Are black on white attacks justified?

[Crucible]

No, it isn't. It began with three people who aren't wanted by any law enforcement agency and its message and momentum has been carried on by a large number of people, few of which have been arrested for violent behavior.


What the Sam Hill is that even supposed to mean? Illicit antics? Is this your way of slathering something in negativity by insisting any action be valued according to some subjective metric you don't fully articulate? lain:

You could call civil, peaceful protest an illicit act if it runs afoul of the traditional, without it actually crossing a single ethical or legal line.


I don't think anyone has been talking about "trouble making" which is another subjective litmus and one with a rich history where race is concerned. The Civil Rights Movement caused all sorts of trouble for racists...I think that was a good thing. If this movement causes abusive and inequitable practice to be dealt with that will be a worthwhile outcome for the Republic too, even if it upsets a few people. If you don't think addressing inequity in the application of law as it involves blacks is a good cause, then you're a bigot. If you think the laws of the land should be applied without regard for race and that ending practices that move the margin otherwise is a good idea, you have a problem.

Blocking highways is not only illegal, it begs for violence. I've seen multiple videos of frustrated people straight up plowing into them. And then there's burning businesses, a call to kill all white men, and.. oh yeah.. SNIPING OUT POLICE.

if this were a white organization, they would all be in a federal jail right now. But that literally has no meaning to a liberal minded person who, at this point, is basically an unrealized victim

 

[Town Heretic]

Blocking highways is not only illegal, it begs for violence.

I didn't say civil disobedience wasn't illegal. Are you under the impression that civil disobedience is the only employed methodology of the movement? Because it isn't. And, in fact, any number of authorized public demonstrations have happened as a result, perfectly legal. As for whether a civil protest begs for violence, that depends on the protest and those looking on. Ghandi led a nation in a fairly peaceful bit of civil disobedience. Well, his side of it, at any rate.The violence related to King was mostly from authority and the illegal actions of racist spectators.

I've seen multiple videos of frustrated people straight up plowing into them

That would be a criminal act and, as with those protesting without permit, if you're going to break the law you have to be prepared for the consequences. But let's not conflate the exception with the rule, no matter which side you're on. Most police aren't shooting anyone, aren't singling out blacks with malice aforethought, etc. And most people who identify with the BLM movement are doing so with a legitimate grievance and without violence on their part.

And then there's burning businesses, a call to kill all white men, and.. oh yeah.. SNIPING OUT POLICE.

Like lynching, most people aren't doing that. Those that break the law should face the same thing an idiot plowing into pedestrians should.

if this were a white organization, they would all be in a federal jail right now.

Complete nonsense.

But that literally has no meaning to a liberal minded person who, at this point, is basically an unrealized victim

I don't think you give liberals enough credit, just as I think you slight the movement by willfully conflating irresponsible and reprehensible conduct you haven't established as a rule with the rule, but I'll let liberals debate their finer points with you.

Or were you trying to be as inaccurate in assessing me as you were with the BLM movement? Because there's something to be said for consistency.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I didn't say civil disobedience wasn't illegal. Are you under the impression that civil disobedience is the only employed methodology of the movement? Because it isn't. And, in fact, any number of authorized public demonstrations have happened as a result, perfectly legal. As for whether a civil protest begs for violence, that depends on the protest and those looking on. Ghandi led a nation in a fairly peaceful bit of civil disobedience. Well, his side of it, at any rate.The violence related to King was mostly from authority and the illegal actions of racist spectators.


That would be a criminal act and, as with those protesting without permit, if you're going to break the law you have to be prepared for the consequences. But let's not conflate the exception with the rule, no matter which side you're on. Most police aren't shooting anyone, aren't singling out blacks with malice aforethought, etc. And most people who identify with the BLM movement are doing so with a legitimate grievance and without violence on their part.


Like lynching, most people aren't doing that. Those that break the law should face the same thing an idiot plowing into pedestrians should.


Complete nonsense.


I don't think you give liberals enough credit, just as I think you slight the movement by willfully conflating irresponsible and reprehensible conduct you haven't established as a rule with the rule, but I'll let liberals debate their finer points with you.

Or were you trying to be as inaccurate in assessing me as you were with the BLM movement? Because there's something to be said for consistency.

If there was a WLM movement doing the exact same things, cruc is exactly right, they would all be in jail and there would be hangings if it were still part of the judicial system.

 

[ClimateSanity]

So the violence is just a small part of the BLM movement? TH? Check out this video and tell me if you still think that .

https://m.facebook.com/dialog/share...-chases-beats-white-man-wearing-maga-hat/amp/

 

[Town Heretic]

If there was a WLM movement doing the exact same things, cruc is exactly right, they would all be in jail and there would be hangings if it were still part of the judicial system.

He already made that ridiculous, unprovable assertion. Among the reasons it's absurd: historically speaking, majorities don't repress and maltreat themselves. Given where the power rests, it's a goofy claim/slight of hand complaint. Unless you mean in a world where whites were the minority. Who knows? Given how little skin color should actually impact, maybe so. And maybe if we all had wings and enough muscle we could fly.

But that's not the reality. The reality is that you and he and people like you are doing your level best to put a face on the movement while staying miles removed from the actual point of the movement. And that's a shame.

You don't need a WLM movement because we lack the complaint...and we lack it for the same reason we don't need a White Entertainment Network, because most of what's on would constitute that programming. Most of the privilege and point of social discourse and production is created by, geared for and consumed by the majority. Whites hold most of the wealth and power in this society. For the foreseeable future and the entirety of our past that's the reality.

