lying about their stated goals?

-- A2SG, 'cause this one is the only one I'm seeing...but I don't read everything.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not trying to misrepresent you at all. That's why I'm asking if you mean what you seem to mean.



Cool.



I don't believe they claimed that, at least not as you've worded it. If you could provide an official quote from the organization saying exactly that, though, that might make your case.

An official quote? They adopted it as a slogan in 2020.

The Meaning Behind ACAB

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.

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?

That slogan does not seem to be the official slogan of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc., so I'm not sure who adopted it, or what they intended it to mean. If you'd provide some specific details to back up this assertion, it would help.

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.

So? That's their opinion, and they are entitled to express it. If you disagree, take it up with them.

The question I asked is why do you assume they're lying about not supporting violence. That is a claim you have yet to back up.

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?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not trying to misrepresent you at all. That's why I'm asking if you mean what you seem to mean.



Cool.



I don't believe they claimed that, at least not as you've worded it. If you could provide an official quote from the organization saying exactly that, though, that might make your case.



That slogan does not seem to be the official slogan of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc., so I'm not sure who adopted it, or what they intended it to mean. If you'd provide some specific details to back up this assertion, it would help.



So? That's their opinion, and they are entitled to express it. If you disagree, take it up with them.

The question I asked is why do you assume they're lying about not supporting violence. That is a claim you have yet to back up.



What standard is that, exactly? Should we assume all organizations are lying about their stated goals or about actions they denounce?

Out of curiosity, what other organizations do you similarly think are lying about their stated goals?

-- A2SG, 'cause this one is the only one I'm seeing...but I don't read everything.....

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.