Jump to content

Photo

Political Violence


266 replies to this topic

#261
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 10:09 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

Funny enough, the main videos i was going to use in my response are in in the process of being wiped off the internet. If you can get them to work, or at least follow them to the channels, the titles alone show you exactly what they are about. If you can't get them to load, ignore them and move forward, but the second one in particular was actual video of the attempted bomb attack that injured 10 officers, and while i'm looking for more videos of it, this is the one i thought would be usable. In either case, the article is underneath it. People were attacking a man who they thought was a white supremacist, cops stepped in to save the man, and the bomb maker made a kid throw the bomb at the cops in his stead.

 

Also, there is flaw in my prior statement, but the 600 confirmed acts is less than that en masse, it covers a span of two years, not four months, like i initially thought. Though antifa events, if marked against both parties, and taken act by act, would definitely jump that number significantly.

 

 

 

that kinda bugs me, but that's fine, onto the next ones.

 

These videos discuss some of the articles, while the articles simply add more to the story

 

The difference is, i already condemn violence on all sides, and have stated as much multiple times, all the while discouraging it and advocating conversation. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't actually sit on the right. I sit in the center. calling out both sides is what i do, i simply have far more to call the left out on than the right at the moment. While i definitely have a hierarchy (instigating violence being higher on my list of "which is worse" than responsive violence) I call it out no matter the side when it's advocated. You can quote all the calls for violence in this thread, and under pretty much any standard, you wouldn't see my comments in the list. yours however, i can think back to quite a few that said in no uncertain terms that you advocate initiating violence against political opponents.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#262
Proto

Proto

    Mayo on the side

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,951 posts
    Last Visit Today, 01:01 PM

The difference is, i already condemn violence on all sides, and have stated as much multiple times, all the while discouraging it and advocating conversation. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't actually sit on the right. I sit in the center. calling out both sides is what i do, i simply have far more to call the left out on than the right at the moment. While i definitely have a hierarchy (instigating violence being higher on my list of "which is worse" than responsive violence) I call it out no matter the side when it's advocated. You can quote all the calls for violence in this thread, and under pretty much any standard, you wouldn't see my comments in the list. yours however, i can think back to quite a few that said in no uncertain terms that you advocate initiating violence against political opponents.

 

I'll review your evidence at a later date, doing these breakdowns take a lot of time, mostly involving cross-referencing news sources and questioning the methodology utilized in these articles simply because these things aren't peer reviewed or anything. But before that I'm gonna take a bit to expand on what you said about your own political position.

 

If you were a centrist for any reason besides being a fence-sitter that doesn't want to deal with the bad blood of either side you wouldn't be linking me Breitbart articles. Still not understanding how murder of innocents at a church is comparable to some punches and some rocks being thrown. My issue with you is that you're acting like there's some sort of reason to be granted by debate between these two parties when there really well, isn't. Equating punches and protests with violent shootouts is exactly what people who are white nationalists want. Which is to have racism be considered "just another idea". You're someone who believes in the whole hokey "trans normalization" or whatever right? Well that's literally what their plan is with this whole name-game charade, it's to normalize racism, something that has been debunked multiple times, as a simple position that's to be had. And that's what I'm against for what I assume should be obvious reasons.

 

Judging by how often you've put your foot in your mouth regarding your opinions I'd even argue that your centrism isn't actually based off of simply "weighing both sides" but simply put, centrism is your way to seem smart without actually diving deep enough into history of these sorts of matters. It's easy to simply ignore bigotry and equate it with people wanting justice and then just simply sit on the sidelines. Martin Luther King Jr. has a quote that I believe reflects on your position quite well as a "moderate":

MLK Quote


you aren't even an anime.

#263
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 10:09 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

Breitbart, while slanted, did indeed post a long list of violence against the left, which is what you asked for. How many left sites do you know that are going to do that? I don't support the church shooter, but how many cops are dead because of the anti cop narrative? If you're going to tie the church shooter to a side that he explicitly said he hates, then there's all the reason in the world to tie in many of the cop killers to your own, as they have the same amount of connections to the left as the shooter has to the right. Again, the lower body count is not for lack of trying. People get attacked and hospitalized for holding right wing views, the kid that got abducted and tortured for hours on ( i believe it was) facebook, while the people attacking him screamed fuck donald trump and fuck whitey? What exactly makes them better then the synagogue shooter? the cop killers, inspired by the "pigs in a blanket" chant courtesy of BLM? When they say today i'm giving a pig wings, are they any better? As for racism, it is normal. It's not right, and it's not something i agree with, but it's normal. Historically, there was far more racism on all sides than what we have today, and we're still whittling it down. what you don't seem to see, is that your own side happens to be normalizing racism against whites. To the point where white people can't even be proud to be white without you considering them horrible people. 

