Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
For argument's sake, let's say BLM is EVIL.
- Thread starter Mac1958
- Start date
- Nov 28, 2011
- 42,680
- 15,913
- 2,250
Commie Traitors.
They hide behind blacks, but the whole thing was organized, put into place, and just waiting on the inevitable catalyst.
It's an all-out attack on Western Civilization.
If I'm wrong, wtf are they doing rioting in all the other Western nations at the same exact time about something American police do?
Ask yourself why there's organized riots nationwide and in a bunch of other Western nations over something involving American police.
American police are different from town to town and neighborhood to neighborhood, even.
This isn't about police, it's about setting loose the classicly conditioned "New Red Guard" brainwashed useful idiots to war on Western Civilation.
Kidding me right ???? Rotflmbo
- Moderator
- #403
flacaltenn I hope you don't mind that I did this but I realized digressing into Marxism etc was going to really derail a discussion which is really on the murder of a woman - so I took my response and our conversation and added it here - it really fits more with this thread (and I don't want to start YET ANOTHER BLM is bad thread).
I was in the thread but left it without reading the rest. I will however go back to it now to answer this because I'm derailing the murder thread.
Umh...and Brietbart and NYpost are err not BIASED? Sure.....Right. The assumption that because a source doesnât report something, it is due to bias....other factors might be involved: how factual a âstoryâ is, whether it is news or emotion, whether there are enough attributable sources behind it....and this. It ONLY appears in clearly identifiable right biased sources. Why? Heavy on guilt by association...why?
Because of this. The rightwing logic: Marxism and Socialism are evil. Period. This is hardcore in the DNA of the Republican Party - a rightwing despot is better than a democratic socialist. The same logic, I might add, that led the US to depose democratically elected leaders in multiple countries because they had a Marxist bent, and installed instead authoritarian rightwing leaders whoâs sole claim to being âbetterâ is the ideological bent. The view is all or nothing, good or evil, when it comes to socialism. That is why we have Iran as it is today. That is why Castro was able to come power on the back of one one of the most brutal regimes the US supported.
Therefore...regardless of what BLM stands for, they are evil, terrorist (despite lack of evidence) and akin to Stalin.
All ideologies taken to an extreme have serious flaws, but many have righteous points In them. As long as violence is not a part of their mission I do not much care what their roots are. What I donât care for is a concerted Effort at demonizing them, by conflating BLM with terrorism. This ONLY seems to come rightwing sources, I searched on various parameters and it only shows up there. Why? Bias? Or....ideological differences? The right has always demonized anything collective, socialistic, Marxist.
For the record, my view on BLM is this. As a formal organization, I neither support nor condemn, at least until they have ACTUALLY DONE or called for something condemnable. They have some good points in their platform and they have some points I donât agree with. They want to remake society. So what? Welcome to the world of ideologies. In a reality where income inequality is real and growing, where minorities are the worst affected, and where racism is still a reality....I can stand, even if I donât agree with, their underpinnings.
By the way exactly where are they advocating killing police? Did I miss that part?
Here are two different takes on it.
Rightwing/Libertarian Source....makes a good point on the fact that BLM are really two different things.
An ACTUAL interview with one of the founders, Tometi, and what she has to say in total. This from a leftwing source.
www.newyorker.com
Here is what I find noteworthy in her interview. First, a question on violence from the protesters...a bit of a sidestep, I agree with her on valuing life over property - that is why when people conflate organizations that TAKE human life with organizations that destroy property - I don't agree they are morally equivalent. However, she is, imo, subtly saying she doesn't exactly condemn property destruction, and that is a divisive point among activists. I don't agree with her on this. You can't conflate them, true - but you also can't through silence condone it. Property destruction may not destroy lives, but it destroys livelihoods and the potential for intergenerational wealth, as was witnessed in the white race riots many seem to ignore. The effect is the same - a repeated destruction of the hard climb to middle class.
Q: I have seen African-American activists say two things about the protests becoming more violentâand in this case I donât mean the violence from the police. The first is that talking about this is a distraction from what really matters, and the other is that it is bad and takes attention away from the peaceful majority. How do you feel about that conversation?
A: I think that conversation is complicated, and, generally speaking, I just donât equate the loss of life and the loss of property. I canât even hold those two in the same regard, and I think for far too long we have seen that happen. We have had these conversations where we are conflating very different realities and operating from different value systems. So, for me, thatâs how I view it, and a lot of my colleagues and peers as well as mentors have similar views. We are really focussed on how to get our demands out and stay focussed on the main thing, which is people, and we want to value our love of people over property.
