A country where celebrities endorse Hitlerian race theory.

[Hygro]

Black Lives Matter holds blacks as experiencing holy persecution and martyrdom, and possessing unique epistemic insight into how that persecution might be ameliorated (regardless of their wealth, class, behavior or circumstance). This is profoundly racist. Furthermore, they redefine racism to mean not an injustice based on skin color or descriminatory behavior, but what lessens the status and well-being of the black race as a whole. Similarly, white people are viewed as representatives of their race before individuals (why do you care about someone losing their job, PoC have more urgent things to do than worry about White People Problems).

We can see that this is a kind of fascism, but one based on New Testament ethics. In Christian hamartiology, the ignorant pagan worships vitality and thinks that the strong deserve to dominate the weak, whereas God blesses the weak and orders the strong to serve them. Fascists applied the pagan value to a collective and the modern woke apply the Christian value, it seems to me.

Cannon was trying to do just that, to uplift what he saw as the disadvantaged side by claiming them to be in fact superior. This was driven by the BLM movement (I will cease responding if you again demand that I 'prove' this), so it is incumbent upon the promoters of BLM to reject what he said. In fact, just a few years ago I'd have thought no other thing was easier to condemn.

You don't think it's racist to demand that one race submit to another in all cases, despite the former being better-off in general?



Who are you to question my lived experience?

Anyway, they're targeting a specific group of people with the intent to kill and terrorize. That seems perfectly analogous to black lynchings.

Oh look, it happened again today.



What we want is for the Black Hebrews cult to be exposed to a wide audience and targeted by law enforcement, rather than the attacks being treated as totally random individual crimes. De Blasio just used the attacks as partisan fodder to blame Trump (and I did actually find a statement from him against armed guards in synagogues).

Mouthwash, I would like to suggest drugs, so that you can know when it sounds like drugs.

 

[Traitorfish]

Black Lives Matter holds blacks as experiencing holy persecution and martyrdom, and possessing unique epistemic insight into how that persecution might be ameliorated (regardless of their wealth, class, behavior or circumstance). This is profoundly racist. Furthermore, they redefine racism to mean not an injustice based on skin color or descriminatory behavior, but what lessens the status and well-being of the black race as a whole. Similarly, white people are viewed as representatives of their race before individuals (why do you care about someone losing their job, PoC have more urgent things to do than worry about White People Problems).

We can see that this is a kind of fascism, but one based on New Testament ethics. In Christian hamartiology, the ignorant pagan worships vitality and thinks that the strong deserve to dominate the weak, whereas God blesses the weak and orders the strong to serve them. Fascists applied the pagan value to a collective and the modern woke apply the Christian value, it seems to me.

Cannon was trying to do just that, to uplift what he saw as the disadvantaged side by claiming them to be in fact superior. This was driven by the BLM movement (I will cease responding if you again demand that I 'prove' this), so it is incumbent upon the promoters of BLM to reject what he said. In fact, just a few years ago I'd have thought no other thing was easier to condemn.

You don't think it's racist to demand that one race submit to another in all cases, despite the former being better-off in general?

To reiterate, I asked you why it is necessary for supporters of Black Lives Matter to explicitly distance themselves from black supremacists. I asked you what you believe the relationship between black supremacism and Black Lives Matter to be, and why you believe that relationship may lead to a reasonable person confusing one with the other such as to necessitate an explicit distancing.

Do you intend to response to these questions, or shall I go about my business?

 

[Mouthwash]

Like I've said before, I wish I could live in the world you envision.

Yes, the fact that we don't yet live in a progressive utopia is taken by you as evidence that you're really the weak underdogs here (who certainly don't control the culture, media, and every institution not directly controlled by the government and many that are), but there's... another explanation for that.

I mean, I certainly would like it if my side could go out onto the street and trash some nightclubs and bars and get away with it completely.

Mouthwash, I would like to suggest drugs, so that you can know when it sounds like drugs.