 

[Town Heretic]

So the violence is just a small part of the BLM movement? TH? Check out this video and tell me if you still think that .

https://m.facebook.com/dialog/share...-chases-beats-white-man-wearing-maga-hat/amp/

Your link was a truncated FB bit. So I went to the site and looked at the article about a guy who wore a Trump hat to a BLM protest that had been organized right after the shooting death of a black man.

Cruc will tell you that he had it coming. Well, if he's consistent. I won't. You should be able to wear the emblem of association with what many in the black community feel is a racist candidate for the presidency. Even at an event where you know passions will be enflamed, given the particular nature/reason for this rally. You should be able to take a vacation to Israel wearing your Arafat t-shirt too. But the chances are if you're doing that you have something other than participating in a peaceful, stress free afternoon.

It's a little like protesters who show up at a Trump rally. Here's a link to one being physically assaulted. There are more. And you know what both videos prove? Nothing, as far as establishing a rule goes. All they manage to support is the notion that if you are in a provocative stance among "the enemy" of your position and tempers are flaring, someone (likely you) will get hurt.


Anecdotes can be good for illustrating a rule, but they don't establish the rule.

 

[Ktoyou]

Black people do have a fair gripe. There is far more black on black crime. White people harming blacks is way down and only in Yankeevill has there ever been any significant trend of crime, blacks on whites.
All "attacking" is wrong; colour has nothing to do with it.

 

[ClimateSanity]

He should be able to go to a BLM protest wearing the trump hat without fear of violence if BLM is truly the Honorable organization you say it is. Nobody forced these people to say Trump is a racist, hateful man. People can find whatever reason to take offense be it a symbol or a person. If that is a justification for a beating, then there is no freedom of speech in this country.

 

[Ktoyou]

He should be able to go to a BLM protest wearing the trump hat without fear of violence if BLM is truly the Honorable organization you say it is. Nobody forced these people to say Trump is a racist, hateful man. People can find whatever reason to take offense be it a symbol or a person. If that is a justification for a beating, then there is no freedom of speech in this country.

yes it would be wrong t hurt his body, then it is also wrong for anyone not part of the group to do something just to bug them.

 

[Town Heretic]

He should be able to go to a BLM protest wearing the trump hat without fear of violence

I said that. It's the next part where you get into assumptive trouble:

if BLM is truly the Honorable organization you say it is.

To begin with, I not only haven't said it's an organization, I've literally said that it isn't, noted that it's a movement and one without a central figure. So if you're going to speak for me pay attention and/or get it right, or don't bother.

That said, your connection is emblematic of your larger problem, a seeming eagerness to establish rule by anecdote. Even in this violent instance, did most of the people attending strike or chase the young man? Of course not. If they had he'd be dead. So even within this protest, which by accounts from media was largely peaceful, this not only isn't an indictment of the movement, it's not even a indictment of the particular rally.

Nobody forced these people to say Trump is a racist, hateful man.

Some. Nobody forced some people to say or think it. True. Many would argue Trump's language and actions over time have prompted it. In any event, no one is saying people forced them to say it.

People can find whatever reason to take offense be it a symbol or a person.

A lesson you should turn and use to self-examine given your insistence on what I've noted against not only necessity, but reasonable rules of establishment.

If that is a justification for a beating, then there is no freedom of speech in this country.

I'm not arguing it's justified. But no one should argue that irresponsible actions bearing foreseeable consequences are the death of freedom. There's no real justification for that notion either.

 

[ClimateSanity]

yes it would be wrong t hurt his body, then it is also wrong for anyone not part of the group to do something just to bug them.

You are assuming he is doing it to bug or provoke them . He has a right to protest the racist organization that they are. Protesting a repugnant group is not wrong last time I checked .

 

[Angel4Truth]

How about just walking your child in the "wrong" park? (Warning, language)

http://newsninja2012.com/unforgivea...-hoodrat-for-walking-in-a-black-neighborhood/

 

[ok doser]

I know any number of people who support the movement ...

zero is a number

 

[Angel4Truth]

Beat whitey night, but they cant figure out if its a hate crime or not.

 

[Town Heretic]

zero is a number

Only applicable if I noted you. Or your charisma (movie pts available).

 

[ok doser]

Only applicable if I noted you. Or your charisma (movie pts available).

sorry you misunderstood what i was saying

i'll be more direct:

I know any number of people who support the movement...

you're full of crap

 

[Town Heretic]

sorry you misunderstood what i was saying

You're as difficult as a one piece jigsaw puzzle...and not nearly as much fun.

Well, not intentionally.

i'll be more direct:

I'd settle for your being more interesting. But do what you can do.

What's that?

you're full of crap

So...that's a "No" on going for the movie points? lain:

 

[ok doser]

... historically speaking, majorities don't repress and maltreat themselves.

stalin didn't repress and maltreat russians?

mao didn't repress and maltreat chinese?

Kim Jong-un doesn't repress and maltreat north koreans?

 

[Town Heretic]

stalin didn't repress and maltreat russians?

Individuals don't constitute a majority. Populations do. So the dominant population of Russia can be viewed in how they treated the subcultures living alongside them. The Jews, for instance. And the answer is, historically, poorly. And my note remains true, that the dominant culture doesn't tend to exclude, repress and otherwise harm itself, though its history with subordinate cultures is another matter.

 

[ok doser]

Individuals don't constitute a majority. Populations do.

which are made up of individuals

:duh:

And my note remains true

keep waving that flag at yourself :idunno: