*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2017, 12:34:29 PM »
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)
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2017, 01:59:13 PM »
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.

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2017, 02:03:33 PM »
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.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2017, 04:23:50 PM »
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 (even in Chicago!). 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. They define themselves as a chapter-based national organization. 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 (a lovely person and a full-time agitator, by the way) hijacked Bernie's rally.

But yeah, I guess it's just hashtags #yolo
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 04:36:42 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2017, 07:24:14 PM »
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:

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 07:30:19 PM by trekky0623 »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2017, 09:34:48 PM »
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?

Quote
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. 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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 09:42:56 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 451
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2017, 11:59:49 PM »
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.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #47 on: January 12, 2017, 02:58:21 AM »
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #48 on: January 12, 2017, 03:52:22 AM »
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.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2017, 11:48:13 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 11:52:46 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2017, 05:57:27 PM »
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.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2017, 10:12:46 PM »
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 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.



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.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 10:32:43 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2017, 04:34:20 PM »
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 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.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2017, 05:03:15 PM »
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2017, 02:24:28 AM »
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.

shitposting leftists are never alone