It was a bit 'stream of consciousness', I admit.

To reiterate, I asked you why it is necessary for supporters of Black Lives Matter to explicitly distance themselves from black supremacists. I asked you what you believe the relationship between black supremacism and Black Lives Matter to be, and why you believe that relationship may lead to a reasonable person confusing one with the other such as to necessitate an explicit distancing.

Do you intend to response to these questions, or shall I go about my business?

Your business awaits.

 

[Ajidica]

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

Cool.
So, what policies proposed by groups closely associated Black Lives Matter do you consider Marxist? I'm not asking you to agree with their policies, merely explain to me how petitioning the government for a redress of grievances through protests, civil disobedience, and using the vote to advance their interests in legislative bodies is a Marxist plot.

And I'm calling them out for bad ideas, not suggesting they not be allowed to say them. I'm not happy about the notion of democratically becoming Venezuela, but if enough Americans actually want to be Venezuela I guess I can move.

What is it with certain people these days shouting VENEZUELA when someone mentions anything to the left of Attila the Hun?

That instance is part of it, but I'm also referring to the siege on the federal building where rioters are physically attempting to break into it despite attempts to barricade it. The guy who got shot in the face by the tear gas can (or whatever that was) not only ignored police orders but threw crap at them first, yet this gets portrayed as if he was just peacefully standing there beforehand.

What about the events in Portland requires the use of unidentified federal agents hustling individuals into an unmarked van while refusing to identify themselves?

The governance of these cities have a lot to answer for, but if enough cities choose that route people on both sides of this argument are going to further take matters into their own hands, since their cities/governance have either proven incapable of doing it or outright turned its back on upholding any consistent semblance of law.

Has the situation improved since the use of heavy-handed federal agents? Did you advocate a similarly heavy-handed federal response when Bundy and his band of Alamo cosplayers occupied federal property for over a month?

 

[Patine]

What is it with certain people these days shouting VENEZUELA when someone mentions anything to the left of Attila the Hun?

To be pedantic, historical information is too scarce to say even remotely the political, social, economic, and cultural viewpoints of Atilla the Hun in any meaningful way. Some sources (quite a few) claim he was an atheistic, proto-deconstructionist, iconoclastic, political defiant with a plunder-based economy, which would have made him tantamount to far-left by the standards of a retrospectively extrapolated 4th Century political spectrum (as the concept didn't exist contemporarily, at all, at the time, and wouldn't first appear in the parlance, in any form or incarnation, anywhere, until the early 17th Century). However, given the Hunnic language is barely attested, and there are several mutually exclusive stories on how Atilla actually died, and most of Priscus, the ambassador from Constantinople to Attila's Court's, writings were destroyed in a fire, leaving only a few pieces, it's near impossible to really say where Atilla actually stood socio-politically, to be honest.

 

[Ajidica]

To be pedantic, historical information is too scarce to say even remotely the political, social, economic, and cultural viewpoints of Atilla the Hun in any meaningful way. Some sources (quite a few) claim he was an atheistic, proto-deconstructionist, iconoclastic, political defiant with a plunder-based economy, which would have made him tantamount to far-left by the standards of a retrospectively extrapolated 4th Century political spectrum (as the concept didn't exist contemporarily, at all, at the time, and wouldn't first appear in the parlance, in any form or incarnation, anywhere, until the early 17th Century). However, given the Hunnic language is barely attested, and there are several mutually exclusive stories on how Atilla actually died, and most of Priscus, the ambassador from Constantinople to Attila's Court's, writings were destroyed in a fire, leaving only a few pieces, it's near impossible to really say where Atilla actually stood socio-politically, to be honest.

I meant the comment in jest. I'm more than familiar with the late Roman Empire and multiple people on this forum can attest to.

