You're doing God's work, junker.
https://twitter.com/BLMChi/status/817064657513017344https://www.facebook.com/blacklivesmatterchi/posts/1847410538881888QuoteWhat happened to the young man who was held captive and tortured is terrible and we condemn the violence that was perpetrated against him. We've stated time and time again, that we're against all types of harm and violence perpetrated and we've never condoned it.
What happened to the young man who was held captive and tortured is terrible and we condemn the violence that was perpetrated against him. We've stated time and time again, that we're against all types of harm and violence perpetrated and we've never condoned it.
There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.
either you and i have vastly different understandings of the meaning of "strong correlation," or you are merely ignoring that the overwhelming majority of blm supporters never use violence to achieve their political ends.
It's easy enough to yell "Black Lives Matter!" while curb stomping a white dude. Doesn't mean they are even part of the organization.
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
I'm interested in comparing ratios between groups. I would consider a group where 20% of those involved happen to be violent racists to be more violent and racist than a group where 3% of those involved exhibit the same traits. While these numbers are not real stats
A response of "but you're ignoring the majority!" is going to work on me just as well as pointing out that the majority of feminists aren't insane: i'm only interested in cherry-picking the most terrible behavior of the most terrible members of a group and then assigning blame to the rest of the group. but only when it fits my preconceived political narratives.
With some luck, we won't have to deal with BLM for much longer.
but that denunciation of violence doesn't meet my exacting standards!
or are we just going on how it feels or appears?
i wanna try one: there appears to be a strong correlation between trump support and nazism. oh shit that was easy. and fun!
btw that's not a particularly useful comparison. see my previous example: someone who is resentful about feeling disenfranchised is both more likely to do violence to the object of his resentment, and more likely to join a group that advocates his enfranchisement.
correlations do not prove causation.
[nice meme-quoting] i'm only interested in cherry-picking the most terrible behavior of the most terrible members of a group and then assigning blame to the rest of the group. but only when it fits my preconceived political narratives.
yeah fuck the enfranchisement of minority communities, fuck people who believe in those goals, and fuck the people who work nonviolently to achieve those ends.
[nice meme-quoting] but that denunciation of violence doesn't meet my exacting standards!
Or show us that the likes of Shaun King...these... black guys...
> Shaun King> black guyslol sexwarrior u crazy
Quote from: garygreen on January 06, 2017, 05:22:23 PMor are we just going on how it feels or appears?I made no pretence of having any data: I said there seems to be a correlation. I'm basing it off of the disproportionate amount of crimes BLM supporters were convicted of. You and I both know about this, having discussed it before.Quote from: garygreen on January 06, 2017, 05:22:23 PMi wanna try one: there appears to be a strong correlation between trump support and nazism. oh shit that was easy. and fun!And, most importantly, correct. Quote from: garygreen on January 06, 2017, 05:22:23 PMbtw that's not a particularly useful comparison. see my previous example: someone who is resentful about feeling disenfranchised is both more likely to do violence to the object of his resentment, and more likely to join a group that advocates his enfranchisement.Hey, looks like I indirectly managed to get you to understand Trump supporters. Huzzah!
Quote from: garygreen on January 06, 2017, 05:22:23 PMyeah fuck the enfranchisement of minority communities, fuck people who believe in those goals, and fuck the people who work nonviolently to achieve those ends.Okay, here's your chance. Show us this "work". Show us BLM doing things other than burning their own towns, wrecking police cars, shooting cops (thanks, Mike Brown, nice movement you got started there). Tell you what, show us BLM doing anything useful, and I'll change my positionfrom "criminalise BLM plz" to "let the good BLM guys create a new movement first, then criminalise the rest of BLM".Or show us that the likes of Shaun King, Alicia Garza, or DeRay Mckesson are in any way disenfranchised. Where, exactly, are these productive, constructive, disenfranchised black guys who just wish we'd all get along and treat them a little better?
Having skimmed through other posts on the same page, the message sounds a bit like this:Violence is bad. No, seriously, guys, it's bad. But you gotta think about those poor perpetrators. They didn't really do it, it was the white man that did it. And now they're gonna get "justice" for it... pah! This ain't no justice! We think people who commit these sort of vile crimes should get away with restorative justice -- but only if they're black. Now, look at these racist Trump tweets!!! #BanCopsNowIf you want to condemn violence, you condemn violence. You don't go "yeaaah, it's bad, but look at all these apologist arguments we can make! :D"
not even really sure what point you're trying to make here. i don't think that the people who support trump and his ideology through nonviolent political activism are in any way responsible for the actions of violent nazis who also vote for trump.
they don't owe anyone an apology, and we don't need to solicit a denunciation of violence from kellyanne conway every single time a trump supporter beats up an immigrant while screaming MAGA.
even if every violent white nationalist in america voted for trump, it's wholly inappropriate to describe trump, the gop, or conservatism in general, as a violent ideology, or as a nazi ideology, or as racist, or whatever other awful pejorative we want to throw out there. that's nonsense.
they're at political rallys not hurting anyone.
they're at voting booths. they're in society being peaceful and productive.
