The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: xasop on January 05, 2017, 12:53:45 AM
-
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/crime/227116738-story
Chicago police were made aware of this video Tuesday afternoon. A young African American woman streamed the video live on Facebook showing at least four people holding a young white man hostage.
The victim is repeatedly kicked and hit, his scalp is cut, all while he is tied up with his mouth taped shut. The suspects on the video can be heard yelling, "F*** Donald Trump! F*** white people!"
As if that weren't bad enough, the man is also described as a "special-needs person" in CBS's coverage (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/01/04/four-people-in-custody-after-alleged-kidnapping-torture-is-live-streamed/).
I don't know what's more sickening, the fact that this happened or the fact that it's being ignored (so far) by non-local mainstream news outlets after they've been publishing so much fake news about hate crimes instigated by Trump supporters.
If these are the kinds of people supporting Clinton, it looks like America dodged a bullet.
-
https://www.dangerandplay.com/2017/01/04/chicago-blacklivesmatter-supporters-kidnap-torture-trump-supporter-on-facebook-live-video/
Apparently these criminals are Black Lives Matter supporters, and they also forced the victim to drink toilet water. Just when I thought I'd heard enough.
-
Black Lives Matter, the politically acceptable version of the Ku Klux Klan.
-
"person x did action y, therefore characteristic z must be causally related."
excellent reasoning 10/10 would infer again
-
"person x did action y, therefore characteristic z must be causally related."
excellent reasoning 10/10 would infer again
What are you referring to, specifically? Given how much they were yelling "fuck Trump" and "fuck white people", it seems very likely to be politically and racially motivated.
-
What are you referring to, specifically? Given how much they were yelling "fuck Trump" and "fuck white people", it seems very likely to be politically and racially motivated.
whether or not their actions were politically or racially motivated doesn't indicate a causal relationship between their actions and their politics/race.
example: i feel politically disenfranchised, and i'm really angry about it. my anger and resentment cause me to want to join a group that advocates my political enfranchisement. my anger and resentment also cause me to commit a hate crime against object of my resentment. joining a group that advocates my political enfranchisement didn't cause me to commit a hate crime against the object of my resentment. they both had the same underlying cause: i'm angry and resentful.
it's not any different for hate crimes perpetrated by members of the political right. that a trump supporter harms an immigrant and yells #MAGA while doing it doesn't indicate that the act and the belief are causally related.
-
that a trump supporter harms an immigrant and yells #MAGA while doing it doesn't indicate that the act and the belief are causally related.
On a technicality, sure. However, there is ample social (and legal, in case of the right wing) precedent for accepting that causal relation is extremely likely in this case. If we took your approach, the only way for someone to be convicted of a hate crime would be if they outright shouted "I am assaulting you because of your characteristic x, of which I greatly disapprove and thus I chose to discriminate against you"
-
that a trump supporter harms an immigrant and yells #MAGA while doing it doesn't indicate that the act and the belief are causally related.
On a technicality, sure. However, there is ample social (and legal, in case of the right wing) precedent for accepting that causal relation is extremely likely in this case. If we took your approach, the only way for someone to be convicted of a hate crime would be if they outright shouted "I am assaulting you because of your characteristic x, of which I greatly disapprove and thus I chose to discriminate against you"
although i'm not especially in love with hate crime legislation, i completely agree that these crimes merit zealous prosecution; and, if they meet the legal requirements for hate crimes, then i'd agree with that charge, too.
i take the op to be a continuation of the narrative that movements like BLM are in some way ideologically connected to the use of violence. that's the only point i take any issue with.
-
Any credible argument I have seen comparing BLM to KKK has been making a de facto comparison. Whatever their ideologies, the expression has been uncomfortably similar.
-
Any credible argument I have seen comparing BLM to KKK has been making a de facto comparison. Whatever their ideologies, the expression has been uncomfortably similar.
Not really, the KKK never had a habit of destroying their own cities
-
evidently they don't teach much reconstruction era american history in canada or finland.
-
It's cool guys the police have said it wasn't because he was white, but because he was disabled. And we all know the quality and integrity of the CPD, so nothing to see here...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-police-race-motive-video-attack-44570046
-
It's cool guys the police have said it wasn't because he was white, but because he was disabled. And we all know the quality and integrity of the CPD, so nothing to see here...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-police-race-motive-video-attack-44570046 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-police-race-motive-video-attack-44570046)
I suspect it's mostly because the hate laws aren't written to include hate against white and as such, they couldn't legally say it was a hate crime against a white man. But that's just my speculation.
Also, those people are horrible and should be brought down by the full force of the law.
-
i take the op to be a continuation of the narrative that movements like BLM are in some way ideologically connected to the use of violence. that's the only point i take any issue with.
I wouldn't say they're ideologically connected, but there appears to be a strong correlation between being a black BLM supporter and beating the shit out of white people while chanting racist slurs. It's just another version of the #NotAllMen debate, except this time the men are explicitly black, which seemingly makes the mainstream narrative lean in the opposite direction.
-
evidently they don't teach much reconstruction era american history in canada or finland.
Are you suggesting my education and what I'm saying are causally related??
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5W3-axl0PQ
Good, if somewhat ranty, overview of the media's hypocrisy.
-
there appears to be a strong correlation between being a black BLM supporter and beating the shit out of white people while chanting racist slurs.
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.
