Campus Protests

45,255 Views | 1109 Replies | Last: 10 hrs ago by KaiBear
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

boognish_bear said:




"Thou must not mock sacred cows"

The modern USA is a religious state….its religion is just not Christianity


I couldn't tell exactly what was happening in the video, but assuming it's true, you think direct racial slurs against blacks are ok?


1. I don't see him say any racial slur.

2. After watching conservative coded protestors (usually white people) get called every name in the book on campus I am numb to the idea that women like this should get preferential treatment…. She got mocked…it was not the end of the world


Again, I said assuming it's true, he was doing monkey imitations. That's about as bad a slur as you'll find.


Why?

If some makes monkey noises at another person…that is implying they are acting like a comic animal

How does the persons race even come into play?
You're smarter than that. Monkey symbolism has been used against blacks since the slave trade. Heck, in many Euro countries, far right soccer fans still make monkey chants and throw bananas at black players.

So now another thing that Black protestors are exempt from (animal noise mockery by college kids) that White protestors are not exempt from.

Without double standards the modern West would have no standards at all....

How convenient...


Your view on this is disappointing

No... its just consistent and logical.

Either no mockery is ever acceptable (regardless of the race)

Or all mockery is ok (regardless of the race)

There should NOT be special carve outs for certain special race groups in America.

If a Black male protestor at a college campus mocking a obese White female protestor would not be punished for making animal noises...(and he should not be)...then it goes for people of other races as well.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

By the way, I answered your questions, but you have not given me an explanation of why black lives matter is untrue. I expect that in your next post.

"I rarely encounter people like you in real life." - that's pretty evident. It's quite evident there is a dearth of critical thinking within your circle, given your takes.

No, you did NOT answer my questions. Where is your answer as to why if you said "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" in a BLM riot/protest you would be met with hostility? Where is your answer as to why the BLM narrative is directed against white America instead of Black America given the statistics that 99% of black lives are killed by other blacks? Where is your answer as to why BLM thinks it is necessary to single out black lives as mattering, apart from other races, and why there is passion and anger behind it?? These questions were meant for you to see that the BLM narrative does not just begin and end with the face value of the slogan, as you were laughably asserting.

Your post is so dumb I don't even know where to begin. Capitalize "black lives matter"?? You don't need to capitalize it unless you are directly referring to the slogan or the organization. If you are simply just talking about "black lives mattering", e.g. if you're asking someone, "do you think black lives matter?" then there is no need to capitalize it. The fact that you'd make an issue over not capitalizing every instance of that phrase is just so pathetic it's beyond words. "Most conservatives would never post 'black lives matter' in lowercase" HUH?? What in the heck are you even talking about??

And HERE'S THE KICKER - YOU yourself didn't capitalize "black lives matter", EVEN when you were referring to the organization/movement!! Here's a direct quote from your previous post:

"Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter."

WOW. So are you the "zealot" you're talking about?

Again, let me reiterate the fact that I strongly suspected I wasn't going to get anywhere with you because of the level of your cluelessness, and that's been demonstrated here to a tee. If you are wanting my answer as to why BLM's narrative is false, well, that is what I was trying to do through those questions that you say you answered but didn't. So give them another shot, if that's what you really want. If your latest post is any indication, though, I won't be holding my breath for anything coherent.

The fantasia you have going on is too much. You seem incapable of reading. You construct a strawman that doesn't involve me with your question of why blm people in your head get violent when someone righteous also from your head says all lives matter. I can't answer that. Never seen it.

It is just a fact that interracial violence is extremely low. Do you think this fact means black lives don't matter? How does it defeat this narrative?

And black people obviously think it is important that the world acknowledge that specifically, black lives matter. Ask them if you don't understand why, but probably, centuries of discrimination and marginalization have to do with it. Open displays of racism during the Trump era, right after many blacks feel such a massive step forward was made as the first President was elected who wasn't a white male. I'm just guessing.

Again, you did not answer my question. Asking loaded questions is not an answer to a question. It is an attempt to deflect. Man up and answer the question, or I'm done engaging with you. You have to be capable of contributing something that makes sense to be worth my time. I don't spend all day on this forum like some.
Okay, clearly I'm dealing with an idiot.

"You construct a strawman that doesn't involve me with your question of why blm people in your head get violent when someone righteous also from your head says all lives matter."

It wasn't a strawman, and it's not supposed to involve you. Because we're not talking about you. We're talking about the "blm" (you didn't capitalize!) movement and their narrative, remember? Good grief, you are so clueless it's really starting to HURT.

"It is just a fact that interracial violence is extremely low. Do you think this fact means black lives don't matter? How does it defeat this narrative?"

