The Lesson We Need to Learn

[KCfromNC]

There is nothing in that post which defends violence.

You've got to give them some leeway. I mean, actually trying to defend the actions of the Trump terrorists last week isn't going very well, at least if polling's to be believed. So what other choice is there but to start making up stuff about others as an attempt at a distraction. I mean, certainly, there's no other choice here. For example, simply agreeing that yeah, right wing terrorism is bad wouldn't work ... for some strange reason. Can't quite put my finger on why, but there has to be a good reason somewhere.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't see it listed as an "accomplishment" anywhere. It appears to simply be a news story.

Wonderful...you can see the screenshot.

So if I link the official BLM websites, and more specifically, the page where they list their "accomplishments"....and you see that exact same story exactly as it appears in the screenshot....

Then you'll admit that BLM supports violence and you've been wrong this entire time?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is nothing in that post which defends violence.

Defending Antifa is defending political violence.

Even if there wasn't a mountain of evidence in the form of video footage and arrests....they've openly stated they engage in violence.

Arguably, that's all Antifa does.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Uh, you view asking for evidence of a claim as a bad thing?.

Lol you've seen evidence. Read the link in post 70. That's you downplaying an incident where Antifa beat up two innocent marines who just happened to be in their vicinity....because it had happened way in the past....year.

Every time you jump to Antifa's defense and pretend they're not regularly engaging in political violence.....you've already seen evidence proving you wrong.

I'm not going to pretend like evidence is going to change your position....even if you want to pretend it will.

I'm just curious why you support political violence?

 

[KCfromNC]

Defending Antifa is defending political violence.

Good thing no one is doing that here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Lol you've seen evidence. Read the link in post 70.

Was that the one where you changed the subject after I explained your misunderstanding? Or was that the other one you tried to use as a distraction after I explained your earlier misunderstanding? It is hard keeping track of all of the baseless accusations that never seem to be backed up with anything.

Every time you jump to Antifa's defense

I can't help but imagine that continuing to post this accusation without evidence is just going to cast doubt on the veracity of your other posts.

 

[A2SG]

Wonderful...you can see the screenshot.

So if I link the official BLM websites, and more specifically, the page where they list their "accomplishments"....and you see that exact same story exactly as it appears in the screenshot....

Then you'll admit that BLM supports violence and you've been wrong this entire time?

As I said before, until you can provide a specific example of Black Lives Matter itself, the organization, unequivocally promoting or supporting violent acts, you have not made your case.

Because in their own words, they unequivocally say they don't.

-- A2SG, why shouldn't I hold both you and BLM to the same standard......

 

[tall73]

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.....

It seems to indicate that local chapters assisted with fundraising and legal support on her behalf. They also indicate organizers from around the world sent support.

Why do you think they published reports of support if they were officially against support?

It is good they eventually reversed course and distanced themselves.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I'm guessing by "appropriate" you mean that it's directed at the correct people for maximum effect

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.

In a democracy I'd have to argue that there's no justification for political violence. There are exceptions of course....such as a sham democracy like Putin's Russia or a 1 party democracy. I'd even say that those forced out of legitimate participation such as slaves or those living as second class citizens like the women of many middle eastern nations can legitimize political violence.

Under a democracy though...political violence in of itself is an argument against democracy. If political violence and intimidation are legitimated....then tyrants who use violence and terror are legitimate.

It's not that I don't understand that democracy can be frustrating. Using legitimate means is a slow process. Look at how long homosexuals had to push for the right to marry. People feel like it's too long to work steadily towards a goal for 20 years.

That's the nature of democracy though....your personal causes aren't necessarily everyone's top priority.

As for the second question (which causes are legitimate)....that's irrelevant once political violence is legitimated for any cause. It literally becomes an expression of what rights people are willing to trample in order to have their own way. For example, if you're willing to deny someone their freedom of speech because they're saying something you don't like....then having your way is more important than freedom of speech.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems to indicate that local chapters assisted with fundraising and legal support on her behalf. They also indicate organizers from around the world sent support.

Why do you think they published reports of support if they were officially against support?

It is good they eventually reversed course and distanced themselves.


View attachment 293468

Did they reverse course? The article claims that the letter she received was a fake and she never lost BLM support.

