Let's be honest, plenty of white folks can't differentiate between a BLM protest and a crowd of Black folks leaving Olive Garden on a Saturday afternoon.
BLM marches are now any march where more than three people are carrying a sign that says "Black Lives Matter". So, anybody attending the march is automatically associated with BLM as are their actions.
There will never be a day when any BLM action poses anywhere near the kind of threat routinely perpetrated by white nationalists. BLM members don't walk through Target with AR-15s, they don't drive their cars into crowds, they don't ambush people with assault weapons or plant bombs in public places, they don't mail toxic substances through the mail, blow up buildings, plot to kidnap governors, or hang vice presidents.
Few things anger racists more than Black folks demanding to be treated like human beings, so the bogus comparisons will probably continue for some time.
Let's be honest, plenty of white folks can't differentiate between a BLM protest and a crowd of Black folks leaving Olive Garden on a Saturday afternoon.
BLM marches are now any march where more than three people are carrying a sign that says "Black Lives Matter". So, anybody attending the march is automatically associated with BLM as are their actions.
There will never be a day when any BLM action poses anywhere near the kind of threat routinely perpetrated by white nationalists. BLM members don't walk through Target with AR-15s, they don't drive their cars into crowds, they don't ambush people with assault weapons or plant bombs in public places, they don't mail toxic substances through the mail, blow up buildings, plot to kidnap governors, or hang vice presidents.
Few things anger racists more than Black folks demanding to be treated like human beings, so the bogus comparisons will probably continue for some time.
I had to evacuate my place of work a couple of years ago thanks to the MAGA bomber.
I read "Where you lose me is that you want to solve a problem of race by focusing on race. This is a very divisive and frankly counterproductive strategy."
I don't get it, so maybe elaborate to remove the confusion.
Here's a handy link in case Mr. Terp has trouble with the search function:
Meanwhile CNN is reporting on a supposed internal FBI memo that's saying there are plans for armed protests at all 50 state capitals, threats against Pelosi and Biden and an "uprising" if Trump leaves office.
Meanwhile CNN is reporting on a supposed internal FBI memo that's saying there are plans for armed protests at all 50 state capitals, threats against Pelosi and Biden and an "uprising" if Trump leaves office.
Good times!
Isn't this why we have National Guards? To kill terrorists that want to attack us?
This is encouraging. Belichick shows some class here.
Bill Belichick turns down Trump’s Medal of Freedom offer, highlighting the huge mistake Annika Sorenstam and Gary Player made last week by appearing with Trump less than 24 hours after he incited the insurrection at the Capitol. pic.twitter.com/nZhgZKYznO
I don't know who that person is and what role he may have played, butnthe celebratory reaction to his shock at being labelled a terrorist is troubling.
It depends on whether he is or is not a terrorist.
See, this is better -- DB and ml1 are actually on this board and so can respond and, if they feel they need to, further explain an clarify. Since you quoted them and not me, I'll just briefly note that I do not see anything ml1 wrote there as being fine with property destruction, much less killing or injuring people. As for DB, I agree with him that you're unfairly attributing responsibility to all BLM protestors, but I'm with you in finding his "it's kind of our collective punishment for not doing enough about it" problematic.
Now as for when you said the Capitol Hill mob wasn't dangerous, your very first comment on the whole situation was "LMFAO." Followed by doubling down and insisting the photo was funny. Then accusing everyone of being a hypocrite, and linking to a guy who apparently thinks the real problem was that everyone is fishing on the Rubicon as opposed to crossing it and actually sacking Rome, or something. His issue with violent fantasies is the "fantasy" part, I guess?
The post I'm quoting is the first post of yours I see any acknowledgement that the mob posed a danger to the physical safety of elected officials, and then you immediately denigrate the idea that there was any "threat to our Republic".
Given all that, can you really not see how one can come away with the impression that you don't think the mob was dangerous?
I think the alleged point was that I was "deflecting" from BLM's responsibility for violence at demonstrations. First off, events subsequent to that comment of mine made it obvious that I was writing truth. Antifa and far-right sides were squaring off in Portland regularly, which was my point -- blaming the BLM movement for something that was more a local issue in Portland than inherent to BLM overall was not appropriate. And not only that, I DID in fact preface the point about Portland by agreeing that there was violence in that city during the demonstrations, and there was no attempt by me to deny that fact.
Yup, that's how I read it.
First, you basically were calling me out as a hypocrite. I was responding to that. And to think that one would claim that there is not a double standard is silly. The corporate media did everything to excuse the BLM riots. Mostly peaceful, fiery but peaceful. Theres a saying "if it bleeds it leads". True for every topic but one it would seem.