Holy moly, you are completely incapable of having an intelligent conversation. That wasn't the fact presented. The fact was not about interracial violence, but about the overwhelming numbers of black on black violence. And you accuse ME of being "incapable of reading"?? Unbelievable, beyond words.


And DO YOU NOT REALIZE that you had just got on to me for a whole paragraph for not capitalizing "black lives matter" when you yourself had done that very thing, and you did it again here just now? Does that even register anything with you? At a least a degree of humility? And with this degree of unawareness, doesn't that really put your perspective on things under heavy question? Shouldn't it make you question yourself? It should.

You are also incapable of realizing that I AM answering your question - it's what those questions were meant to do. They were to get you to realize it for yourself. But obviously, you're showing that you can't even read and comprehend the questions themselves, so as I had already suspected this is all going to be unfruitful.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

boognish_bear said:




"Thou must not mock sacred cows"

The modern USA is a religious state….its religion is just not Christianity


I couldn't tell exactly what was happening in the video, but assuming it's true, you think direct racial slurs against blacks are ok?


1. I don't see him say any racial slur.

2. After watching conservative coded protestors (usually white people) get called every name in the book on campus I am numb to the idea that women like this should get preferential treatment…. She got mocked…it was not the end of the world


Again, I said assuming it's true, he was doing monkey imitations. That's about as bad a slur as you'll find.


Why?

If some makes monkey noises at another person…that is implying they are acting like a comic animal

How does the persons race even come into play?
You're smarter than that. Monkey symbolism has been used against blacks since the slave trade. Heck, in many Euro countries, far right soccer fans still make monkey chants and throw bananas at black players.

So now another thing that Black protestors are exempt from (animal noise mockery by college kids) that White protestors are not exempt from.

Without double standards the modern West would have no standards at all....

How convenient...
His fraternity kicked him out of the frat, not the college
He is still a student
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Waco1947 said:

To be pro-Palestinian is not to be pro-Hamas. Hamas is an immoral, destructive terrorist group.
Israel has moved into the territory of genocide in their revenge attacks. They are simply losing the moral high ground


The sad fact remains that if the "Palestinian" side and their regional allies put down their weapons there would be no more violence and if the Israelis put down their weapons there would be no more Israel. "From the river to the sea" is not a metaphor.
Palestinian people are different
from hamas
Waco1947
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:

**** yes. People are forbidden on roads…because cars are on roads and are dangerous. Surrounding a vehicle is an act of aggression and I should be able to extricate myself by whatever means necessary.

And when the vehicle starts moving and you don't immediately move you're the problem.
Whoa.
Kill or maim someone for being a rude *******?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

boognish_bear said:




"Thou must not mock sacred cows"

The modern USA is a religious state….its religion is just not Christianity


I couldn't tell exactly what was happening in the video, but assuming it's true, you think direct racial slurs against blacks are ok?


1. I don't see him say any racial slur.

2. After watching conservative coded protestors (usually white people) get called every name in the book on campus I am numb to the idea that women like this should get preferential treatment…. She got mocked…it was not the end of the world


Again, I said assuming it's true, he was doing monkey imitations. That's about as bad a slur as you'll find.


Why?

If some makes monkey noises at another person…that is implying they are acting like a comic animal

How does the persons race even come into play?
You're smarter than that. Monkey symbolism has been used against blacks since the slave trade. Heck, in many Euro countries, far right soccer fans still make monkey chants and throw bananas at black players.

So now another thing that Black protestors are exempt from (animal noise mockery by college kids) that White protestors are not exempt from.

Without double standards the modern West would have no standards at all....

How convenient...
His fraternity kicked him out of the frat, not the college
He is still a student

This is not about the legality of the issue.

Of course the fraternity can kick him out for any standards issue it wants.

Its about the double standard.

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

nein51 said:

**** yes. People are forbidden on roads…because cars are on roads and are dangerous. Surrounding a vehicle is an act of aggression and I should be able to extricate myself by whatever means necessary.

And when the vehicle starts moving and you don't immediately move you're the problem.
Whoa.
Kill or maim someone for being a rude *******?
Check that video. A mob attacks a vehicle, the driver of that vehicle is perfectly reasonable in making his escape from that situation.

Rush a moving motor vehicle, if something bad happens to you, that is on you, not the person(s) you were attacking.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Osodecentx said:

nein51 said:

**** yes. People are forbidden on roads…because cars are on roads and are dangerous. Surrounding a vehicle is an act of aggression and I should be able to extricate myself by whatever means necessary.

And when the vehicle starts moving and you don't immediately move you're the problem.
Whoa.
Kill or maim someone for being a rude *******?
Check that video. A mob attacks a vehicle, the driver of that vehicle is perfectly reasonable in making his escape from that situation.

Rush a moving motor vehicle, if something bad happens to you, that is on you, not the person(s) you were attacking.
The video begins with a person standing in front of the truck. At that time we can't see what is going on with the protesters. Once the truck accelerates and a protester goes down, other protesters begin banging on the truck and the truck accelerates.

Is there another video that chronicles events earlier than the video posted?
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

boognish_bear said:




"Thou must not mock sacred cows"

The modern USA is a religious state….its religion is just not Christianity


I couldn't tell exactly what was happening in the video, but assuming it's true, you think direct racial slurs against blacks are ok?


1. I don't see him say any racial slur.

2. After watching conservative coded protestors (usually white people) get called every name in the book on campus I am numb to the idea that women like this should get preferential treatment…. She got mocked…it was not the end of the world


Again, I said assuming it's true, he was doing monkey imitations. That's about as bad a slur as you'll find.


Why?

If some makes monkey noises at another person…that is implying they are acting like a comic animal

How does the persons race even come into play?
You're smarter than that. Monkey symbolism has been used against blacks since the slave trade. Heck, in many Euro countries, far right soccer fans still make monkey chants and throw bananas at black players.

So now another thing that Black protestors are exempt from (animal noise mockery by college kids) that White protestors are not exempt from.

Without double standards the modern West would have no standards at all....

How convenient...


Your view on this is disappointing

No... its just consistent and logical.

Either no mockery is ever acceptable (regardless of the race)

Or all mockery is ok (regardless of the race)

There should NOT be special carve outs for certain special race groups in America.

If a Black male protestor at a college campus mocking a obese White female protestor would not be punished for making animal noises...(and he should not be)...then it goes for people of other races as well.


Unreal. Guess the N word is fine also.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Oldbear83 said:

Osodecentx said:

nein51 said:

**** yes. People are forbidden on roads…because cars are on roads and are dangerous. Surrounding a vehicle is an act of aggression and I should be able to extricate myself by whatever means necessary.

And when the vehicle starts moving and you don't immediately move you're the problem.
Whoa.
Kill or maim someone for being a rude *******?
Check that video. A mob attacks a vehicle, the driver of that vehicle is perfectly reasonable in making his escape from that situation.

Rush a moving motor vehicle, if something bad happens to you, that is on you, not the person(s) you were attacking.
The video begins with a person standing in front of the truck. At that time we can't see what is going on with the protesters. Once the truck accelerates and a protester goes down, other protesters begin banging on the truck and the truck accelerates.

Is there another video that chronicles events earlier than the video posted?
Yes I'm sure that truck and horse trailer were being left alone and the mean ol racist behind the wheel just decided to run over the people in front of him.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

ShooterTX said:

Jack Bauer said:

"Guillotine, Guillotine, Guillotine, Guillotine"

"Bracey, Bracey, we see you. You assault students too. Off to the mother****ing gallows with you."

"As you already know where I am sending her [to the guillotine], her and her ****ass bob."

Lovely free speech heroes!


no, no, no!!! Don't you know that the only outrage is the one kid who was dancing around like a monkey????

The rest of this is to be celebrated!! Academia just LOVES them some calls for violence & death!
Meanwhile...crickets.


No no, that's okay, see, because multiple decades ago someone white did something bad to someone black.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Oldbear83 said:

Osodecentx said:

nein51 said:

**** yes. People are forbidden on roads…because cars are on roads and are dangerous. Surrounding a vehicle is an act of aggression and I should be able to extricate myself by whatever means necessary.

And when the vehicle starts moving and you don't immediately move you're the problem.
Whoa.
Kill or maim someone for being a rude *******?
Check that video. A mob attacks a vehicle, the driver of that vehicle is perfectly reasonable in making his escape from that situation.

Rush a moving motor vehicle, if something bad happens to you, that is on you, not the person(s) you were attacking.
The video begins with a person standing in front of the truck. At that time we can't see what is going on with the protesters. Once the truck accelerates and a protester goes down, other protesters begin banging on the truck and the truck accelerates.

Is there another video that chronicles events earlier than the video posted?

None of that matters. She was in the road, and she should expect to be run over. Only a true and utter moron would think that drivers are required to put themselves in harms way because some vegan/Hamas supporter has a thought in their infantile brain.
ShooterTX
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waco1947 said:

D. C. Bear said:

Waco1947 said:

To be pro-Palestinian is not to be pro-Hamas. Hamas is an immoral, destructive terrorist group.
Israel has moved into the territory of genocide in their revenge attacks. They are simply losing the moral high ground


The sad fact remains that if the "Palestinian" side and their regional allies put down their weapons there would be no more violence and if the Israelis put down their weapons there would be no more Israel. "From the river to the sea" is not a metaphor.
Palestinian people are different
Nt from hamas
Not all support Hamas certainly, though Hamas usually has over 70% support from Palestinians.

Also, Hamas is lying badly about the figures of deaths among civilians, since they control the area, they
control the media coming out of that area. Several studies have been done disproving the badly inflated numbers.

Also if Hamas wouldn't hide control centers in the middle of Civilian areas, even in refugee camps it would help with the retaliatory strikes not being deadly.

There are two targets with these riots/protest/disruptions, the Jewish people and the elimination of Israel is the #1 target, hatred for America is a secondary target.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

nein51 said:

**** yes. People are forbidden on roads…because cars are on roads and are dangerous. Surrounding a vehicle is an act of aggression and I should be able to extricate myself by whatever means necessary.

And when the vehicle starts moving and you don't immediately move you're the problem.
Whoa.
Kill or maim someone for being a rude *******?

Yes. Blocking a roadway is a public safety issue and creates a ridiculously hostile environment whereby you can almost guarantee someone is going to get hurt. This planet is COVERED with places you can protest. A roadway should literally never be one.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

nein51 said:

**** yes. People are forbidden on roads…because cars are on roads and are dangerous. Surrounding a vehicle is an act of aggression and I should be able to extricate myself by whatever means necessary.

And when the vehicle starts moving and you don't immediately move you're the problem.
Whoa.
Kill or maim someone for being a rude *******?
If they identify as a speed bump, we should make it real for them!
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agree 100%.

I am radically pro free speech.

I also firmly believe speech is speech and not actions. I am fine with some levels of performative speech but that right ends when it affects another person. One's rights to free speech should not infringe on another person's rights.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Porteroso said:

D. C. Bear said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:


Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not


Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.
Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.
I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.
In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.


Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.
And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?
I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.
Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.


So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.
"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.
Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?


I am not sure you understand what "narrative" means. The statement "black lives matter" is an assertion of fact but it is not a narrative any more than saying "the sky is blue" is a narrative.

No but it is. It is not fact. Morality is not fact. People deserve freedom is not fact, it is an ideal, and yes ideals can be narratives. Obviously there are many ways we could say blacks deserve this and that, but generally this is a decentralized global movement that is saying black lives matter, and wanting everyone else to at least agree in principle.


Even if you claim that it isn't a question of fact there's no need to quibble over that question. We can call it a "statement" or an "assertion," but it still isn't a narrative. That statement may evoke any number of competing narratives in the minds of listeners or may have any number of intended narratives in the mind of the speaker, but it is not, by itself, a narrative.

The narrative is that they want everyone to acknowledge black lives matter.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:


Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not


Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.
Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.
I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.
In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.


Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.
And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?
I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.
Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.


So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

By the way, I answered your questions, but you have not given me an explanation of why black lives matter is untrue. I expect that in your next post.
Let me simplify it for you. He's calling you a moron for pretending that so-called "Black Lives Matter" was about the lives of blacks mattering. And he's expressing little faith your ability to recognize the obvious because you regular parrot stupidity like Trump banned Muslims or it is illegal to say gay in Florida. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows Burn Loot Murder had a very specific agenda and it has given little **** to black lives taken by blacks.

I parrot those things? Have not! Use that triple digit IQ of yours to not lump everyone different than you together.

I'm a little impressed you said it, that black lives matter is not about black lives mattering. I at least respect the stance, ignorant as you are. Most see the folly in saying that outright and try to skirt the issue. Like busty tarper.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

D. C. Bear said:

Porteroso said:

D. C. Bear said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:


Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not


Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.
Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.
I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.
In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.


Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.
And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?
I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.
Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.


So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.
"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.
Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?


I am not sure you understand what "narrative" means. The statement "black lives matter" is an assertion of fact but it is not a narrative any more than saying "the sky is blue" is a narrative.

No but it is. It is not fact. Morality is not fact. People deserve freedom is not fact, it is an ideal, and yes ideals can be narratives. Obviously there are many ways we could say blacks deserve this and that, but generally this is a decentralized global movement that is saying black lives matter, and wanting everyone else to at least agree in principle.


Even if you claim that it isn't a question of fact there's no need to quibble over that question. We can call it a "statement" or an "assertion," but it still isn't a narrative. That statement may evoke any number of competing narratives in the minds of listeners or may have any number of intended narratives in the mind of the speaker, but it is not, by itself, a narrative.

The narrative is that they want everyone to acknowledge black lives matter because they believe police are hunting down and killing innocent black people.
FIFY
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso: "The narrative is that they want everyone to acknowledge black lives matter."

Corrected for accuracy, it's really that BLM wanted everyone to kowtow to radical leftist violence in order to advance their agenda.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

This is the hill you chose to die on?