 

You use of MLK was a mistake. Did MLK consider violence and justice to be one in the same? no. he preached nonviolence ant tolerance. even as he himself disagreed with his opponents, he didn't attempt to come to blows, because he understood that violence didn't do anything to change minds of those you disagree with. I advocate against violence, i support the movement towards individual equality. MLK held those exact same views. Not once did he attempt to hold a violent rally, or silence his opponents right to speech, even when his opponents were violent and abusive. He preached tolerance, and acted with dignity and respect. He didn't advocate shutting his opponent's mouths, but converting them through love. Even if he saw their actions as a diemma towards his own goals, he didn't attempt to silence them, but to convince them through words. If you want to use that quote and not have it backfire against you, you're gonna have to drop quite a few of your own positions first. Such as your advocating of violence.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#264
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    I am not afraid to keep on living

  • The Chariot
  • 26,530 posts
    Last Visit 19 minutes ago

well, the main argument is that everybody they don't like is a nazi, and nazis deserve to be silenced and possibly attacked. The actual topic of political violence is blatantly advocated in at least one case. There's very little, if any common ground to be had there.


Oh boy, not this line again.
 
The "main argument" is that people will be called Nazis because of the specific beliefs, actions, and attitudes that they display. You yourself admitted that even if Spencer is not entirely a Nazi, he at least does seem to be a sympathizer. Reducing it to "everybody they don't like is a Nazi" is purposefully ignoring what people are actually saying, and you're instead assigning your own assumptions about an argument to those people.

 

There's no common ground to be had here because when you reduce someone's argument to just "You call everybody they don't like a Nazi!", you are putting words in their mouth. I've been focusing on maybe men two at most and why I believe their use of actual Nazi rhetoric and gestures reflects their genuine beliefs. When you brought up Richard Meyer, I never called him a Nazi. I explained why I dislike him because of the harassment campaigns he has personally orchestrated. While I am critical of many of the individuals you brought up, I feel confident in my arguments because I recognize them as individuals.


Posted Image


#265
Proto

Proto

    Mayo on the side

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,951 posts
    Last Visit Today, 01:01 PM

Breitbart, while slanted, did indeed post a long list of violence against the left, which is what you asked for. How many left sites do you know that are going to do that? I don't support the church shooter, but how many cops are dead because of the anti cop narrative? If you're going to tie the church shooter to a side that he explicitly said he hates, then there's all the reason in the world to tie in many of the cop killers to your own, as they have the same amount of connections to the left as the shooter has to the right. Again, the lower body count is not for lack of trying. People get attacked and hospitalized for holding right wing views, the kid that got abducted and tortured for hours on ( i believe it was) facebook, while the people attacking him screamed fuck donald trump and fuck whitey? What exactly makes them better then the synagogue shooter? the cop killers, inspired by the "pigs in a blanket" chant courtesy of BLM? When they say today i'm giving a pig wings, are they any better? As for racism, it is normal. It's not right, and it's not something i agree with, but it's normal. Historically, there was far more racism on all sides than what we have today, and we're still whittling it down. what you don't seem to see, is that your own side happens to be normalizing racism against whites. To the point where white people can't even be proud to be white without you considering them horrible people. 

 

You use of MLK was a mistake. Did MLK consider violence and justice to be one in the same? no. he preached nonviolence ant tolerance. even as he himself disagreed with his opponents, he didn't attempt to come to blows, because he understood that violence didn't do anything to change minds of those you disagree with. I advocate against violence, i support the movement towards individual equality. MLK held those exact same views. Not once did he attempt to hold a violent rally, or silence his opponents right to speech, even when his opponents were violent and abusive. He preached tolerance, and acted with dignity and respect. He didn't advocate shutting his opponent's mouths, but converting them through love. Even if he saw their actions as a diemma towards his own goals, he didn't attempt to silence them, but to convince them through words. If you want to use that quote and not have it backfire against you, you're gonna have to drop quite a few of your own positions first. Such as your advocating of violence.