Are you suggesting my education and what I'm saying are causally related??
if you're saying that the blm even remotely resembles the kkk, then yeah, i can't imagine you're very well-educated on reconstruction or the history of the kkk.
the kkk is more akin to al-qaeda. they were organizationally and operationally devoted to using terror and violence to drive black folks out of the south and reclaim southern politics for white people. explicitly. they assassinated black political leaders. they publicly and savagely butchered literally thousands of black southern freedmen. in pubic. with the consent of law enforcement. they burned people alive, lynched them to death, hanged them in public squares, etc. there are hundreds of accounts of southern freedmen being hanged or lynched for offenses as trivial as failing to tip his cap to a white man. that shit happened. to compare that to blm is completely facile.
-
i take the op to be a continuation of the narrative that movements like BLM are in some way ideologically connected to the use of violence. that's the only point i take any issue with.
I wouldn't say they're ideologically connected, but there appears to be a strong correlation between being a black BLM supporter and beating the shit out of white people while chanting racist slurs. It's just another version of the #NotAllMen debate, except this time the men are explicitly black, which seemingly makes the mainstream narrative lean in the opposite direction.
What are the requirements for joining BLM? Is there any filter to prevent undesirables?
So... apparently there is! You have to sign up and become a member.
Are these people members?
Were they kicked out?
Does BLM condone their actions?
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.
-
I haven't seen a single Black Lives Matter activist condemn what happened. In fact, only one black person (https://twitter.com/_ThatGuyT/status/816836067152293888) I follow on Twitter has spoken about it at all, despite my feed filling up with stupid whinging every time a white cop shoots a black criminal.
The political left's silence on this speaks volumes.
-
https://twitter.com/BLMChi/status/817064657513017344
https://www.facebook.com/blacklivesmatterchi/posts/1847410538881888
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.
-
Looks like the hate crime charges came down. Good.
-
https://twitter.com/BLMChi/status/817064657513017344
https://www.facebook.com/blacklivesmatterchi/posts/1847410538881888
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.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that account. I've followed them on Twitter now.
-
As a black guy myself I call this act an obvious act of racism. When you blurt out "F white people" then it's obviously a racist act.
-
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.
Yup, different definitions. I'm not ignoring the majority, I simply think it's completely irrelevant in this context.
You're concerned about the majority vs. minority, 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, and are merely here to illustrate the point, my original suggestion meant to imply a comparison along these lines.
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. Minorities have an impact, often a greater one than the majority.
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.
Yes, that's why I said "supporters". And yes, BLM condemned it. But it's *still* part of a bigger picture of BLM supporters doing absolutely ridiculous things and wondering why people think they might be a little bit ridiculous.
https://twitter.com/BLMChi/status/817064657513017344
The responses to that Tweet are top notch. With some luck, we won't have to deal with BLM for much longer.
https://www.facebook.com/blacklivesmatterchi/posts/1847410538881888
Ah, yes, a couple of sentences about how BLM dindu nuffin followed by a short essay about how the perpetrators are really the victims here. That will help convince people that they don't sympathise with violent racist criminals!
-
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
ok well do you have any data? 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. totally made up correlations supported by no data at all really don't prove causation.
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.
word, i got you.
With some luck, we won't have to deal with BLM for much longer.
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.
but that denunciation of violence doesn't meet my exacting standards!
jesus christ. ok.
-
or 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.
i 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.
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.
Hey, looks like I indirectly managed to get you to understand Trump supporters. Huzzah!
correlations do not prove causation.
Evidence vs. proof, etc.
[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.
You're resorting to "i am rubber you are glue!!!!" levels of debating. Take a deep breath and come back later.
But no, not only do I do it when it doesn't suit my political beliefs (I hope you didn't forget I'm not a Trump supporter - that would be awkward!!!!), I'm not doing it at all right now. The regressive-left camp, however, enjoys doing it oh (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thomas-mair-guilty-jo-cox-murder-terrorism-white-facist-fight-fascism-a7434751.html) so much (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/facebook-abuse-video-black-lives-matter-blm-kidnap-is-racist-a7511466.html). I'm glad fewer and fewer people are buying into it.
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.
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?
[nice meme-quoting] but that denunciation of violence doesn't meet my exacting standards!
Right, again, take a deep breath and think about this. 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!!! #BanCopsNow
If 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"
-
Or show us that the likes of Shaun King...these... black guys...
> Shaun King
> black guys
lol sexwarrior u crazy
-
> Shaun King
> black guys
lol sexwarrior u crazy
That was very much deliberate :^)
-
or 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.
i 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.
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.
Hey, looks like I indirectly managed to get you to understand Trump supporters. Huzzah!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!!! #BanCopsNow
If 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"
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.
where do you want to move the goalposts to next?
-
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.
...okay, maybe you still don't understand after all.
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.
Well, I'm glad you think that (genuinely, no snark intended), but unfortunately the mainstream disagrees (http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/trump-must-apologize-for-unleashing-hate-crimes/), 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!
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.
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.
they're at political rallys not hurting anyone.
Rarely, but sure.
they're at voting booths. they're in society being peaceful and productive.
wow nice movement, can I sign up without putting blackface on?
Oh, wait, I can just go and fucking vote and get a job without being a member of a proto-terrorist organisation. Whoop-de-doo.
"but what about this person who didn't do those things???" i dunno what to tell you. other people also exist.
You do know what to tell me, you just really don't want to say it, so instead you focus on "haha you said this thing you didn't say!!!!!" meme-discussions.
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.
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.
you don't have to look any further than your fucked up belief that supporting blm's politics should be a crime.