And this question on defunding police. It's not abolishing police as some call for. It's reallocating funding to other areas in order to need fewer police. Police don't need to be first responders to everything. She has a valid point here. The other point, is forcing reform or busting the police union, because, in the south at least, they were born out of racist policy and policing and protect abuses.
Q: I asked because I wanted you to lay out what defunding police would look like in practice. Additionally, I was wondering if you think that demand is a harder sell if things appear to people to be out of control.
A: Their budgets are overly bloated. And we can see this in many ways, but I think the most symbolic waysâand not even symbolic, itâs materialâare that we see they are militarized and we see all the equipment they have been able to lay out overnight or in hours. So we know they have a vast amount of resources.
Early on, when we first started Black Lives Matter, about a year or two into its creation, I worked with some amazing comrades in New York, and we worked on this campaign called âSafety Beyond Policing.â The New York City government was saying that it was going to allocate a hundred million dollars for a thousand new police officers. And here I am, a B.L.M. co-founder, on the heels of the murder of Eric Garner, thinking to myself, How are these people going to unleash even more police officers in our communities, when clearly we are seeing that enough is enough? This overpolicing of largely poor communities, which are largely people of color because poverty is racialized in this country, means that we are the ones interacting with law enforcement more. And with all this racial bias, of course, we see this brutality and these murders.
And so we started this campaign for community members to really be involved in the conversation about how to keep ourselves safe without an overreliance on law enforcement. And what we concluded is that we need social workers. We need these resources to go to our social workers and educators. We need it to go to our schools. We would love to have mental-health professionals when we have certain crises in our communities. We would like to not have a charge when we jump the turnstile because we donât have money for a subway ticket, and jobs programs for our youth during the summer. People were very creative, and they knew exactly what they needed. It was very easy for people to come to these conclusions as to what safety could look like.
And so I say all this to say that, yes, a defunding of police looks like an investment in the community, and I think it is perfectly fine, and we have seen it before and we just need a lot more of it. And I think it is a slap in the face when local governments see what is happening with their police precincts and beyond and still say, âWe are going to allocate even more money for this thing that is clearly not working.â If you had a job and were messing up this badly and it had a lethal outcome, you would be fired. It doesnât make sense that we continue on this.
I disagree about the degree to which you attribute Marxism to them. One person claimed to be "Marxist" trained, and to attribute an overall desire for violent overthrow to that doesnt mesh with their statedmesh with their ststex objectives. I do agree though, with what you say on abolishing police...that is utopia thinking, but thete are those who looking at it from. A less extreme position, reform, alternative approaches for certain situations such those dealing with mentally ill people and that makes sense to me.BLM didn't murder anyone. I can't find anything in their charter or statements calling for murder or violence.
I agree with everything you said EXCEPT the "calling for violence" part.. Their Marxist roots are proud of revolution and ABOLISHING the police is a call to violence and making black lives MORE endangered. Been proven in just past couple weeks...
That's why I wish some more responsible LESS POLITICAL faction had trademarked that BLM slogan...
No way.. They are DEDICATED Marxists. One of them was keynote speaker at a Maduro Love Festival in Harlem... You wont GET this on NPR or the main media.. BECAUSE of their bias in reporting..
For argument's sake, let's say BLM is EVIL.
Mac1958 I have found one of the undesirables. The great atheist roo, AtheismIsUnstoppable aka. Devon Tracey has been banned out of youtube for wrong-think. Hundreds of videos erased out of history. Sam Harris will likely soon follow. Facts are not to be allowed. I will laugh when your house...www.usmessageboard.com
You were IN that thread. Thought you would remember those facts...
They are PRIMARILY political revolutionaries.. Not focused on making black lives better by advocating KILLING and ABOLISHING the police.. They DO THAT -- because they are Marxist revolutionaries...
I was in the thread but left it without reading the rest. I will however go back to it now to answer this because I'm derailing the murder thread.
Umh...and Brietbart and NYpost are err not BIASED? Sure.....Right. The assumption that because a source doesnât report something, it is due to bias....other factors might be involved: how factual a âstoryâ is, whether it is news or emotion, whether there are enough attributable sources behind it....and this. It ONLY appears in clearly identifiable right biased sources. Why? Heavy on guilt by association...why?
Because of this. The rightwing logic: Marxism and Socialism are evil. Period. This is hardcore in the DNA of the Republican Party - a rightwing despot is better than a democratic socialist. The same logic, I might add, that led the US to depose democratically elected leaders in multiple countries because they had a Marxist bent, and installed instead authoritarian rightwing leaders whoâs sole claim to being âbetterâ is the ideological bent. The view is all or nothing, good or evil, when it comes to socialism. That is why we have Iran as it is today. That is why Castro was able to come power on the back of one one of the most brutal regimes the US supported.