If you valued my time or were confident in your statistics in the slightest you wouldn't make me have to dig through people shutting the door on others as literally being assaulted. And the fact that you need to use that instead of a nonpartial website makes me question the validity of your claims since I just dug through 50 cases (most of them reported by them) and a majority of those headlines turned out to be bullshit. You can't claim a source of information as being frivolous in the numbers and then QUOTE THEIR STATISTIC ANYWAYS. 

 

Also I didn't see the 600 number toted by anyone BESIDES Breitbart. So you quote the statistics and admit they're heavily bloated by bullshit in the same quote. You can't try to undermine a source when they're literally who you're quoting when you're talking about 600 Trump supporters getting attacked. That's like me saying "well Trump killed a billion people, there are a lot of maybes here and there and I don't really endorse the source all that much but I'm going to quote it anyways" who's REALLY concerned with the truth here in your eyes man? You readily threw that out there that you knew it so how many other people were you going to say 600 people got hit for being Trump supporters in the past 4 months and not question that belief at all if I wasn't the skeptical one here? Do you not see what's wrong with claiming you're a centrist when your talking points are coming from the farthest right sources you could possibly imagine? That you yourself KNOW to be unreliable and prone to exaggerating? How is this informed centrism and not just fence sitting because you're a coward?

 

You're claiming that I asked for this information. No. You said some bullshit unbelievable number in order to try to disprove my claims, then I asked you to substantiate it and what do you know, it's Breitbart. I didn't ask for the information, you GAVE IT TO ME, then I asked where it came from and you linked a Breitbart article, which means that this number was already in your head FROM the Breitbart article since the only thing you've linked with the 600 number is the Breitbart article and things quoting the Breitbart article. You're literally repeating Breitbart statistics freely and then saying I asked for them when you're the one who brought them into the conversation. I might not even go through them just because you yourself don't believe the number!

 

The fact that you have to use such a slanted website with a shitton of frivolous claims in the first place is absolutely preposterous. Sure the guys who tortured that kid were fucked but what the hell do they have to do with Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA or well, any organization or policy in general? Just because someone's black and hates the system doesn't make them a member of these groups. You have absolutely no evidence that these killers subscribe BECAUSE of Black Lives Matter. Your whole perception of this is being told by a staunchly conservative white nationalists and claim that if you join Black Lives Matter you're going to join ISIS. Even if Black Lives Matter didn't exist you really think that black people would be absolutely stellar with the police? I didn't know N.W.A. was teleported back in time and that they were actually Black Lives Matter movements from the future to spread anti-cop propaganda. Attributing EVERY cop-hating, Donald Trump-hating black person to Black Lives Matter is fucking stupid. You're a "centrist" and someone who cares about both sides right? Fucking read into some of these cases rather then just staring at a headline and going "that's probably everything there is to know about the case".

 

You're literally speaking for a dead man without using any actual quotations. I literally posted something of him saying "yes, the centrists that CONDEMN THE METHODS but ultimately they are subscribing to the same system that is oppressing people must be stopped." MLK literally condoned riots in his later speeches and also stated that indeed, whites were the real criminals compared to even the rioters in 1967 at the Psychology Association, does that seem like someone who's 100% peaceful? No, he understood the requirement and need of violence when it comes to making your voice heard because people literally weren't playing ball with his speeches. You're literally going off base assumptions without reading any of his speeches.

 

Also you know where all that peacetiming got him. Literally murdered by a white racist. There is love where there is it on both sides, but if someone's statement is literally "I want you dragged from your home, unable to breed or murdered" (which is the only way that preserving the white majority in the U.S. can be maintained percentage wise take it or leave it) I don't think we should have to play ball with them.

MLK Quotes


you aren't even an anime.

#266
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 10:09 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

 

 

Name a site that logs reports of left wing violence and harassment against right wing folks if you can, then you can replace breitbart with that site if you wish, till then, that's what we've got. There are very few prominent sites that report and file left wing violence against right wing parties. As for undermining my source, I do so because it’s a fact. They have a clear bias, and I pointed such out. That said, my point is that the left commits more acts of violence and harassment in general than the right. Is most of it nonlethal? Yes, but again, not for lack of trying. Throwing moltov cocktails and rocks into a crowd of people, or stalking and jumping people, or beating people in the head with a baseball bat while they're in the bathroom, can easily become fatal, or at least crippling. It’s only sheer luck that nobody has died yet. Sending kids to deliver a bomb that injures ten cops is attempted murder, and no cop dying was only by the greatest possible stroke of luck. As for breitbart, death threats, rape threats, physical assaults, vandalism, direct harassment, barring from stores, online harassment, robbery of possessions, calls for the death of the president (and republican senators), media defense of violent actions against normal people, left wing politicians calling for violence and incivility against political opponents, open incitements of violence against the right by politicians and celebrities, ect. all add up. There are indeed frivolous cases, but there are actual crimes there, and were the tables turned, would you be fine with left wing folks being barred from businesses simply because they have a hat? Would you be fine with parents or teachers teaching their children to disrespect their political opponents? Would you be fine with groups of people being bombed only because they were trying to keep the peace? Yeah, they’ve got slant, but they have a point. The violence and slander against anybody even remotely right wing has escalated over the past few years, and nobody wants to call it out.