Nice argument you've got going there. Care to respond to something I actually said? Supporting BLM's "politics" (https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/) is stupid, but you're welcome to be stupid if you want to. I'll go further - your stupidity should not only be allowed, but should be subject to protection insofar that you shouldn't be discriminated against for being stupid. Being part of a violent hate group, however, should be as illegal as is the case with any other violent hate group. You shouldn't get brownie points for being brown.
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 page
so the comments
comments
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.
If they're not, perhaps they should clarify that on Twitter. Or are they not responsible for their tweets either? Hmm, perhaps they could try saying it on TV. No, wait, wait, are they responsible for the things they personally say, or is that still a stretch?
where do you want to move the goalposts to next?
I dunno, I'll probably pretend you said things you didn't say and then smugly respond to them. Maybe I'll tell you that you claimed everyone who voted Trump should be shot in the left testicle - what a fucked up claim that you totally made! You just gave yourself away!!!!!!!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNumDWB3rk
As usual, That Guy T is on point. It's interesting to hear the thoughts of a black guy who has felt the damaging influence of black culture in America and can also think critically about it.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUoOU3xvqU8
More fake news.
-
I've seen a lot of coverage and outcry (even from blacks!) about this incident.
I wonder why you aren't seeing it, Parsifal.
-
Well, I'm glad you think that (genuinely, no snark intended), but unfortunately the mainstream disagrees (http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/trump-must-apologize-for-unleashing-hate-crimes/), 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.
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?
wow nice movement, can I sign up without putting blackface on?
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?
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.
the vitriol here is astounding. yes, i was already aware that you dislike blm's politics. that's my point. your interest isn't really about the cessation of violence; it's about the cessation of a political philosophy you don't like, regardless of whether or not it's practiced in a "civil" manner.
criminalizing a political philosophy (not sure how else to take "criminalize blm plz") is, ironically, the very same thing you claim to be criticizing. you're talking about using force and violence to stop people from peaceably advocating something you don't like. punishing people for the violent acts they commit is already what the law does.
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.
i don't know what they say on their other pages or whatever, but i can certainly understand their frustration. if someone took the attitude toward me that if i don't publicly denounce dylan roof then i must condone his actions (even though i'm not his fucking guardian or in charge of him or responsible for him in any way), then i'd be pretty annoyed, too.
-
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.
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)
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.
A nice suggestion, at least in theory, I'll admit that much.
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.
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.
do you genuinely believe that blm causes violence, or is this just some sort of misplaced rhetorical retribution?
Of course I believe it. There is plentiful video evidence of people who have been blinded by BLM lies committing acts of violence in the name of said lies.
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 do count them. They're just much less relevant when discussing BLM's violence.
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;
Do you only support that single principle, or the entirety of BLM's proposals?
i've been to a few rallys (none of which involved any violence, and my city was not burned in any way);
Lucky you!
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?
Nothing at all. As I said, you're welcome to be stupid.
in what way are we complicit in the violent acts of people in chicago, where i don't live?
In no way at all. How is this unclear?
criminalizing a political philosophy (not sure how else to take "criminalize blm plz")
Hooly dooly! Now this is saucy stuff right here. To give you an idea how else it could be read: it could be interpreted in the same way as the calls to criminalise the Silver Legion of America, the Black Panthers, or the IRA. Of course, a vitriolic troll could suggest that criminalising these groups would also mean to criminalise political philosophies, but I'm sure you wouldn't stoop that low in your crusade ;)
punishing people for the violent acts they commit is already what the law does.
Precisely. I'm glad you've finally understood this.
you're talking about using force and violence to stop people from peaceably advocating something you don't like.
Literally not a thing I suggested.
-
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.
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)
actually what happened is that 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. i didn't think it was ambiguous. it was, as i said already, my mistake. forgive me for not consulting my facebook nomenclature textbook.
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.
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.
this makes no sense to me. for one thing, how am i applying my principle of nonviolence selectively? i think violence is wrong. it's wrong when a trump supporter does it. it's wrong with a blm supporter does it. it's wrong to be violent regardless of your political beliefs. what part of that is inconsistent? 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.
for another, who gives a shit whether or not poor reasoning is a social norm? are you listening to yourself? that a bunch of dumb liberals justify their dumb arguments with dumb reasoning doesn't make the reasoning better when you do it. why not be better than the people you're criticizing?
criminalization
since it's already a crime to do violence, then i don't understand how "criminalize blm plz" could imply anything other the criminalization of association between people with like-minded political beliefs. forget that that's unconstitutional on its face: i can't find anything on any blm website that promotes the use of violence. if you're not talking about criminalizing the means, then i you must be talking about criminalizing the ends. that's why i say you are talking about criminalizing a political philosophy. i genuinely don't understand how you could mean anything else.
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.
and, finally, as much as i am disgusted by white nationalist politics, i genuinely do not believe that being a white nationalist makes you violent or more likely to be violent. there are shitloads of folks with white nationalist politics that only ever try to achieve those ends with nonviolence, and they aren't responsible for violence committed by people who share their goals simply because they're shared. those folks chose different means, and that's on them.
-
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.
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.
lol or whatever keep taking it all super personally.
Meh, nothing personal about it. It's just amusing that so much of your outrage towards me is caused by you choosing to reshape my arguments beyond recognition.
for one thing, how am i applying my principle of nonviolence selectively?
I clarified what principle I meant in the sentence afterwards, and I never referred to the principle of non-violence in this thread. I'm referring to your proposal that we shouldn't attribute BLM supporters' actions to BLM.
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.
Hmm, perhaps you've just been very silent about it when it wasn't convenient...
why not be better than the people you're criticizing?