No danger of dying. Just arguing with some backwards zealots in denial of reality. Stating the obvious doesn't cost me much other than time. I think it is good to be able to defend reality, to have thought it through. The second I feel bored or irritated I can not visit the forum for a while, but thank you for your concern.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Porteroso said:

ShooterTX said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:


Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not


Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.
Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.
I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.
In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.


Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.
And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?
I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.
Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.


So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.
"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.
Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?

For most people, BLM started because George Floyd was killed by cops, because he was black. THAT is the false narrative. The evidence is very clear that George Floyd was a career criminal who overdosed on fentanyl.
The St. George story is a completely false narrative. And so is the false narrative that police are racists who use unnecessary violence on black people.

Sorry pal, but the BLM organization and the BLM movement are totally and completely based upon false narratives.

BLM was a long, long time coming. It was after the Floyd video that it reached a boiling point and felt the need to say out loud, on signs, in public, black lives matter. Floyd did not need to be completely innocent to deserve his own life. He might have died anyways! But he didn't. He died with an officer choking his life out of him, on video.

Let's go on a theoretical journey. You've proven you can say black lives matter, but pretend you are a vocal supporter of the movement. Pretend Floyd was the worst human of all time, worse than Saddam and Hitler combined. Do you take it back, that black lives matter? Or was the movement actually not about 1 guy? Does the whole slogan really rest on the narrative that Floyd was unjustly killed?
No. Floyd was only 1 of many false narratives that are the basis for BLM. The other false narrative is that white, racist cops are out to get black people.

Let's look at another scenario. Why is it that all of the leaders of BLM will tell you that saying "All lives matter" is racist? Why is it unacceptable to believe that a statement of "all lives matter" should be a sufficient stance? Shouldn't "all lives matter" also include black people? Also, if saying that "black lives matter" is a good thing, then why is saying "white lives matter" a racist thing?

The reality is that the BLM movement is less about black lives and more about pushing racial divisions for the sake of political power. BLM doesn't want peace between the races. BLM wants to push black people into seething hatred & anger towards Republicans. Yes, I said Republicans, not white people. BLM loves white democrats, but hates white Republicans. BLM is all about political power, not about racial equality.

How do you defend this last paragraph? Have you talked with a black person who says this? Did you hear it on fox news? Do you believe there are evil "black people matter" puppetmasters out there that want everyone to accept that black lives matter so they can gain political power or wealth? Just where the heck do you guys get your craziness?
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Porteroso: "The narrative is that they want everyone to acknowledge black lives matter."

Corrected for accuracy, it's really that BLM wanted everyone to kowtow to radical leftist violence in order to advance their agenda.


How do you defend this? Is this what someone told you? Did you make it up after watching a few summer riots on repeat? Do you think this is what most BLM supporters think?
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

By the way, I answered your questions, but you have not given me an explanation of why black lives matter is untrue. I expect that in your next post.

"I rarely encounter people like you in real life." - that's pretty evident. It's quite evident there is a dearth of critical thinking within your circle, given your takes.

No, you did NOT answer my questions. Where is your answer as to why if you said "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" in a BLM riot/protest you would be met with hostility? Where is your answer as to why the BLM narrative is directed against white America instead of Black America given the statistics that 99% of black lives are killed by other blacks? Where is your answer as to why BLM thinks it is necessary to single out black lives as mattering, apart from other races, and why there is passion and anger behind it?? These questions were meant for you to see that the BLM narrative does not just begin and end with the face value of the slogan, as you were laughably asserting.

Your post is so dumb I don't even know where to begin. Capitalize "black lives matter"?? You don't need to capitalize it unless you are directly referring to the slogan or the organization. If you are simply just talking about "black lives mattering", e.g. if you're asking someone, "do you think black lives matter?" then there is no need to capitalize it. The fact that you'd make an issue over not capitalizing every instance of that phrase is just so pathetic it's beyond words. "Most conservatives would never post 'black lives matter' in lowercase" HUH?? What in the heck are you even talking about??

And HERE'S THE KICKER - YOU yourself didn't capitalize "black lives matter", EVEN when you were referring to the organization/movement!! Here's a direct quote from your previous post:

"Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter."

WOW. So are you the "zealot" you're talking about?

Again, let me reiterate the fact that I strongly suspected I wasn't going to get anywhere with you because of the level of your cluelessness, and that's been demonstrated here to a tee. If you are wanting my answer as to why BLM's narrative is false, well, that is what I was trying to do through those questions that you say you answered but didn't. So give them another shot, if that's what you really want. If your latest post is any indication, though, I won't be holding my breath for anything coherent.

The fantasia you have going on is too much. You seem incapable of reading. You construct a strawman that doesn't involve me with your question of why blm people in your head get violent when someone righteous also from your head says all lives matter. I can't answer that. Never seen it.