The organization obviously can't just come out and endorse violence....they'd be sued for the massive damage they've wrought.
.
The mask does occasionally slip though and BLM organizers end up expressing support for violence.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm guessing by "appropriate" you mean that it's directed at the correct people for maximum effect

It's true that that would be the way to maximize the efficacy, but that's not what I was referring to. IMO, if it's the politicians who are causing problems, then it's the politicians who ought to be the targets of riots (assuming we accept the legitimacy of rioting).

In a democracy I'd have to argue that there's no justification for political violence. There are exceptions of course....such as a sham democracy like Putin's Russia or a 1 party democracy. I'd even say that those forced out of legitimate participation such as slaves or those living as second class citizens like the women of many middle eastern nations can legitimize political violence.

That's essentially where I come down, too.

 

[tall73]

Did they reverse course? The article claims that the letter she received was a fake and she never lost BLM support.

The organization obviously can't just come out and endorse violence....they'd be sued for the massive damage they've wrought.
.
The mask does occasionally slip though and BLM organizers end up expressing support for violence.

The portion which I cropped certainly expresses support. Was that written after the distancing or before?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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?

Actions speak louder than words....

Black Lives Matter holds rally in Chicago to support those arrested after looting, unrest

Black Lives Matter co-founder tweets about killing "men and white folks" - CityNews Toronto

Detroit suing Black Lives Matter activists for ‘civil conspiracy’: report

BLM leader: we'll "burn" the system down if U.S. won't give us what we want

You'd have a point if BLM condemned the violence at their protests.....then stopped committing violence. That's not the case though.

I didn't see the violence listed as an "accomplishment" anywhere,

I know....that's why I want you to say you'll admit you're wrong when I provide the link to their webpage proving it.

I don't want to keep wasting time giving you evidence if you're just going to deny it.

and let me point out, again, that BLM cut ties with this person and asked that she not go to BLM events.

Prove it. Give an official statement from BLM saying they cut ties with this convicted rioter/attempted lyncher.

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

Again....I'll give you the evidence if you're going to acknowledge it and not ignore it or deny it.

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

They list it as an achievement on their webpage.

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.....

Ok....you're joking right? You know they can't openly state they support violence or they would be sued into oblivion for all the violence BLM protesters do.

I can't take you seriously if you're only willing to consider someone's guilt if they're giving a full confession.

Do you hold everyone to this ridiculous standard?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The portion which I cropped certainly expresses support. Was that written after the distancing or before?

Are you asking me to find out when they most recently updated their website?

If I remember correctly, it was in their list of accomplishments from the group's founding through 2020.

This attempt to defend BLM has gotten a bit absurd in your opinion, hasn't it?

Imagine we found a lot of stolen property at some thief's house.....and when we confronted him, he claimed to be against theft and that he fully respected other people's property.

We remove the stolen goods....let the thief go....and leave his house. When we come back the next night, we find out his house is full of stolen goods again. He repeats the same mantra about opposing theft and respecting property and we repeat the same actions over again....

How many times do you have to catch him doing the crime he claims to be against before you decide he's lying and he's guilty of theft? Apparently one poster on this thread won't ever believe he's guilty unless he signs a full confession, in blood, with at least 3 official witnesses.

We're way past the point where it's reasonable to say BLM actively engages in political violence. That's the main thing they do.

Last I checked, they had a billion dollars in donations. They don't even have to defund the police to change a lot of black people's lives. They could choose a city and use those funds to improve healthcare, job opportunities, schooling, affordable housing.....you name it.

I checked the website though and all I see are plans for more protests. Protests which are almost certainly going to include violence at some point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's true that that would be the way to maximize the efficacy, but that's not what I was referring to. IMO, if it's the politicians who are causing problems, then it's the politicians who ought to be the targets of riots (assuming we accept the legitimacy of rioting).

Fair point. I used to think something similar about the crowds protesting the AG over the results of the Taylor case.

I remember thinking that if they're so certain of those cops' guilt....they should have gone to their houses, dragged them out into the street, and lynched them. Instead, they surrounded the AG and tried to intimidate him into the outcome they wanted.