Therefore...regardless of what BLM stands for, they are evil, terrorist (despite lack of evidence) and akin to Stalin.
All ideologies taken to an extreme have serious flaws, but many have righteous points In them. As long as violence is not a part of their mission I do not much care what their roots are. What I donât care for is a concerted Effort at demonizing them, by conflating BLM with terrorism. This ONLY seems to come rightwing sources, I searched on various parameters and it only shows up there. Why? Bias? Or....ideological differences? The right has always demonized anything collective, socialistic, Marxist.
For the record, my view on BLM is this. As a formal organization, I neither support nor condemn, at least until they have ACTUALLY DONE or called for something condemnable. They have some good points in their platform and they have some points I donât agree with. They want to remake society. So what? Welcome to the world of ideologies. In a reality where income inequality is real and growing, where minorities are the worst affected, and where racism is still a reality....I can stand, even if I donât agree with, their underpinnings.
By the way exactly where are they advocating killing police? Did I miss that part?
Here are two different takes on it.
Rightwing/Libertarian Source....makes a good point on the fact that BLM are really two different things.
Is Black Lives Matter Marxist? No and Yes.
On Monday night, Terry Crews was grilled over his criticism of Black Lives Matter by CNN host Don Lemon. As Gina Bontempo pointed out on Twitter: âDon Lemon did everything he could to talk over Terry and silence him as soon as they started approaching what the BLM organization is *really*...
fee.org
An ACTUAL interview with one of the founders, Tometi, and what she has to say in total. This from a leftwing source.
A Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Explains Why This Time Is Different
The community organizer Opal Tometi discusses what it would mean to defund police departments, how the coronavirus pandemic has shaped the American response to the protests, and whatâs next for the social-justice movement.
Here is what I find noteworthy in her interview. First, a question on violence from the protesters...a bit of a sidestep, I agree with her on valuing life over property - that is why when people conflate organizations that TAKE human life with organizations that destroy property - I don't agree they are morally equivalent. However, she is, imo, subtly saying she doesn't exactly condemn property destruction, and that is a divisive point among activists. I don't agree with her on this. You can't conflate them, true - but you also can't through silence condone it. Property destruction may not destroy lives, but it destroys livelihoods and the potential for intergenerational wealth, as was witnessed in the white race riots many seem to ignore. The effect is the same - a repeated destruction of the hard climb to middle class.
Q: I have seen African-American activists say two things about the protests becoming more violentâand in this case I donât mean the violence from the police. The first is that talking about this is a distraction from what really matters, and the other is that it is bad and takes attention away from the peaceful majority. How do you feel about that conversation?
A: I think that conversation is complicated, and, generally speaking, I just donât equate the loss of life and the loss of property. I canât even hold those two in the same regard, and I think for far too long we have seen that happen. We have had these conversations where we are conflating very different realities and operating from different value systems. So, for me, thatâs how I view it, and a lot of my colleagues and peers as well as mentors have similar views. We are really focussed on how to get our demands out and stay focussed on the main thing, which is people, and we want to value our love of people over property.
And this question on defunding police. It's not abolishing police as some call for. It's reallocating funding to other areas in order to need fewer police. Police don't need to be first responders to everything. She has a valid point here. The other point, is forcing reform or busting the police union, because, in the south at least, they were born out of racist policy and policing and protect abuses.
Q: I asked because I wanted you to lay out what defunding police would look like in practice. Additionally, I was wondering if you think that demand is a harder sell if things appear to people to be out of control.
A: Their budgets are overly bloated. And we can see this in many ways, but I think the most symbolic waysâand not even symbolic, itâs materialâare that we see they are militarized and we see all the equipment they have been able to lay out overnight or in hours. So we know they have a vast amount of resources.
Early on, when we first started Black Lives Matter, about a year or two into its creation, I worked with some amazing comrades in New York, and we worked on this campaign called âSafety Beyond Policing.â The New York City government was saying that it was going to allocate a hundred million dollars for a thousand new police officers. And here I am, a B.L.M. co-founder, on the heels of the murder of Eric Garner, thinking to myself, How are these people going to unleash even more police officers in our communities, when clearly we are seeing that enough is enough? This overpolicing of largely poor communities, which are largely people of color because poverty is racialized in this country, means that we are the ones interacting with law enforcement more. And with all this racial bias, of course, we see this brutality and these murders.