 

 

I could also post video by video by video of violence against cops, reporters, and regular people by the left wing terrorist group antifa, pushing the number up by dozens, if not hundreds of cases. Hell, the “say no to marxism” rally, was attacked by antifa, and multiple assaults there weren’t even in the list, nor were many other antifa related assaults, or blm related cop killings. It’s simple there’s more violence against the right than against the left. There’s more discrimination towards right wingers than left wingers as well.

 

 

“pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon (relating to police)” is one of their most well-known chants, yet they hold no responsibility for inciting the actions of those who attempt to kill cops? Building racial tension on any case even remotely related to black people being injured is the bread and butter of many BLM groups, rioting whenever a black person is shot, before even a single fact is out on the case. Tell me then, at what threshold does BLM share some of the blame for endorsing the act of cop killing? I’m not going off gavin’s assertion, I already stated he was wrong with the ISIS thing. I’m going off the people who actually say “today I gave a pig wings” when discussing a cop they killed. I’m going off of some of their biggest names being known cop killers (Assata shakur, huey newton, Michael finney, ect.) they idolize cop killers, they chant about killing cops, heavily endorse violence at their allies instead of discouraging it. and they endorse rioting and destruction of private property. Why exactly would they get a free pass when cop killers are among the main idols, and their rhetoric is literally all about killing cops?

 

 

You seem to have missed a few key details of the quotes you’re tossing out there. Unlike 1968,  We aren’t talking about getting black people civil rights here.  We have rights, we have opportunities, black people get ahead and black people fall back every day, just like everybody else. We aren’t children who need to throw tantrums and damage the property of others when we don’t get what we want from society. The second point that you missed was that while he understood the cause, he did not endorse said riots. He was firmly against them, and called them counterproductive. And the last detail you missed is that black people have all the tools to move up in America that they could ever need. They simply don’t know how to use them, and rioting reduces the amount of options available. Who’s going to open up a store where people are constantly in the mood to riot over any and every issue? Advocating riots is the same as advocating that all intelligent businesses should avoid your neighborhood like the plague. Protesting is one thing, MLK both understood and endorsed protest, as do I, but rioting is another beast entirely. Understanding it is one thing, endorsing it, alongside endorsing the death of police, is to embrace the death of your community as a whole. Businesses will not come to your residences, because they fear losses from violent riots, police will be driven out of your hood, as has happened in Chicago, and violence will likely rise in prominence due to the lack of authority figures, which means even when the cops do show up (less frequently due to the anti-cop rhetoric), they’re more likely to encounter dangerous situations, which might lead to higher losses of life on both sides, which will only feed into the cycle. Understanding that violence is a response doesn’t change the fact that peaceful protest was and is the correct approach, and is the reason his name is even half as powerful as it is today. Tell me how much longer he’d have lived, or how much further he’d have gotten by attacking any and everybody who remotely opposed him? His peaceful method was what brought so many people of all races over to his side. His peaceful method was what lead to him being immortalized as a standard for discussion. Had he engaged in riots like others did, his name would not have the effect that it does today.

 

 

 

Oh boy, not this line again.
 
The "main argument" is that people will be called Nazis because of the specific beliefs, actions, and attitudes that they display. You yourself admitted that even if Spencer is not entirely a Nazi, he at least does seem to be a sympathizer. Reducing it to "everybody they don't like is a Nazi" is purposefully ignoring what people are actually saying, and you're instead assigning your own assumptions about an argument to those people.

 

There's no common ground to be had here because when you reduce someone's argument to just "You call everybody they don't like a Nazi!", you are putting words in their mouth. I've been focusing on maybe men two at most and why I believe their use of actual Nazi rhetoric and gestures reflects their genuine beliefs. When you brought up Richard Meyer, I never called him a Nazi. I explained why I dislike him because of the harassment campaigns he has personally orchestrated. While I am critical of many of the individuals you brought up, I feel confident in my arguments because I recognize them as individuals.