It is just a fact that interracial violence is extremely low. Do you think this fact means black lives don't matter? How does it defeat this narrative?

And black people obviously think it is important that the world acknowledge that specifically, black lives matter. Ask them if you don't understand why, but probably, centuries of discrimination and marginalization have to do with it. Open displays of racism during the Trump era, right after many blacks feel such a massive step forward was made as the first President was elected who wasn't a white male. I'm just guessing.

Again, you did not answer my question. Asking loaded questions is not an answer to a question. It is an attempt to deflect. Man up and answer the question, or I'm done engaging with you. You have to be capable of contributing something that makes sense to be worth my time. I don't spend all day on this forum like some.
Okay, clearly I'm dealing with an idiot.

"You construct a strawman that doesn't involve me with your question of why blm people in your head get violent when someone righteous also from your head says all lives matter."

It wasn't a strawman, and it's not supposed to involve you. Because we're not talking about you. We're talking about the "blm" (you didn't capitalize!) movement and their narrative, remember? Good grief, you are so clueless it's really starting to HURT.

"It is just a fact that interracial violence is extremely low. Do you think this fact means black lives don't matter? How does it defeat this narrative?"

Holy moly, you are completely incapable of having an intelligent conversation. That wasn't the fact presented. The fact was not about interracial violence, but about the overwhelming numbers of black on black violence. And you accuse ME of being "incapable of reading"?? Unbelievable, beyond words.


And DO YOU NOT REALIZE that you had just got on to me for a whole paragraph for not capitalizing "black lives matter" when you yourself had done that very thing, and you did it again here just now? Does that even register anything with you? At a least a degree of humility? And with this degree of unawareness, doesn't that really put your perspective on things under heavy question? Shouldn't it make you question yourself? It should.

You are also incapable of realizing that I AM answering your question - it's what those questions were meant to do. They were to get you to realize it for yourself. But obviously, you're showing that you can't even read and comprehend the questions themselves, so as I had already suspected this is all going to be unfruitful.

You can't answer the question, can you? You want me to answer my own question, that is your defense of not answering? Actually I wanted you to answer it. I'll wait.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:



Boy do we need a lot more of this!

People who attempt to block the roads should absolutely be run down. Anyone stupid enough to play in the road, is eventually going to get squished... and deserve it.

Yes

Exhibit A - Reginald Denny.

Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:


Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not


Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.
Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.
I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.
In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.


Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.
And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?
I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.
Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.


So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

By the way, I answered your questions, but you have not given me an explanation of why black lives matter is untrue. I expect that in your next post.
Let me simplify it for you. He's calling you a moron for pretending that so-called "Black Lives Matter" was about the lives of blacks mattering. And he's expressing little faith your ability to recognize the obvious because you regular parrot stupidity like Trump banned Muslims or it is illegal to say gay in Florida. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows Burn Loot Murder had a very specific agenda and it has given little **** to black lives taken by blacks.

I parrot those things? Have not! Use that triple digit IQ of yours to not lump everyone different than you together.

I'm a little impressed you said it, that black lives matter is not about black lives mattering. I at least respect the stance, ignorant as you are. Most see the folly in saying that outright and try to skirt the issue. Like busty tarper.
I feel like you're sort of arguing with yourself at this point.

The organization was little more than a race-hustling grift based on disinformation.

If it thought black lives mattered it would be investing in work to reduce black-on-black crime rather than seaside mansions.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

By the way, I answered your questions, but you have not given me an explanation of why black lives matter is untrue. I expect that in your next post.

"I rarely encounter people like you in real life." - that's pretty evident. It's quite evident there is a dearth of critical thinking within your circle, given your takes.

No, you did NOT answer my questions. Where is your answer as to why if you said "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" in a BLM riot/protest you would be met with hostility? Where is your answer as to why the BLM narrative is directed against white America instead of Black America given the statistics that 99% of black lives are killed by other blacks? Where is your answer as to why BLM thinks it is necessary to single out black lives as mattering, apart from other races, and why there is passion and anger behind it?? These questions were meant for you to see that the BLM narrative does not just begin and end with the face value of the slogan, as you were laughably asserting.

Your post is so dumb I don't even know where to begin. Capitalize "black lives matter"?? You don't need to capitalize it unless you are directly referring to the slogan or the organization. If you are simply just talking about "black lives mattering", e.g. if you're asking someone, "do you think black lives matter?" then there is no need to capitalize it. The fact that you'd make an issue over not capitalizing every instance of that phrase is just so pathetic it's beyond words. "Most conservatives would never post 'black lives matter' in lowercase" HUH?? What in the heck are you even talking about??