And what of this board? Do you really think there isn't a double standard? I mean, is it a coincidence I'm pretty much the only non-progressive left that posts here? I'm going to pick on ml1 a bit here because he is incredulous that I would infer he may harbor some bias towards his tribe and that he hasn't objectively measured the facts on every issue.
so much condemnation and hand wringing about "violent" BLM protesters, and yet it's difficult if not impossible to know how much of this violence is being initiated by outside right wing provocateurs. Armed militia-affiliated groups are showing up in Portland, and now Kenosha. It's not unreasonable to think that Trump could calm some of this down by asking his supporters to stay away from BLM and other policy brutality demonstrations. But he hasn't and he won't. And the presence of gun-toting counter demonstrators is now just ramping all of the violence up even higher.
Again, people who would have similar theories regarding January 6 would be derided as conspiracy wackos.
Earlier on this thread flimbro used the word hilbilly which is definitely a racist term aimed at white people. Now, in the thread above I called some rioters thugs. Many gave me a hard time claiming that was a racist term. Ml1 was the most prominent and persistent.
ml1 said: I think I've brought this up too. It isn't to justify or condone what goes on after protests in Portland or Kenosha. But it's for some perspective. Put thousands of people together with very high emotions, possibly alcohol or drug use, maybe some with untreated mental illness, and the result might be acts of violence like arson and looting. The NY Giants arrest about two dozen people at every home game. That's more than the Portland PD were arresting most nights during gatherings they had designated as "riots." But is anyone using those realities to smear all NFL fans around the country, calling them "thugs" and criminals?
Again, it is the tone. All through that thread he will tell you that of course he doesn't condone the violence. But then there he is, deflecting, making excuses(see above). MHe says that there were millions of BLM protesters, most of which were peaceful. While I agree with that contrast to this thread. He immediately talks about the violence and seems to project this behavior to all Trump supporters.
and even if there was no real plan to overthrow the government, there didn't need to be. This wasn't meant to be a well-planned overthrow of the government, it was terrorism designed to interfere with the carrying out of an election. It was a message of intimidation to secretaries of state and all other election officials around the country. And it's not unreasonable at all for election officials in the states to now be concerned for their lives if they certify election results that don't align with the demands of these Trumpist mobs. And even with Trump gone from office, there will no doubt still be candidates arounds the country aligning themselves with his base. This won't magically end on January 20. It's not a "fever dream" to wake up from. It's clearly a movement of millions of people around the country and they're not leaving.
So, on one thread we are talking about just a few people while cities are destroyed over a period of months. There is one incident on January 6th and were going to conflate this to millions of supporters.
Does the disruption of a free and fair election by a wannabe dictator bother you at all? Do you think if many of these protesters were able to catch up to Pence or Pelosi they would have just wanted their autograph?
Can you tell us which leader instigated or spurred on the violence at the BLM protests?
You really can't tell the difference between events where violence is the point and events where fringe groups opportunistically take advantage?
When Trump held his rally, all legal remedies for changing the election results were exhausted. As the mob was occupying the Capitol, he tweeted his displeasure at Pence. Reports say he was reluctant to authorize the national guard -- some reports I've read say it was actually Pence, and never Trump, that finally authorized them. When finally convinced to say something to de-escalate the situation, he called the rioters very special people whom he loved. There is a direct connection between Trump and the rioters that simply does not exist between BLM leaders and people who committed crimes during or after protests.
I generally agree that we should avoid painting with too broad a brush and equating all Trump voters with those who attacked the Capitol, but it's getting increasingly harder to do so when so many Trump supporters refuse to break with Trump over this. Which BLM leaders have acted the way Trump has?
One point I made over the summer was that I was reluctant to be drawn into discussions over looting because it was a distraction. As I wrote a in that discussion you linked to, "we have systems, institutions, and people to respond to, attempt to mitigate, and restore the damage from crowds causing property damage ... we do not appear to have any real recourse for agents of the state killing and severely injuring citizens."
Since theft and property damage is something we already address, whereas police killing people is something we do not, the balance of our attention really needs to be on the unaddressed problem of police killing people. Talking about looting pulls focus from that.
And it seems here we are, again, with the same dynamic. The president of the united states incites a riot, we find that all the safeguards we supposedly have, from the Capitol Hill Police up through the grand constitutional concepts of checks and balances and impeachments and amendments, turn out to be more or less ineffective. And instead of talking about that, we're going to spend more time talking about looting. smh.
See, this is better -- DB and ml1 are actually on this board and so can respond and, if they feel they need to, further explain an clarify. Since you quoted them and not me, I'll just briefly note that I do not see anything ml1 wrote there as being fine with property destruction, much less killing or injuring people. As for DB, I agree with him that you're unfairly attributing responsibility to all BLM protestors, but I'm with you in finding his "it's kind of our collective punishment for not doing enough about it" problematic.