"but what about this person who didn't do those things???" i dunno what to tell you. other people also exist.
you've already given yourself away: "With some luck, we won't have to deal with BLM for much longer." for you this isn't really about opposition to violence. your ideal end result isn't that people practice their beliefs nonviolently; it's the extinction of an idea you don't like. you don't want to have to deal with the idea existing and being promulgated.
you don't have to look any further than your fucked up belief that supporting blm's politics should be a crime.
i see. so the comments on the facebook page for the blm message condemning violence didn't meet your exacting standards, and of course blm is responsible for all the things that get written on its page. lol glad we cleared that up.i see. so the comments on the facebook pageso the commentscomments
where do you want to move the goalposts to next?
Well, I'm glad you think that (genuinely, no snark intended), but unfortunately the mainstream disagrees, and the double standard is a problem. When it's Trump supporters, it's Trump's fault - duh, that's a no-brainer, after all he incited all this violence. But when it's BLM, oh, oh no, goodness no, we can't link them like that, there's no causal link, only a weak correlation, and uh, can you even show a correlation? t-that's what I thought!If you remain internally consistent in that worldview, that's fine for the purpose of conversation (although I must have missed you getting upset when other groups were receiving similar treatment - how suspicious!). Unfortunately, we already have a precedent of "denounce your wrongdoing supporters or accept responsibility by proxy". It happens with Trump, it happens with SJWs, it happens with GamerGate, so letting it not happen with BLM is equivalent to giving BLM special treatment. And I see no reason why they should be getting it.
wow nice movement, can I sign up without putting blackface on?
Partially correct - in case of BLM, the ceasing of violence and the end of the spread of their message are one and the same, so the distinction becomes a bit blurred. BLM is rooted in lies, personal greed of their leaders, and violence of their misguided followers. If they were to present their arguments in a civilised manner, they would be a curiosity of little significance, kind of like hippies. Like "Haha wow, look at those people, they want to personally receive reparations for slavery. Oh well, they're not hurting anyone". They're only notable because they keep torching shit up and assaulting people, and since that's their only contribution to date, they should be criminalised.People are welcome to be wrong, but once you start hurting others because of it, the rule of law should step in.And yeah, I've given myself away soooo hard. I've been arguing against BLM's case since Mike Brown's shooting, much to your displeasure. I get it, though, you couldn't have possibly guessed that I might dislike BLM until this precise moment, my grand reveal.
What? Where did you get the word "comments" in what I said? I said "posts". You know, the things that the page has... posted. And yes, I would assume BLM Chicago is responsible for the things posted on BLM Chicago's Facebook page by BLM Chicago.
i took the phrase "other posts on the same page" to mean the other posts on the page i linked in which blm denounces the violence. my mistake. i don't have a facebook account, so it wasn't obvious to me that you meant the other things blm posted on their facebook account.
poor reasoning isn't better simply because other people also use the same poor reasoning. those people are also wrong and using poor reasoning to justify their arguments. the solution is elevating one's reasoning, not sinking to their level.
this isn't a dilemma for me. i think violence is always wrong, and i attribute the cause of violence exclusively to the people who choose to use it and advocate its use. all use of violence should be prosecuted and criticized, and one can criticize the means without constructing irrational narratives about the ends.
do you genuinely believe that blm causes violence, or is this just some sort of misplaced rhetorical retribution?
i don't understand why you only count as blm supporters the folks who do violence, but not the blm supporters who use exclusively nonviolent means, like voting. that those people use entirely pedestrian means to achieve the same ends is precisely my point.
i support blm's politics: i agree with the notion that black folks in america are not treated with the same respect as, and do not have true political parity with, their white counterparts;
i've been to a few rallys (none of which involved any violence, and my city was not burned in any way);
i have cast ballots in local elections supporting candidates who have done the same. what exactly are me and the nonviolent activists doing that is wrong?
in what way are we complicit in the violent acts of people in chicago, where i don't live?
criminalizing a political philosophy (not sure how else to take "criminalize blm plz")
punishing people for the violent acts they commit is already what the law does.
you're talking about using force and violence to stop people from peaceably advocating something you don't like.