 

[bernie14]

Melanin theory interesting read. Richard D. King (psychiatrist) and Frances Cress Welsing writer of The ISIS Papers provide insight into the theory, racism and whyte supremacy that our lefties might even appreciate. https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/ provides interesting comments, such as...

Pseudoscience:
Frances Cress Welsing’s entire theory is based primarily on opinion and not real science, she has absolutely no scientific proof to prove her theory, she has never presented this pseudoscience before peer review, how can any so-called intelligent person believe such nonsense. i can see why she was terminated from Howard University.

It may seem like fantasy but look closer and you’ll see it’s reality. Can anyone else explain the conditions that we as Africans find ourselves in worldwide? We are in deep trouble and it’s my sincere hope that all African people begin to wake up and challenge this desperate situation. Stop listening to Beyoncé, jay z and arm ourselves with knowledge, self respect. Frances Welsing was a great woman who sought to help her people. What are we doing? Let’s really get serious and fight in the spirit of malcolm x, Marcus Garvey , Winnie Mandela.

So black people were super racist to albinos, albinos got booted out of Africa, they were bitter about it and (established Europe) and as revenge they were super racist back to black people and now here we are? Interesting theory. Way to give white supremacy some moral high ground, unbelievable

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So, what policies proposed by groups closely associated Black Lives Matter do you consider Marxist? I'm not asking you to agree with their policies, merely explain to me how petitioning the government for a redress of grievances through protests, civil disobedience, and using the vote to advance their interests in legislative bodies is a Marxist plot.

My substantive claim is that they're a loose Marxist organization, not that specific things picked out from their platform are part of some plot. Though people claiming BLM at ground level have been doing degrees of "civil disobedience" that are outright illegal by the standards of ordinary citizens, and the people committing those acts should be held to the same legal standards and charged.

What is it with certain people these days shouting VENEZUELA when someone mentions anything to the left of Attila the Hun?

That's where the road of increasing socialism takes us.

What about the events in Portland requires the use of unidentified federal agents hustling individuals into an unmarked van while refusing to identify themselves?

Aside from the fact that their uniforms say "Police" on them, Portland's actions merit unmarked vehicles since law enforcement vehicles are targeted directly. If you want to approach someone without effectively having human alarms going off, you probably don't want to be in vehicles they will call out/smash/burn when given a chance.

Has the situation improved since the use of heavy-handed federal agents? Did you advocate a similarly heavy-handed federal response when Bundy and his band of Alamo cosplayers occupied federal property for over a month?

The city has blocked them from operating outside their jurisdiction, which is protecting federal property and going after people who are suspected to have committed crimes against federal officers or property. That's not a scenario where you can realistically expect the feds to do much but keep their stuff from burning.

I wasn't too familiar with the linked events, they didn't get nearly the media coverage we're seeing about protests and riots. It seems one of the < 30 people involved was shot and killed. I would have been completely fine with law enforcement launching teargas up the wazzu and storming the place weeks before they did. Based on what I'm reading perhaps they hesitated because unlike the rioters, which are damaging property heavily and occasionally doing actions that threaten serious harm to people, the militants in your example were outright armed with guns. I can see being a little tentative and picking the militants off separately for a while rather than storming then, but would still have no problem if they tracked the militants and one by one launched tear/other non-lethal stuff into their cars with little regard for whether they hit the people directly. If you're going to do armed occupation those aren't draconian tactics any longer.

Basically, the 2016 situation you linked merits *more* heavy handed of a response than what we're seeing in Portland, tempered only by consideration of the lives of the people getting near them. No need for further shows of aggression necessary, just do anything to disable and arrest them that's still safe for the officers.

 

[Traitorfish]

My substantive claim is that they're a loose Marxist organization, not that specific things picked out from their platform are part of some plot. Though people claiming BLM at ground level have been doing degrees of "civil disobedience" that are outright illegal by the standards of ordinary citizens, and the people committing those acts should be held to the same legal standards and charged.

That's... that's literally what "civil disobedience" means.