Because that would introduce an extreme political bias to the world (well, if enough people did it). 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. I try to be a good guy, but I haven't quite reached Jesus Christ's "turn the other cheek!" level of masochism.
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?
Organised and structured spread of misinformation catered to incite violence, be it racial or targetted at a profession, the exploitation of "underprivileged" individuals to advance personal political careers, and hate speech (n.b. that last one needs to be approached VERY carefully - easy to overreach, but ignoring it is also not a good idea).
also it's not illegal to be a black panther, to my knowledge.
Only because it imploded by itself. Naturally, as the similarities between BLM and BPP become more and more obvious, that question will have to be asked again.
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.
Okay, so you're equating organisations and philosophies much more strongly than I am. 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.
-
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.
lol "my intentions throughout this conversation." yeah you're not taking this personally at all.
you're just doing the thing where you assume that because something was really obvious to you, then it must have been really obvious to anyone, so anyone who doesn't see it that way must be a liar or nefariously out to get you or something. but what actually happened is that i misunderstood what you said. and then agreed that i misunderstood you.
Hmm, perhaps you've just been very silent about it when it wasn't convenient...
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. that was criticism of a specific action, though, not the movement itself, if i recall correctly.
can you give me an example of my inconsistency?
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.
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. fuck that.
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.
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.
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.
it's like drawing up a list of violence by buddhist terrorists and going "see! buddhism promotes violence! buddhism is a violent ideology!" to reuse a good word, that's the very definition of facile.
-
lol "my intentions throughout this conversation." yeah you're not taking this personally at all.
You explained it better than I could:
that was criticism of a specific action, though, not the movement itself, if i recall correctly.
I am criticising your actions, not your person/personality. Once you stop twisting my words beyond recognition, I'll stop pointing out that you keep doing it.
but what actually happened is that i misunderstood what you said. and then agreed that i misunderstood you.
What actually upsets me is that you've done the exact same thing I criticised BLM of - you conceded briefly, and then baited and switched to explain why you can understand why their posts are what they are.
for one thing, this website hardly represents the totality of my social life.
It's all I've got to work with.
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?
It doesn't have to be about Trump. Your views on systemic/institutionalised racism are a great example of taking a number of individual incidents and inferring a larger pattern from them.
lol so you literally do see this as rhetorical retribution.
No, and I already told you what I see it as, in the sentence just before the one you quoted. Which you conveniently omitted. To me, a consistent application of justice is absolutely essential. If you want to stop inferring group behaviour from a number of incidents, please demand that it affects everyone equally. When you only ask for this to be applied to BLM, you are requesting that they should be treated more lightly than everyone else. As part of "everyone else", I'm not okay with that. You, as a BLM supporter, obviously like the idea.
the quality of the reasoning makes no difference to you so long as your side gets a win against the bad-guys.
Not at all. At this point you made up an argument for yourself to fight, possibly to make yourself feel a bit better. But hey, you probably just "misunderstood" something obvious, so to clarify:
The quality of the reasoning is everything. Your reasoning is whack because you're asking that we apply one set of rules to people you disagree with, and another set of rules for BLM.
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.
You're missing the point. I don't disagree that your approach is fine in theory. But there is a social and legal consensus and precedent for how these things are approached. To suggest that we should ignore that precedent for BLM is a facile attempt at propping them up against the odds. And honestly, if I'm bringing society down anyway, I'd rather do it through hasty generalisations than by feeding a bunch of rioting racists.
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?
You seem to think that criminalising an organisation requires the creation of a new crime. While that is one possible use of the word "criminalisation", it is not the only one. To criminalise a fascist organisation means to recognise them as a criminal organisation.
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.
I dunno, being told that I should be "fried like bacon" sounds like a fairly explicit call for violence against me. The recordings of Ferguson riots depict both advocating for violence and actual acts of violence. For a group that doesn't condone violence, there sure is a lot of violence going on within their activities.
So, to clarify: I am not suggesting that BLM invented a new crime. I am suggesting that BLM commits crimes in an organised and structured manner, and that this should receive appropriate recognition.
-
bait and switch
dude, seriously, what are you talking about? you said a thing. i misunderstood it. you pointed that out. i agreed.
i also get why people who advocate nonviolence would be annoyed at being associated with people to do violence.
what's the master stroke here, exactly?
consistency args
i attribute systemic racial disparity to bad public policy, not political parties, affiliations, or activist groups. property taxes, shit like that. not the same thing.
you insist that i'm being inequitable in the application of my criticism, but you do not give me any specific examples of my failure. my position is that hasty generalizations are always poor reasoning. everyone should not do that. i am wholly uninterested in whether or not there's a "precedent" for poor reasoning.
fwiw you probably can find at least one instance of a user making a hasty g and i failed to call them out on it. i'm not a robot. tell you what, tho. you have my permission to, from now on, point out when someone of any political party is making a hasty g, and i will post something condemning it. for real.
the law and various other lawyerings.
so that's not quite how us law works regarding criminal organizations, to my amateur understanding. you can't be arrested for associations. that's first amendment shit. it's not illegal to be a member of the bloods or crips, for example, even though they are literally and explicitly criminal organizations. you cannot make it illegal to be a member of blm. that's why what you're saying is so confusing to me.
if some blm folks engage in a conspiracy to commit a crime (like a riot), then that is already illegal. and should be prosecuted.
your viewpoint on their criminal nature is informed solely by selection bias, though, so it ultimately doesn't matter. you can keep bringing up ferguson if you want. that happened, was awful, and is atypical.
-
you can't be arrested for associations.