That's fair enough for the first point, at least on your own end. Just remember, one of the people being called a nazi happens to be the exact kind of person who would check off nearly every gas chamber candidate box, and has publicly criticized and ridicules the alt right and racists as much, if not more than he's actually used their symbols to troll people. He might be chill with people like Spencer, but he is not their ally so much as he's just not their enemy. (talking about milo here, the gay jew who likes black men, his very existence checks just about all the boxes that a nazi would hate)

 

as for the part about people advocating violence here that's a straight up fact.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#267
Proto

Proto

    Mayo on the side

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,951 posts
    Last Visit Today, 01:01 PM

Name a site that logs reports of left wing violence and harassment against right wing folks if you can, then you can replace breitbart with that site if you wish, till then, that's what we've got. There are very few prominent sites that report and file left wing violence against right wing parties. As for undermining my source, I do so because it’s a fact. They have a clear bias, and I pointed such out. That said, my point is that the left commits more acts of violence and harassment in general than the right. Is most of it nonlethal? Yes, but again, not for lack of trying. Throwing moltov cocktails and rocks into a crowd of people, or stalking and jumping people, or beating people in the head with a baseball bat while they're in the bathroom, can easily become fatal, or at least crippling. It’s only sheer luck that nobody has died yet. Sending kids to deliver a bomb that injures ten cops is attempted murder, and no cop dying was only by the greatest possible stroke of luck. As for breitbart, death threats, rape threats, physical assaults, vandalism, direct harassment, barring from stores, online harassment, robbery of possessions, calls for the death of the president (and republican senators), media defense of violent actions against normal people, left wing politicians calling for violence and incivility against political opponents, open incitements of violence against the right by politicians and celebrities, ect. all add up. There are indeed frivolous cases, but there are actual crimes there, and were the tables turned, would you be fine with left wing folks being barred from businesses simply because they have a hat? Would you be fine with parents or teachers teaching their children to disrespect their political opponents? Would you be fine with groups of people being bombed only because they were trying to keep the peace? Yeah, they’ve got slant, but they have a point. The violence and slander against anybody even remotely right wing has escalated over the past few years, and nobody wants to call it out.

 

 

I could also post video by video by video of violence against cops, reporters, and regular people by the left wing terrorist group antifa, pushing the number up by dozens, if not hundreds of cases. Hell, the “say no to marxism” rally, was attacked by antifa, and multiple assaults there weren’t even in the list, nor were many other antifa related assaults, or blm related cop killings. It’s simple there’s more violence against the right than against the left. There’s more discrimination towards right wingers than left wingers as well.

 

 

“pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon (relating to police)” is one of their most well-known chants, yet they hold no responsibility for inciting the actions of those who attempt to kill cops? Building racial tension on any case even remotely related to black people being injured is the bread and butter of many BLM groups, rioting whenever a black person is shot, before even a single fact is out on the case. Tell me then, at what threshold does BLM share some of the blame for endorsing the act of cop killing? I’m not going off gavin’s assertion, I already stated he was wrong with the ISIS thing. I’m going off the people who actually say “today I gave a pig wings” when discussing a cop they killed. I’m going off of some of their biggest names being known cop killers (Assata shakur, huey newton, Michael finney, ect.) they idolize cop killers, they chant about killing cops, heavily endorse violence at their allies instead of discouraging it. and they endorse rioting and destruction of private property. Why exactly would they get a free pass when cop killers are among the main idols, and their rhetoric is literally all about killing cops?

 

 