And HERE'S THE KICKER - YOU yourself didn't capitalize "black lives matter", EVEN when you were referring to the organization/movement!! Here's a direct quote from your previous post:

"Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter."

WOW. So are you the "zealot" you're talking about?

Again, let me reiterate the fact that I strongly suspected I wasn't going to get anywhere with you because of the level of your cluelessness, and that's been demonstrated here to a tee. If you are wanting my answer as to why BLM's narrative is false, well, that is what I was trying to do through those questions that you say you answered but didn't. So give them another shot, if that's what you really want. If your latest post is any indication, though, I won't be holding my breath for anything coherent.

The fantasia you have going on is too much. You seem incapable of reading. You construct a strawman that doesn't involve me with your question of why blm people in your head get violent when someone righteous also from your head says all lives matter. I can't answer that. Never seen it.

It is just a fact that interracial violence is extremely low. Do you think this fact means black lives don't matter? How does it defeat this narrative?

And black people obviously think it is important that the world acknowledge that specifically, black lives matter. Ask them if you don't understand why, but probably, centuries of discrimination and marginalization have to do with it. Open displays of racism during the Trump era, right after many blacks feel such a massive step forward was made as the first President was elected who wasn't a white male. I'm just guessing.

Again, you did not answer my question. Asking loaded questions is not an answer to a question. It is an attempt to deflect. Man up and answer the question, or I'm done engaging with you. You have to be capable of contributing something that makes sense to be worth my time. I don't spend all day on this forum like some.
Okay, clearly I'm dealing with an idiot.

"You construct a strawman that doesn't involve me with your question of why blm people in your head get violent when someone righteous also from your head says all lives matter."

It wasn't a strawman, and it's not supposed to involve you. Because we're not talking about you. We're talking about the "blm" (you didn't capitalize!) movement and their narrative, remember? Good grief, you are so clueless it's really starting to HURT.

"It is just a fact that interracial violence is extremely low. Do you think this fact means black lives don't matter? How does it defeat this narrative?"

Holy moly, you are completely incapable of having an intelligent conversation. That wasn't the fact presented. The fact was not about interracial violence, but about the overwhelming numbers of black on black violence. And you accuse ME of being "incapable of reading"?? Unbelievable, beyond words.


And DO YOU NOT REALIZE that you had just got on to me for a whole paragraph for not capitalizing "black lives matter" when you yourself had done that very thing, and you did it again here just now? Does that even register anything with you? At a least a degree of humility? And with this degree of unawareness, doesn't that really put your perspective on things under heavy question? Shouldn't it make you question yourself? It should.

You are also incapable of realizing that I AM answering your question - it's what those questions were meant to do. They were to get you to realize it for yourself. But obviously, you're showing that you can't even read and comprehend the questions themselves, so as I had already suspected this is all going to be unfruitful.

You can't answer the question, can you? You want me to answer my own question, that is your defense of not answering? Actually I wanted you to answer it. I'll wait.
How does your ineptitude at understanding and answering questions mean that I'm not capable of answering your question? Do you honestly believe I've been telling you this whole time that the BLM narrative is false, but I don't really know why and how?

Could you even point to where you asked me a question in the first place?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Quote:


Even if you claim that it isn't a question of fact there's no need to quibble over that question. We can call it a "statement" or an "assertion," but it still isn't a narrative. That statement may evoke any number of competing narratives in the minds of listeners or may have any number of intended narratives in the mind of the speaker, but it is not, by itself, a narrative.

The narrative is that they want everyone to acknowledge black lives matter.
That still isn't a "narrative". At this point it has to be asked - do you know what "narrative" means?

WHY do they want everyone to acknowledge that black lives matter?

Let's try it that way, maybe we can get somewhere.

Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Oldbear83 said:

Porteroso: "The narrative is that they want everyone to acknowledge black lives matter."

Corrected for accuracy, it's really that BLM wanted everyone to kowtow to radical leftist violence in order to advance their agenda.


How do you defend this? Is this what someone told you? Did you make it up after watching a few summer riots on repeat? Do you think this is what most BLM supporters think?
You post like someone who doesn't have any black friends.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

nein51 said:

**** yes. People are forbidden on roads…because cars are on roads and are dangerous. Surrounding a vehicle is an act of aggression and I should be able to extricate myself by whatever means necessary.

And when the vehicle starts moving and you don't immediately move you're the problem.
Whoa.
Kill or maim someone for being a rude *******?



Of course not. Kill or maim people in the road blocking traffic.


The timeless words of Mr. Miyagi come to mind "Walk on road. Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later, you get squished just like grape"
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

boognish_bear said:




"Thou must not mock sacred cows"

The modern USA is a religious state….its religion is just not Christianity


I couldn't tell exactly what was happening in the video, but assuming it's true, you think direct racial slurs against blacks are ok?