Well that's more like a kangaroo court than a lynching....but it's still an injustice. They'd still be denying someone due process It's more like the mafia buying a judge....but it's ultimately no less unethical.

That's not to say that people can't protest an AG either....of course they can. They can do it peacefully, away from his house, after he's done his duties as a public servant.

I don't think anyone would have been that upset had the Capitol protest stayed peaceful and occurred after the electoral votes had been certified double platinum or whatever.

We spent 2020 more or less looking the other way at hundreds of little violations against our rights and processes.....mainly because a lot of people were lashing out at those systems and processes (and mainly because the media tells them they're justified).

I don't think it's too late to demand protesters be held accountable for violence. We can do it, as long as it's bipartisan and consistent.

I'm genuinely concerned for where this leads if we don't.

That's essentially where I come down, too.

I'm honestly surprised at the number of posters making a "it's justified when my group does it" type argument.

 

[MIDutch]

From the sounds of it, if it were up to some of the posters here, we should have reined in all those antifa guys back in the 1940's for being too violent.

And on the flip side of the coin, the proud boys of that time were merely being peaceful patriots.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm honestly surprised at the number of posters making a "it's justified when my group does it" type argument.

lol i’m not, sadly

 

[stevil]

I'm sorry....but the group committing these acts was getting a vast amount of support from the public.

Noone was supporting rioters and looters.

 

[A2SG]

Actions speak louder than words....

Black Lives Matter holds rally in Chicago to support those arrested after looting, unrest

Black Lives Matter co-founder tweets about killing "men and white folks" - CityNews Toronto

Detroit suing Black Lives Matter activists for ‘civil conspiracy’: report

BLM leader: we'll "burn" the system down if U.S. won't give us what we want

You'd have a point if BLM condemned the violence at their protests.....then stopped committing violence. That's not the case though.

Still not making your case here. I see several examples of individuals performing violent acts, but none of the organization, itself, specifically and unequivocally promoting violence.

But feel free to keep trying.

I know....that's why I want you to say you'll admit you're wrong when I provide the link to their webpage proving it.

I don't want to keep wasting time giving you evidence if you're just going to deny it.

If I see an official statement from Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. that specifically says they promote violence, then I'll accept your claim that they promote violence. Otherwise, all you've got is your own opinion based on your own assumptions.

Prove it. Give an official statement from BLM saying they cut ties with this convicted rioter/attempted lyncher.

I can only go by the article you posted, where she said she was asked to not attend BLM events or speak on their behalf. If you have any evidence that contradicts this, feel free to present it.

I'm not part of BLM, I can't speak for them, nor is it my responsibility to defend them. I leave it to them to speak for themselves.

Again....I'll give you the evidence if you're going to acknowledge it and not ignore it or deny it.

They list it as an achievement on their webpage.

It's your claim. Offer whatever you think will support it. I can only make my own determination after I've seen it. I try not to pre-judge such things.

Ok....you're joking right? You know they can't openly state they support violence or they would be sued into oblivion for all the violence BLM protesters do.

Yeah, you're probably right. So, when you claim they do, in fact, support violence you base that conclusion on...what, exactly?

Your own opinion, based on assumptions about their motives.

And nothing more.

I can't take you seriously if you're only willing to consider someone's guilt if they're giving a full confession.

Do you hold everyone to this ridiculous standard?

It's not for me to assign guilt on anyone. I'm not the one claiming they say one thing, but really mean the exact opposite.

Thing is, if you want that claim to be believed, you need to back it up with something more concrete than your own opinion based on assumptions you've made about things you have no direct knowledge of (eg BLM's actual motives).

Which is all I've been saying all along.

-- A2SG, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion...but everyone else is similarly entitled to entirely disregard your opinion and give it absolutely no credence whatsoever......

 

[Ana the Ist]

Good thing no one is doing that here.

The justification, defense, and normalization of political violence is central to the thread topic. I should know....I wrote the OP.

You posted a claim that others were normalizing political violence.

It's fair to question why you defend political violence. It's not as if I'm pulling a baseless question out of nowhere....I've provided links proving you do.

I suppose it's a little curious that you're always defending Antifa....not some other groups that commit political violence. Are you a member of your local Antifa chapter? Perhaps you have friends in Antifa?

What's the story?