Now as for when you said the Capitol Hill mob wasn't dangerous, your very first comment on the whole situation was "LMFAO." Followed by doubling down and insisting the photo was funny. Then accusing everyone of being a hypocrite, and linking to a guy who apparently thinks the real problem was that everyone is fishing on the Rubicon as opposed to crossing it and actually sacking Rome, or something. His issue with violent fantasies is the "fantasy" part, I guess?
The post I'm quoting is the first post of yours I see any acknowledgement that the mob posed a danger to the physical safety of elected officials, and then you immediately denigrate the idea that there was any "threat to our Republic".
Given all that, can you really not see how one can come away with the impression that you don't think the mob was dangerous?
I think the alleged point was that I was "deflecting" from BLM's responsibility for violence at demonstrations. First off, events subsequent to that comment of mine made it obvious that I was writing truth. Antifa and far-right sides were squaring off in Portland regularly, which was my point -- blaming the BLM movement for something that was more a local issue in Portland than inherent to BLM overall was not appropriate. And not only that, I DID in fact preface the point about Portland by agreeing that there was violence in that city during the demonstrations, and there was no attempt by me to deny that fact.
Yup, that's how I read it.
First, you basically were calling me out as a hypocrite. I was responding to that. And to think that one would claim that there is not a double standard is silly. The corporate media did everything to excuse the BLM riots. Mostly peaceful, fiery but peaceful. Theres a saying "if it bleeds it leads". True for every topic but one it would seem.
And what of this board? Do you really think there isn't a double standard? I mean, is it a coincidence I'm pretty much the only non-progressive left that posts here? I'm going to pick on ml1 a bit here because he is incredulous that I would infer he may harbor some bias towards his tribe and that he hasn't objectively measured the facts on every issue.
so much condemnation and hand wringing about "violent" BLM protesters, and yet it's difficult if not impossible to know how much of this violence is being initiated by outside right wing provocateurs. Armed militia-affiliated groups are showing up in Portland, and now Kenosha. It's not unreasonable to think that Trump could calm some of this down by asking his supporters to stay away from BLM and other policy brutality demonstrations. But he hasn't and he won't. And the presence of gun-toting counter demonstrators is now just ramping all of the violence up even higher.
so much condemnation and hand wringing about "violent" BLM protesters, and yet it's difficult if not impossible to know how much of this violence is being initiated by outside right wing provocateurs. Armed militia-affiliated groups are showing up in Portland, and now Kenosha. It's not unreasonable to think that Trump could calm some of this down by asking his supporters to stay away from BLM and other policy brutality demonstrations. But he hasn't and he won't. And the presence of gun-toting counter demonstrators is now just ramping all of the violence up even higher.
Again, people who would have similar theories regarding January 6 would be derided as conspiracy wackos.
Earlier on this thread flimbro used the word hilbilly which is definitely a racist term aimed at white people. Now, in the thread above I called some rioters thugs. Many gave me a hard time claiming that was a racist term. Ml1 was the most prominent and persistent.
ml1 said: I think I've brought this up too. It isn't to justify or condone what goes on after protests in Portland or Kenosha. But it's for some perspective. Put thousands of people together with very high emotions, possibly alcohol or drug use, maybe some with untreated mental illness, and the result might be acts of violence like arson and looting. The NY Giants arrest about two dozen people at every home game. That's more than the Portland PD were arresting most nights during gatherings they had designated as "riots." But is anyone using those realities to smear all NFL fans around the country, calling them "thugs" and criminals?
Click to Read More
ml1 said: I think I've brought this up too. It isn't to justify or condone what goes on after protests in Portland or Kenosha. But it's for some perspective. Put thousands of people together with very high emotions, possibly alcohol or drug use, maybe some with untreated mental illness, and the result might be acts of violence like arson and looting. The NY Giants arrest about two dozen people at every home game. That's more than the Portland PD were arresting most nights during gatherings they had designated as "riots." But is anyone using those realities to smear all NFL fans around the country, calling them "thugs" and criminals?
Again, it is the tone. All through that thread he will tell you that of course he doesn't condone the violence. But then there he is, deflecting, making excuses(see above). MHe says that there were millions of BLM protesters, most of which were peaceful. While I agree with that contrast to this thread. He immediately talks about the violence and seems to project this behavior to all Trump supporters.
and even if there was no real plan to overthrow the government, there didn't need to be. This wasn't meant to be a well-planned overthrow of the government, it was terrorism designed to interfere with the carrying out of an election. It was a message of intimidation to secretaries of state and all other election officials around the country. And it's not unreasonable at all for election officials in the states to now be concerned for their lives if they certify election results that don't align with the demands of these Trumpist mobs. And even with Trump gone from office, there will no doubt still be candidates arounds the country aligning themselves with his base. This won't magically end on January 20. It's not a "fever dream" to wake up from. It's clearly a movement of millions of people around the country and they're not leaving.