1. I don't see him say any racial slur.

2. After watching conservative coded protestors (usually white people) get called every name in the book on campus I am numb to the idea that women like this should get preferential treatment…. She got mocked…it was not the end of the world


Again, I said assuming it's true, he was doing monkey imitations. That's about as bad a slur as you'll find.


Why?

If some makes monkey noises at another person…that is implying they are acting like a comic animal

How does the persons race even come into play?
You're smarter than that. Monkey symbolism has been used against blacks since the slave trade. Heck, in many Euro countries, far right soccer fans still make monkey chants and throw bananas at black players.

So now another thing that Black protestors are exempt from (animal noise mockery by college kids) that White protestors are not exempt from.

Without double standards the modern West would have no standards at all....

How convenient...


Your view on this is disappointing

No... its just consistent and logical.

Either no mockery is ever acceptable (regardless of the race)

Or all mockery is ok (regardless of the race)

There should NOT be special carve outs for certain special race groups in America.

If a Black male protestor at a college campus mocking a obese White female protestor would not be punished for making animal noises...(and he should not be)...then it goes for people of other races as well.


Unreal. Guess the N word is fine also.



It should be logically. Hard to say a word is over the line when the people complaining of it use it frequently.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

boognish_bear said:




"Thou must not mock sacred cows"

The modern USA is a religious state….its religion is just not Christianity


I couldn't tell exactly what was happening in the video, but assuming it's true, you think direct racial slurs against blacks are ok?


1. I don't see him say any racial slur.

2. After watching conservative coded protestors (usually white people) get called every name in the book on campus I am numb to the idea that women like this should get preferential treatment…. She got mocked…it was not the end of the world


Again, I said assuming it's true, he was doing monkey imitations. That's about as bad a slur as you'll find.


Why?

If some makes monkey noises at another person…that is implying they are acting like a comic animal

How does the persons race even come into play?
You're smarter than that. Monkey symbolism has been used against blacks since the slave trade. Heck, in many Euro countries, far right soccer fans still make monkey chants and throw bananas at black players.

So now another thing that Black protestors are exempt from (animal noise mockery by college kids) that White protestors are not exempt from.

Without double standards the modern West would have no standards at all....

How convenient...


Your view on this is disappointing

No... its just consistent and logical.

Either no mockery is ever acceptable (regardless of the race)

Or all mockery is ok (regardless of the race)

There should NOT be special carve outs for certain special race groups in America.

If a Black male protestor at a college campus mocking a obese White female protestor would not be punished for making animal noises...(and he should not be)...then it goes for people of other races as well.


Unreal. Guess the N word is fine also.


At the end of the day it's just a word.

It has no more power that what you give it.

And there are no words forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

Do you think certain words or phrases should be outlawed?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:


Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not


Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.
Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.
I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.
In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.


Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.
And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?
I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.
Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.


So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

By the way, I answered your questions, but you have not given me an explanation of why black lives matter is untrue. I expect that in your next post.
Let me simplify it for you. He's calling you a moron for pretending that so-called "Black Lives Matter" was about the lives of blacks mattering. And he's expressing little faith your ability to recognize the obvious because you regular parrot stupidity like Trump banned Muslims or it is illegal to say gay in Florida. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows Burn Loot Murder had a very specific agenda and it has given little **** to black lives taken by blacks.

I parrot those things? Have not! Use that triple digit IQ of yours to not lump everyone different than you together.

I'm a little impressed you said it, that black lives matter is not about black lives mattering. I at least respect the stance, ignorant as you are. Most see the folly in saying that outright and try to skirt the issue. Like busty tarper.

D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

D. C. Bear said:

Porteroso said:

D. C. Bear said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:


Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not


Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.
Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.
I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.
In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.


Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.
And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?
I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.
Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.


So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.
"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.
Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?


I am not sure you understand what "narrative" means. The statement "black lives matter" is an assertion of fact but it is not a narrative any more than saying "the sky is blue" is a narrative.

No but it is. It is not fact. Morality is not fact. People deserve freedom is not fact, it is an ideal, and yes ideals can be narratives. Obviously there are many ways we could say blacks deserve this and that, but generally this is a decentralized global movement that is saying black lives matter, and wanting everyone else to at least agree in principle.


Even if you claim that it isn't a question of fact there's no need to quibble over that question. We can call it a "statement" or an "assertion," but it still isn't a narrative. That statement may evoke any number of competing narratives in the minds of listeners or may have any number of intended narratives in the mind of the speaker, but it is not, by itself, a narrative.

The narrative is that they want everyone to acknowledge black lives matter.


And? Who are all these people who don't?
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Taking a look at homicides in America, it seems that white people think black lives matter more than black people think black lives matter
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.