I'm not at all suggesting anyone should be arrested. Or, well, I am, but they're mostly already getting arrested.
it's not illegal to be a member of the bloods or crips, for example, even though they are literally and explicitly criminal organizations. you cannot make it illegal to be a member of blm. that's why what you're saying is so confusing to me.
I'm not suggesting that it should be illegal to be a member of BLM. I'm suggesting that BLM should be declared "literally a criminal organisation". It's a negligible distinction legally, but an important one from a social standpoint.
your viewpoint on their criminal nature is informed solely by selection bias, though, so it ultimately doesn't matter. you can keep bringing up ferguson if you want. that happened, was awful, and is atypical.
I asked you to illuminate me with your own selections. Your best response was that some of them vote. I can't re-evaluate my viewpoints if I'm not being presented with new information, and searching by myself has so far only made me realise that I was giving them too much credit and that they're far worse than I originally suspected (you may have noticed my rhetoric becoming harsher throughout this conversation - that's why)
-
What does it even mean to be a member of BLM? Are they registering users? Do they have a hierarchy? Is anyone who claims to be a member of BLM a member? This whole talk about making BLM a criminal organization seems pretty silly when BLM seems hardly an organization anyway, but rather a hashtag "movement" that people user for their own reasons. It's as much an organization as #MAGA is.
-
What does it even mean to be a member of BLM? Are they registering users? Do they have a hierarchy? Is anyone who claims to be a member of BLM a member? This whole talk about making BLM a criminal organization seems pretty silly when BLM seems hardly an organization anyway, but rather a hashtag "movement" that people user for their own reasons. It's as much an organization as #MAGA is.
Each chapter determines how to register members but members are registered and there is a hierarchy though I don't think there's a national one, just local chapters.
-
What does it even mean to be a member of BLM? Are they registering users? Do they have a hierarchy? Is anyone who claims to be a member of BLM a member?
Trekky, please read the discussion before you respond to it. Gary already tried to bait me into using the word "member" and I didn't take it. It won't work if you try it for the second time.
But yes, you can become a member (http://blacklivesmatter.com/getinvolved/) (even in Chicago! (https://twitter.com/BLMChi/status/815236468927004673)). Why didn't you just Google it?
This whole talk about making BLM a criminal organization seems pretty silly when BLM seems hardly an organization anyway, but rather a hashtag "movement" that people user for their own reasons. It's as much an organization as #MAGA is.
Well, no, it's about as much of an organisation as the Trump campaign. They have a leadership structure, both nationwide (Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, Alicia Garza, Shaun King, DeRay Mckesson, Johnetta Elzie) and within their local chapters (http://blacklivesmatter.com/find-chapters/). They define themselves as a chapter-based national organization (http://blacklivesmatter.com/about/). We've also all seen that they organise events. For example, you may recall that time when the co-founder of the Seattle chapter of BLM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Johnson) (a lovely person and a full-time agitator (https://twitter.com/rissaoftheway), by the way) hijacked Bernie's rally (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWOuCfdJYMM).
But yeah, I guess it's just hashtags #yolo
-
Those chapters aren't really linked to a national hierarchy, though, despite you claiming that. Cullors, Tometi, and Garza are not part of any local chapters, and according to The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/where-is-black-lives-matter-headed):
Yet, although [Cullors, Tometi, and Garza] are among the most identifiable names associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, none of them officially belong to a chapter of the organization. Elzie, in fact, takes issue with people referring to Garza, Cullors, and Tometi as founders. As she sees it, Ferguson is the cradle of the movement, and no chapter of the organization exists there or anywhere in the greater St. Louis area. That contentious distinction between the organization and the movement is part of the debate about what Black Lives Matter is and where it will go next.
And Shaun King is not affiliated with the Black Lives Matter organization either. So of those six people you said were part of the nationwide structure, four of them are in no way affiliated with these local chapters. There is no organized hierarchy here, at least not one that can claim to be a national movement.
The fact that Bernie Sanders's rally was hijacked by BLM protestors is just further evidence that they are unorganized. No one told this Seattle chapter to do this. They just did it. Likewise, there is no BLM organization telling people to riot or commit violence.
I'm not sure how you're going to make this into some sort of criminal organization when the only semblance of organization is in local chapters with no oversight. They certainly aren't organizing acts of violence, even if they tend to attract violence to them. People are committing crimes. Whether or not they identify with a social justice warrior movement without structure shouldn't be a concern if the United States is to value the First Amendment.
-
Those chapters aren't really linked to a national hierarchy, though, despite you claiming that.
It's not me claiming it, it's BLM. If you're now advocating that we shouldn't take BLM's word on how BLM operates, then perhaps we've just found some common ground.
Cullors, Tometi, and Garza are not part of any local chapters
That's... a good thing. Your point?
Yet, although [Cullors, Tometi, and Garza] are among the most identifiable names associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, none of them officially belong to a chapter of the organization. Elzie, in fact, takes issue with people referring to Garza, Cullors, and Tometi as founders. As she sees it, Ferguson is the cradle of the movement, and no chapter of the organization exists there or anywhere in the greater St. Louis area. That contentious distinction between the organization and the movement is part of the debate about what Black Lives Matter is and where it will go next.
Right, so a person who isn't involved in BLM takes issue with the founders of BLM calling themselves that. Riveting, but irrelevant.
So of those six people you said were part of the nationwide structure, four of them are in no way affiliated with these local chapters.
I mean... yes, that's how these sort of structures work. Central governance shouldn't be part of local governance. Why you'd think that's a problem is beyond me.
And Shaun King is not affiliated with the Black Lives Matter organization either.