And so we started this campaign for community members to really be involved in the conversation about how to keep ourselves safe without an overreliance on law enforcement. And what we concluded is that we need social workers. We need these resources to go to our social workers and educators. We need it to go to our schools. We would love to have mental-health professionals when we have certain crises in our communities. We would like to not have a charge when we jump the turnstile because we donât have money for a subway ticket, and jobs programs for our youth during the summer. People were very creative, and they knew exactly what they needed. It was very easy for people to come to these conclusions as to what safety could look like.
And so I say all this to say that, yes, a defunding of police looks like an investment in the community, and I think it is perfectly fine, and we have seen it before and we just need a lot more of it. And I think it is a slap in the face when local governments see what is happening with their police precincts and beyond and still say, âWe are going to allocate even more money for this thing that is clearly not working.â If you had a job and were messing up this badly and it had a lethal outcome, you would be fired. It doesnât make sense that we continue on this.
Umh...and Brietbart and NYpost are err not BIASED?
Can't deal with media bias and automatic rejection of factual assertions.. NY POST ???? If they are that incompetent, should be a 10 minute exercise -- do the research.. And I DONT mean going to a phony leftist spin doctor for a "truth meter" reading..
Tell me the Maduro Love Fest never happened.. Tell me the first lady did not write a forward to a book declaring her Marxist dedication..
Not going around the rosies here because you reject anything that's not "party approved"... It's just futile to engage
. First, a question on violence from the protesters...a bit of a sidestep, I agree with her on valuing life over property - that is why when people conflate organizations that TAKE human life with organizations that destroy property - I don't agree they are morally equivalent.
OMG girl -- this is beyond the pale... Without protection of property and community, ANY multi-colored life is USELESS... And the govt is ABJECTLY AIDING that crappy life..
Had no idea you were this far gone....
So "allowing space for CREATIVE DESTRUCTION" ala the Mayor of Baltimore is a HAPPY thing for you???
You probably ARE a Marxist if you can swallow that whole....
We're not in India idiot.The word thug refers to people who strangled unsuspecting travelers. So more like the chokehold cops.
- Moderator
- #407
. First, a question on violence from the protesters...a bit of a sidestep, I agree with her on valuing life over property - that is why when people conflate organizations that TAKE human life with organizations that destroy property - I don't agree they are morally equivalent.
OMG girl -- this is beyond the pale... Without protection of property and community, ANY multi-colored life is USELESS... And the govt is ABJECTLY AIDING that crappy life..
Had no idea you were this far gone....
My ancestral Marxist roots are showing
BUT, no. I am saying you can not value property OVER life. That is not the same as saying you should not protect property or community for that matter.
A simple analogy: if a building is burning
and there is a person inside, what would you do first? Put out the fire? Or get person out?
ok...there might be some people that would make me pause for a brief moment....but, just a microsecon.
So "allowing space for CREATIVE DESTRUCTION" ala the Mayor of Baltimore is a HAPPY thing for you???
You probably ARE a Marxist if you can swallow that whole....
Umh...again, you are reading WAY more into what I said, then is there. What is more valuable? Life? Property? That question, and the answer, have nothing to do with what you just said.
A group whose agenda involves killing people (like ISIS) is not morally equivalent to a group whose agenda involves property destruction (like some of these ecoterrorists) and stating that does not mean property destruction is acceptable.
- Moderator
- #408
Umh...and Brietbart and NYpost are err not BIASED?
Can't deal with media bias and automatic rejection of factual assertions.. NY POST ???? If they are that incompetent, should be a 10 minute exercise -- do the research.. And I DONT mean going to a phony leftist spin doctor for a "truth meter" reading..
Tell me the Maduro Love Fest never happened.. Tell me the first lady did not write a forward to a book declaring her Marxist dedication..
Not going around the rosies here because you reject anything that's not "party approved"... It's just futile to engage
You mean like you reject NPR and âmy mediaâ huh? If you are going to damn my sources, then donât get pissy if yours are put to question.
Shelzin
Equal Opportunity Asshole
- Jul 15, 2012
- 7,610
- 4,171
- 928
- Banned
- #409
Just to throw this out there before it happens... Major media personalities are about to start dying. Loonies from both sides of the fence are going to kill them for their views.You mean like you reject NPR and âmy mediaâ huh? If you are going to damn my sources, then donât get pissy if yours are put to question.
Those of you who are supporting these riots ( If they are trying to damage property and harm others, I don't give a rats ass what their job is they are trying to harm police or FED, they are NOT FUCKING PROTESTS. They are RIOTS ) don't call for the end of ALL VIOLENCE and get the damn elected officials to start arresting RIOTERS... There will be a civil war.
I believe in the right to bare arms. If you don't, you are already on the side that lost.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 50
- Views
- 628
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 134
- Replies
- 72
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 57
- Replies
- 44
- Views
- 167
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 45
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8013
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-