You seem to have missed a few key details of the quotes you’re tossing out there. Unlike 1968,  We aren’t talking about getting black people civil rights here.  We have rights, we have opportunities, black people get ahead and black people fall back every day, just like everybody else. We aren’t children who need to throw tantrums and damage the property of others when we don’t get what we want from society. The second point that you missed was that while he understood the cause, he did not endorse said riots. He was firmly against them, and called them counterproductive. And the last detail you missed is that black people have all the tools to move up in America that they could ever need. They simply don’t know how to use them, and rioting reduces the amount of options available. Who’s going to open up a store where people are constantly in the mood to riot over any and every issue? Advocating riots is the same as advocating that all intelligent businesses should avoid your neighborhood like the plague. Protesting is one thing, MLK both understood and endorsed protest, as do I, but rioting is another beast entirely. Understanding it is one thing, endorsing it, alongside endorsing the death of police, is to embrace the death of your community as a whole. Businesses will not come to your residences, because they fear losses from violent riots, police will be driven out of your hood, as has happened in Chicago, and violence will likely rise in prominence due to the lack of authority figures, which means even when the cops do show up (less frequently due to the anti-cop rhetoric), they’re more likely to encounter dangerous situations, which might lead to higher losses of life on both sides, which will only feed into the cycle. Understanding that violence is a response doesn’t change the fact that peaceful protest was and is the correct approach, and is the reason his name is even half as powerful as it is today. Tell me how much longer he’d have lived, or how much further he’d have gotten by attacking any and everybody who remotely opposed him? His peaceful method was what brought so many people of all races over to his side. His peaceful method was what lead to him being immortalized as a standard for discussion. Had he engaged in riots like others did, his name would not have the effect that it does today.

 

 

 

That's fair enough for the first point, at least on your own end. Just remember, one of the people being called a nazi happens to be the exact kind of person who would check off nearly every gas chamber candidate box, and has publicly criticized and ridicules the alt right and racists as much, if not more than he's actually used their symbols to troll people. He might be chill with people like Spencer, but he is not their ally so much as he's just not their enemy. (talking about milo here, the gay jew who likes black men, his very existence checks just about all the boxes that a nazi would hate)

 

as for the part about people advocating violence here that's a straight up fact.

Your whole paragraph didn't address the point of my claim which was you, while claiming centrism, seem to be very heavily biased towards right wing figures to the point that you immediately regurgitated the Breitbart number before me. You didn't go through and check to see what numbers were actually valid or did a tally of which were actually heinous crimes, you just assumed that number to be right and quoted it at me. That isn't skepticism, it's the complete opposite of that in fact. 

 

Also here's a hint, when you literally only have Breitbart defending your point, it's clearly not as universal as you believe it to be. Doesn't that tell you literally anything that the only really threatening number you have regarding right wing violence is literally the outlet that outright exaggerated 9/50 of their claims of "right wing threats/violence"?

 

Good, and I can bring up dozens of videos of police shooting unarmed or otherwise unhostile black men. Videos don't fucking matter, statistics do, and yours are bullshit.

 

Okay, you literally ignored my point, hell Assata and them prove my point. Putting fucking all the blame on Black Lives Matter, a protest group that's hosted hundreds upon hundreds of PEACEFUL protests for tension between african-americans and the police is absolutely ignoring the fact that BEFORE BLACK LIVES MATTER EVEN EXISTED you had militants like Assata, musicians like Ice Cube that supported shooting at the police, you had plenty of african-americans for some reason or another felt like the police system was oppressing them. Black communities had a history of disliking the police before 2013 vla1ne and trying to put that all on people who the VAST MAJORITY OF's only crime was annoying rich people with the reminder that yeah, racism is a thing is absolutely wrong. Why are three people torturing a mentally disabled kid while screaming "trump sucks fuck white people" black lives matter when they were never recorded at a fucking protest or anything? Is it because they were black and don't like Trump? Plenty of black people don't like Trump and aren't Black Lives Matter. Assuming every black criminal against white people is immediately tied to black lives matter or civil rights is racial bias. 

 

Alright if it's such a popular chant then there should be videos of more instances of it. If it's so popular give me different instances of them saying "pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon" because otherwise it's not a "well-known chant" it's a 30 second clip that doesn't represent the months upon months of footage of peaceful fucking protest. Hell, if their whole model is killing cops then well, fuck it since they're much more numerous then the white nationalist why has the alt-right killed more black people then BLM have killed cops? They're just as dangerous right? And their numbers are about a thousand to one at best. Yet why are their numbers not equivalent when it comes to violent crime if that's their organization's MO? Answer me. Because that's the thing with the "alt-left" and "alt-right" comparisons. When you start talking about the sheer SCALE of the movements. About how there's about ten thousand protestors compared to every lone white supremacist. Why are their numbers even comparable when it comes to violent crime? With physical assault it's comparable and with murders white supremacists are about 5x the death toll of the left despite there being far more leftists. Unless the chances of being violent is far, far higher amongst white supremacists that just doesn't add up.

 

https://amp.theguard...impression=true

 

also the feds now agree with me, woo.


you aren't even an anime.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users