My bad, I forgot they booted him (http://www.complex.com/life/2016/01/shaun-king-black-lives-matter/). Not that it changes anything about your contention.
The fact that Bernie Sanders's rally was hijacked by BLM protestors is just further evidence that they are unorganized. No one told this Seattle chapter to do this. They just did it. Likewise, there is no BLM organization telling people to riot or commit violence.
The Seattle chapter leadership told the Seattle chapter to do this (and personally participated). Surely you, of all people, understand how decentralised organisations work? Not every action has to be signed off by The Man himself. Your argument makes about as much sense as to claim that the police are disorganised because they make arrests without running them by POTUS first.
I'm not sure how you're going to make this into some sort of criminal organization when the only semblance of organization is in local chapters with no oversight.
No oversight? Since when?
They certainly aren't organizing acts of violence
We know this to be false, with new examples constantly arising, but me saying it over and over won't convince you. I don't have much more to say on the matter.
People are committing crimes. Whether or not they identify with a social justice warrior movement without structure shouldn't be a concern if the United States is to value the First Amendment.
You keep talking about it as if I wanted to arrest people for identifying with BLM. I don't. I want for BLM to have the same status as other known criminal organisations. Step 2 would be to go after the agitators, and before you know it you might even have some people sharing BLM's grievances trying to advance their cause like civilised human beings.
-
I'm not suggesting that it should be illegal to be a member of BLM. I'm suggesting that BLM should be declared "literally a criminal organisation". It's a negligible distinction legally, but an important one from a social standpoint.
How would that help socially? It'd just end up triggering millions of BLM'ers all across the country, and be taken as proof that black lives don't matter to the government.
-
How would that help socially? It'd just end up triggering millions of BLM'ers all across the country, and be taken as proof that black lives don't matter to the government.
I think it's important to keep sending the message that we, as a society, are not okay with organisations that incite violence, regardless of the underlying political views. There will always be disagreements about the politics behind stuff, but I'm sure we can all agree that torching Ferguson in opposition to Mike Brown's shooting was not a smart thing to do.
-
I mean essentially what you are proposing wouldn't do anything. The US is not going to start arresting people for thoughtcrimes, because they're not a mafia or a mob or a gang. BML is not organized crime The closest thing you can point to that makes them a "criminal organization" is riots its members have been a part of but that BLM does not organize or endorse. I don't think you've given any compelling reason why the response to BLM should be anything more than arresting and punishing violent criminals that are a part of it.
-
I mean essentially what you are proposing wouldn't do anything.
As long as you're very selective about what you consider essential, yes.
The US is not going to start arresting people for thoughtcrimes
Correct.
BML is not organized crime
Incorrect.
The closest thing you can point to that makes them a "criminal organization" is riots its members have been a part of but that BLM does not organize or endorse.
Organise? Yes. Endorse? Not explicitly. They just keep asking for disproportionate amounts of compassion and outrageously light sentences for the perpetrators. But that's not endorsement, of course.
I don't think you've given any compelling reason why the response to BLM should be anything more than arresting and punishing violent criminals that are a part of it.
Yes, but you haven't read my posts, and I'm not sure what good me saying the same thing over and over would do.
-
I asked you to illuminate me with your own selections. Your best response was that some of them vote.
what more is required to be a peaceful activist? i think speech, voting, peaceful demonstration, and nonviolent civil disobedience are the only acceptable methods of political activism. that the overwhelming majority of blm activists choose to restrict themselves to these methods is the thing that you are failing to appropriately consider.
I can't re-evaluate my viewpoints if I'm not being presented with new information, and searching by myself has so far only made me realise that I was giving them too much credit and that they're far worse than I originally suspected (you may have noticed my rhetoric becoming harsher throughout this conversation - that's why)
i'm all ears. the examples you have posted thus far are not very compelling to me. ferguson was bad, but you certainly don't have to be a member of blm to live in ferguson. plus you make it sound like ferguson happens all the time. my memory is terrible, but i don't recall another ferguson happening since then.
the bernie interruption wasn't violent. that's civil disobedience. i disagree with it, but i don't think it's a good example of how blm is systemically violent or criminal.
i have no trouble spotting you that there are at least three people associated with blm who are shitty, stupid people with racist points of view. i dunno who those particular three you mentioned are, but i bet i could find three similarly distasteful individuals in literally any organization you care to name. this is sort of my whole point right from the start: merely listing a handful of examples of shitty things/people and then pointing to their superficial connections as evidence of anything is basically the definition of a hasty generalization.
i also don't get how "asking for disproportionate amounts of compassion and outrageously light sentences for the perpetrators" is an endorsement of violence. criminal defense attorneys, for example, are paid to do exactly that. that doesn't mean criminal defense attorneys endorse the crimes of their clients. that's nonsense. at the very least it's a far, far cry from the proto-terrorist violent criminal race-riot-factory you make them out to be.
-
what more is required to be a peaceful activist?
"Activism" has its etymological roots in the word "active". Actually doing something would be a good start. Consult this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism) for guidance.
Now, peaceful demonstrations are a good example of activism. "Uhhh some of them vote tho" is not.
that the overwhelming majority of blm activists choose to restrict themselves to these methods is the thing that you are failing to appropriately consider.
It's the thing that you are failing to back up in any way, shape, or form.