and even if there was no real plan to overthrow the government, there didn't need to be. This wasn't meant to be a well-planned overthrow of the government, it was terrorism designed to interfere with the carrying out of an election. It was a message of intimidation to secretaries of state and all other election officials around the country. And it's not unreasonable at all for election officials in the states to now be concerned for their lives if they certify election results that don't align with the demands of these Trumpist mobs. And even with Trump gone from office, there will no doubt still be candidates arounds the country aligning themselves with his base. This won't magically end on January 20. It's not a "fever dream" to wake up from. It's clearly a movement of millions of people around the country and they're not leaving.
So, on one thread we are talking about just a few people while cities are destroyed over a period of months. There is one incident on January 6th and were going to conflate this to millions of supporters.
you really don't do nuance at all, do you?
I didn't write what you claim. You took out the qualifiers, the context and the nuance.
I'm done. I can no longer discuss with someone who continues to misrepresent what I've written.
So, on one thread we are talking about just a few people while cities are destroyed over a period of months. There is one incident on January 6th and were going to conflate this to millions of supporters.
Interestingly, the image you chose after this text shows a Black CNN reporter, Omar Jimenez.
Watch as he is arrested for reporting-while-Black... confirming the context around the rage this spring and summer.
Earlier on this thread flimbro used the word hilbilly which is definitely a racist term aimed at white people. Now, in the thread above I called some rioters thugs. Many gave me a hard time claiming that was a racist term. Ml1 was the most prominent and persistent.
I apologize (that means 'my bad') to all of the hillbillies reading this who thought my use of the pejorative (that means 'cuss word') "hillbilly" was offensive (that means 'yer out of line there n-word'). I'll try to do better (that means 'don't hold your breath').
Up above terp uses a couple of multisyllabic (that means 'long-assed') words so maybe get a friend (whoever you're bumming gas money from at the Cracker Barrel) to sound them out for you phonetically (that means to... oh never mind) maybe just put them in the Google thing on your flip phone.
ya know, hillbilly just means unsophisticated. It's not the worst slur you can fling at someone, and I mean, have you ever heard interviews with these people? Worldly they ain't.
And the mere fact that they're there at all means they've been taken in by the most obvious con-man in history. That doesn't make them smarties.
Someone else made this point earlier, so I won't claim credit for it: terp is one of these rare individuals that has a negative contribution index, if you read his message on any particular topic, you will have less of an understanding of the topic than before you read it. I always make sure I skip his wonderful contributions.
What the heck, let's throw some deliberate biological warfare into the hopper.
I just received a positive COVID-19 test result after being locked down in a secured room at the Capitol where several Republicans not only cruelly refused to wear a mask but recklessly mocked colleagues and staff who offered them one.https://t.co/wVmgroKsdf
This is one of the jerks that refused to wear a mask when they were in lockdown on Jan. 6.
Late Wednesday evening, Congressman Jake LaTurner received a positive test result for COVID-19.
Congressman LaTurner took the test as part of Washington DC’s travel guidelines that requires visitors be tested. He is not experiencing any symptoms at this time.
While sheltering, Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester offered masks to Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene, Markwayne Mullin, Andy Biggs & more and they refused.pic.twitter.com/WlbLKiyjwnhttps://t.co/eQzn7SieaR
Someone else made this point earlier, so I won't claim credit for it: terp is one of these rare individuals that has a negative contribution index, if you read his message on any particular topic, you will have less of an understanding of the topic than before you read it. I always make sure I skip his wonderful contributions.
the frequency of his mischaracterizations of other people's words (twice for me just yesterday) makes me wonder if it's purposeful, or if it's truly a misunderstanding of what was written. But I lean toward intentional misrepresentation when so often he writes that "it seems" I meant something or other. Any time anyone has to say "it seems you're saying" you can be pretty sure they're intentionally twisting your words.
Let's be honest, plenty of white folks can't differentiate between a BLM protest and a crowd of Black folks leaving Olive Garden on a Saturday afternoon.
BLM marches are now any march where more than three people are carrying a sign that says "Black Lives Matter". So, anybody attending the march is automatically associated with BLM as are their actions.
There will never be a day when any BLM action poses anywhere near the kind of threat routinely perpetrated by white nationalists. BLM members don't walk through Target with AR-15s, they don't drive their cars into crowds, they don't ambush people with assault weapons or plant bombs in public places, they don't mail toxic substances through the mail, blow up buildings, plot to kidnap governors, or hang vice presidents.
Few things anger racists more than Black folks demanding to be treated like human beings, so the bogus comparisons will probably continue for some time.