Quote from: garygreen on January 09, 2017, 04:39:37 PMi took the phrase "other posts on the same page" to mean the other posts on the page i linked in which blm denounces the violence. my mistake. i don't have a facebook account, so it wasn't obvious to me that you meant the other things blm posted on their facebook account.Right, so instead of realising that you're not familiar with the nomenclature on Facebook and brushing up on it, you assumed the absolute worst out of me. I think that tells us a lot about who here is filled with vitriol and uninterested in anything other than shutting up the opposition. (hint: it's you)
This, unfortunately, is why it's only theory. Your application of this principle is very selective. I try to be more consistent. If the social norm is to treat these types of correlations as important, then ignoring it in just one case would be a bad idea. If you'd like to advocate for an across-the-board change, start with yourself.
i'm not even sure how it was unreasonable to interpret what you were saying as "look at all these comments by blm supporters whining about identity politics instead of denouncing the violence." i mean that kinda fits right with what you're saying about blm supporters, doesn't it? i get that that's not what you meant, but my misinterpretation hardly required malice.
lol or whatever keep taking it all super personally.
for one thing, how am i applying my principle of nonviolence selectively?
i equally consistently don't think that the politics of a person who does violence has much, if anything, at all to do with the decision to use violence of achieve one's political beliefs.
why not be better than the people you're criticizing?
i'm happy to take you at your word that you don't mean that, but you'll have to better explain what you mean. what is the specific act that should be illegal?
also it's not illegal to be a black panther, to my knowledge.
and, no, i don't think it should be a crime to be a fascist, or a member of a fascist organization, or a white nationalist organization, or the kkk, or whatever else. obviously i think that a fascist plot to violently overthrow the government and install a nazi dictator should be illegal; but, honestly, no matter how antagonistic the political philosophy, i do not think it should be criminalized. white nationalist political philosophies are perfectly compatible with nonviolence.
No, it doesn't fit at all. You're welcome to think I'm unreasonable, but at least try to assume that my arguments are (more or less) internally consistent. But yeah, it's mostly super telling about your intentions throughout this conversation.
Hmm, perhaps you've just been very silent about it when it wasn't convenient...
As a moderate conservative, I'm opposed to the idea of punishing conservatives for <x> while letting liberals get away with <x> because we're better than them - that would directly work against my interests.
To me, it's perfectly possible to be a white supremacist without being a member of a fascist paramilitary group, and so I would advocate for protecting the right of white nationalists to meet and talk while suggesting that the paramilitary organisation should be banned. I would also extend this to inciting violence. Saying "We want reparations for slavery" is stupid, but fine. Getting a crowd to walk through town shouting "PIGS IN BLANKETS, FRY THEM LIKE BACON" and demolishing everything in their way is both stupid and not fine.
lol "my intentions throughout this conversation." yeah you're not taking this personally at all.
that was criticism of a specific action, though, not the movement itself, if i recall correctly.
but what actually happened is that i misunderstood what you said. and then agreed that i misunderstood you.
for one thing, this website hardly represents the totality of my social life.
for another, i'm not aware of which posts or threads on this site are arguing that trump's political philosophy, and that of his supporters, is inherently violent. i'm going off memory, but the closest i can think of is the criticism of trump saying that he would pay the legal fees of anyone who fights a protestor or whatever. [...] can you give me an example of my inconsistency?
lol so you literally do see this as rhetorical retribution.
the quality of the reasoning makes no difference to you so long as your side gets a win against the bad-guys.
that dumb liberals use dumb reasoning to justify their dumb argument doesn't make it less dumb when you do it. you're bringing society down by sinking to their level. stop it. join us in the land of 'judging individual actions and the individuals who do those actions and not requiring the additional step of making facile generalizations about them based on superficial connections to other individuals.' you can still totally make fun of liberals from that perspective, too.
i genuinely don't understand what you're saying should be illegal. breaking things that aren't yours and hurting people are both already crimes. protesting without hurting people and breaking things is not a crime. which thing that is not currently a crime do you think should be made a crime?
my whole point is that blm isn't like the panthers, the ira, or the silver fascist people. those organizations explicitly advocated violence. one of them literally calls itself an army. those are not comparable to a movement that does not condone or advocate violence.
bait and switch
the law and various other lawyerings.