But, as usual, it's not about individual numbers, it's about impact. If I told you that right now, I have a movement where 1 million supporters exhibit <characteristic x> while 10,000 exhibit <characteristic y>, it may seem fair to argue that they're overwhelmingly <x>. However, if <y> has significant impact on society while <x> is a mundane everything activity that doesn't achieve anything, I'm going to be much more interested in <y>. The fact that people vote is not notable. The fact that so few black people voted in 2016 also suggests that your claims should be approached with scepticism. "Overwhelming majorities" very often mean absolutely nothing, and this is a good example.
I can't re-evaluate my viewpoints if I'm not being presented with new information [...]
i'm all ears.[...]
I can only assume that this is another one of your "misunderstandings", and not a deliberate attempt at misdirection. I asked you for information and your response is "I'm all ears". Like, what?
ferguson was bad, but you certainly don't have to be a member of blm to live in ferguson.
Yeah, those poor non-BLM Ferguson residents whose livelihoods were ruined by barbarians. I share your compassion towards them. I hope they can eventually recover.
But let's see, off the top of my head: Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Oakland [e: ooh, almost forgot Milwaukee]. That's only major acts of violence and looting, I'm deliberately leaving explicit verbal calls for violence out to make the list somewhat bearable.
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/09/GettyImages-483538240-640x427.jpg)
(http://2static1.fjcdn.com/comments/How+the+world+actually+sees+them+_0e27f3bd914dbe99489d3b44fa8363a6.jpg)
P E A C E F U L
the bernie interruption wasn't violent. that's civil disobedience. i disagree with it, but i don't think it's a good example of how blm is systemically violent or criminal.
Perhaps I didn't signpost this clearly enough, but I was bringing up the Bernie interruption as proof that BLM is organised, and that the local chapter leaders are, well, local chapter leaders (since that was apparently disputed).
i have no trouble spotting you that there are at least three people associated with blm who are shitty, stupid people with racist points of view. i dunno who those particular three you mentioned are, but i bet i could find three similarly distasteful individuals in literally any organization you care to name.
Are they in charge or are they random members? 'Cause, y'know, that's what makes or breaks this argument.
this is sort of my whole point right from the start: merely listing a handful of examples of shitty things/people and then pointing to their superficial connections as evidence of anything is basically the definition of a hasty generalization.
Yes, and as a hypothetical your point is OK. It's just completely divorced from reality.
i also don't get how "asking for disproportionate amounts of compassion and outrageously light sentences for the perpetrators" is an endorsement of violence.
Really? They are requesting that the violence of one group, and one group in particular, is to be taken less seriously than equivalent crimes perpetrated by other groups. Do you really not see how that's dangerous, or at the very least unfair?
criminal defense attorneys, for example, are paid to do exactly that. that doesn't mean criminal defense attorneys endorse the crimes of their clients. that's nonsense.
The only thing that's nonsense here is this analogy. Taking it to its logical conclusion leads to genius ideas like:
- A boxer's job is to punch people, therefore you can't tell me that I shouldn't punch elderly ladies in the supermarket - that would be nonsense!
- I don't get how you can say that 9/11 attackers did anything wrong. They merely flew a plane into a place. That's literally a pilot's job. What nonsense!
- Why are you saying I can't just lock people up in my cellar against the will? That's literally what the police do lol such nonsense!
Yes, some people have jobs that expect them to do things that many others wouldn't do, and shouldn't do. BLM advocating for unfairly good treatment of black thugs doesn't make them defence attorneys. It makes them ethically questionable at best, and openly racist at worst.
at the very least it's a far, far cry from the proto-terrorist violent criminal race-riot-factory you make them out to be.
Oh, please, they do it to themselves much better than I ever could. I dindu nuffin.
-
sorry, been busy. you're welcome to the last word, just wanted to clarify a few points
"Activism" has its etymological roots in the word "active". Actually doing something would be a good start. Consult this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism) for guidance.
Now, peaceful demonstrations are a good example of activism. "Uhhh some of them vote tho" is not.
peaceably demonstrating is doing something.
voting is also doing something. not voting is not doing something. plenty of folks choose not to exercise their right to vote. recall that my argument here is simply that the overwhelming majority of blm members choose nonviolent means to achieve their political objectives. "but voting is too pedestrian" doesn't respond to what i'm saying. it's nonviolent, and it's an action to support a political objective. criteria met.
But, as usual, it's not about individual numbers, it's about impact.
i don't dispute that a small number of individuals can have a large impact on things, but that doesn't speak to my argument. that a small number of people can do tremendous violence doesn't have anything to do with whether or not their political affiliations cause the violence they do.
I can't re-evaluate my viewpoints if I'm not being presented with new information [...]
i'm all ears.[...]
I can only assume that this is another one of your "misunderstandings", and not a deliberate attempt at misdirection. I asked you for information and your response is "I'm all ears". Like, what?
i was replying to the second part of your sentence: you said that your rhetoric was increasingly inflammatory because "searching by myself has so far only made me realise that I was giving them too much credit and that they're far worse than I originally suspected." i was inviting you to share what you'd found that made your rhetoric increasingly inflammatory.
no offense, but how was that not obvious?
But let's see, off the top of my head: Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Oakland [e: ooh, almost forgot Milwaukee]. That's only major acts of violence and looting, I'm deliberately leaving explicit verbal calls for violence out to make the list somewhat bearable.
to my reading, all of those incidents share another common factor: officer involved shootings. and there are other common factors, like taking place in low-income, high crime rate areas with poor access to health/human/education services. and, most importantly, you don't have to be a member of blm to live in those cities.
my argument from the beginning has been that all you're doing is listing some bad things that happened, identifying a single, loosely common factor, and then asserting that one caused the other.
Are they in charge or are they random members? 'Cause, y'know, that's what makes or breaks this argument.
ask me on friday
/zing
Really? They are requesting that the violence of one group, and one group in particular, is to be taken less seriously than equivalent crimes perpetrated by other groups. Do you really not see how that's dangerous, or at the very least unfair?
i definitely disagree that people who do violence should be given lighter sentences because of race. i even probably agree that it's dangerous, but i don't think it's the same as saying that you endorse the act of the perpetrator. to me that's like saying forgiveness is an endorsement of the act one forgives; that's a conflation of two different things. sympathy/empathy/forgiveness aren't endorsement.
again, there are probably a bunch of dummies out there doing both, but i'm just not interested in being so myopic toward the worst exemplars of an ideology, especially when i know that there are a bunch of other common factors, like poverty, lack of education, feeling disenfranchised, etc. that i already know for sure do cause violence.
if the black folks in bel air ever start burning cars, torturing their white neighbors, and planting flaming blm flags on their lawns, then i'll be more persuaded.
-
peaceably demonstrating is doing something.
Yes, I brought that up as a genuine example.
voting is also doing something. not voting is not doing something. plenty of folks choose not to exercise their right to vote. recall that my argument here is simply that the overwhelming majority of blm members choose nonviolent means to achieve their political objectives. "but voting is too pedestrian" doesn't respond to what i'm saying. it's nonviolent, and it's an action to support a political objective. criteria met.
Agree to disagree. Voting is a valid way (heck, one of the best ways) to advance your political views, but I don't buy the idea that it makes you part of a movement.
i don't dispute that a small number of individuals can have a large impact on things, but that doesn't speak to my argument. that a small number of people can do tremendous violence doesn't have anything to do with whether or not their political affiliations cause the violence they do.
Yeah, that takes us back to our difference in approach. You take a very absolutist approach to "correlation does not imply causation", and I can't fault you for that. I just disagree that in case of a particularly strong correlation we can't infer at least some causality. The leaders of the movement actively organise events, and those events frequently turn violent, with said leaders being directly involved in the violence. It's really hard for me to just shrug that off.
and, most importantly, you don't have to be a member of blm to live in those cities.
You've said it once already, and I responded with a meme-quip because I didn't see how this can be a serious position. Yes, not everyone in those cities looted and pillaged everything they came in contact with. Of those who did, an overwhelming majority were BLM supporters. Those people who lived there and weren't BLM supporters are (by and large) what we call innocent victims.
my argument from the beginning has been that all you're doing is listing some bad things that happened, identifying a single, loosely common factor, and then asserting that one caused the other.
I disagree that the factor is loosely common.
ask me on friday
/zing
idgi :(
i definitely disagree that people who do violence should be given lighter sentences because of race. i even probably agree that it's dangerous, but i don't think it's the same as saying that you endorse the act of the perpetrator. to me that's like saying forgiveness is an endorsement of the act one forgives; that's a conflation of two different things. sympathy/empathy/forgiveness aren't endorsement.
Okay, that's fair enough. As long as we agree that it's a bad thing, or even that it could be a bad thing under certain conditions, then honestly I'm happy. The rest seems to be a minor disagreement on fine details.
again, there are probably a bunch of dummies out there doing both, but i'm just not interested in being so myopic toward the worst exemplars of an ideology, especially when i know that there are a bunch of other common factors, like poverty, lack of education, feeling disenfranchised, etc. that i already know for sure do cause violence.
And I'd still like to see those good exemplars. Perhaps I'm exposed to a very unfair coverage (although even trying to talk to BLMers hasn't helped - instead I was informed that their riots are righteous and that the man is totally going down any moment now). Perhaps I've interpreted the coverage I was exposed to incorrectly. I'm happy to accept that I could be completely wrong, but I have nothing to work with!
if the black folks in bel air ever start burning cars, torturing their white neighbors, and planting flaming blm flags on their lawns, then i'll be more persuaded.
I mean, that would probably be a symptom of an all-out race war. I hope we can stop that from happening.
-
You take a very absolutist approach to "correlation does not imply causation", and I can't fault you for that. I just disagree that in case of a particularly strong correlation we can't infer at least some causality. The leaders of the movement actively organise events, and those events frequently turn violent, with said leaders being directly involved in the violence. It's really hard for me to just shrug that off.
i know i promised you the last word, but i had a similar conversation on this point recently and wanted to clarify correlation/causation. i know it probably seems like i'm being obtuse, and i promise it isn't lost on me that the folks in those photos are all wearing shirts that say "blm" and not "st. louis cardinals" or "chess club" or "ferguson first baptist church." it's not that i'm trying to be super pedantic about correlation/causation; i definitely agree that correlations can be excellent evidence in favor of causation.
i think my argument really is about correlations that i think are more predictive and explanatory than the one between blm and violence. there are two that stand out to me: 1) the correlation between material conditions and violence, and 2) the correlation between protests and violence in general. the first is so well-studied that it's axiomatic, and the second seems equally obvious to me. get a bunch of people who are angry about something into a big crowd, pit them against the object of their protest, and sparks fly. not always, but very often.
so i guess that's a long way of saying this: the correlation between blm shirts and violence/pillaging is super low (even if it's higher than the correlation between all other shirts and violence); but, the correlation between 1) material conditions and 2) protests, and violence, is quite high. since i know that blm-specific violence is also highly correlated with shitty material conditions and angry protests, i come to the conclusion that those things are the true causes, not blm's political ideology.
nbd just clarifying that i'm not trying to take such a stern approach to correlation/causation or pretend that i don't see what's happening in those images.