 

[Patine]

My substantive claim is that they're a loose Marxist organization, not that specific things picked out from their platform are part of some plot. Though people claiming BLM at ground level have been doing degrees of "civil disobedience" that are outright illegal by the standards of ordinary citizens, and the people committing those acts should be held to the same legal standards and charged.

That's... that's literally what "civil disobedience" means.

Civil disobedience has been a vehicle of political in recorded history AT LEAST since the Plebians of the Roman Republic put down their hammers, their scythes, their pestles and mortars, and their other implements of labour and craft and refused to work until they were given some form of electoral representation in Legislative Assemblies and Forums of the Republic along with the Patricians, and were allowed access to actually being allowed to KNOW the laws, which the Patricians could quote from memory, but were still used against the Plebians in court. Of course, differing acts of civil disobedience throughout end up with differing types of end results, and whether these results end up truly being positive or negative, and none can truly be ever judged at the time they're occurring (unless it's a case of the adage, "the most dangerous person in the world is one who has nothing left to lose," - but, frankly, THAT type of person is NOT an American citizen of ANY stripe who actually has access to social media - let's call a spade a spade).

 

[Berzerker]

Civil disobedience is peaceful or passive

 

[Seon]

That's not what TMIT said. TMIT said these kinds of civil disobedience is bad because they are illegal. However, civil disobedience is by definition, illegal.

 

[Patine]

That's not what TMIT said. TMIT said these kinds of civil disobedience is bad because they are illegal. However, civil disobedience is by definition, illegal.

But crimes by the state (which do exist as a legal concept, as shocking as it may sound) are also illegal. The breach of due process through current police procedures, judicial bias, and the privatization of prison (and the corrupt prosecutorial quota system and slave labour in prisons), warrantless mass surveillance, rampant government corruption (mostly by big corporations), the Patriot Act, and all attached to it, most military endeavours, the very existence of the CIA, NSA, CSC, FBI, and DHS, the constant electoral interference and malfeasance of almost all American elections by organs of the Political Duopoly, seditious, and harmful, secrets kept from the citizens under the label, "classified for national security purposes, and many more, are indeed, high crimes of the worst sort/ The problem is, they problem is they end a lot harder to prosecute and punish than civil disobedience. THAT is major problem.

 

[Berzerker]

That's not what TMIT said. TMIT said these kinds of civil disobedience is bad because they are illegal. However, civil disobedience is by definition, illegal.

He was responding to Adijica's claim "their (BLM) method of achieving their policy goals are all firmly rooted in the democratic process; protests, civil disobedience, and legislation."

And here's what TMIT said in response:

Though people claiming BLM at ground level have been doing degrees of "civil disobedience" that are outright illegal by the standards of ordinary citizens

Civil disobedience is by definition passive resistance, peaceful. BLM does not limit their protests to civil disobedience. BLM was blocking roads and harassing 'ordinary citizens' long before the riots.

 

[Socrates99]

My substantive claim is that they're a loose Marxist organization, not that specific things picked out from their platform are part of some plot. Though people claiming BLM at ground level have been doing degrees of "civil disobedience" that are outright illegal by the standards of ordinary citizens, and the people committing those acts should be held to the same legal standards and charged.

Asking what's Marxist about an organization is perfectly relevant. I'd love to know as well.

That's where the road of increasing socialism takes us.

Did you know Venezuela isnt really that socialist? They actually have a lower percentage of people working in the public sector than France. The major "socialist" move they made was nationalization of their oil supply, something Norway does as well. The people of Venezuela were in grinding poverty before the revolution as well. Poverty and homeless rates are lower and literacy is higher. There's a reason the coups keep failing. It's definitely not in great shape and the leadership is subpar but The people have zero interest in returning to the prior government. I think it's funny people think it's the epitome of socialism gone wrong. Shows a distinct lack of knowledge and/or propagandized brainwashing.

 

[Gorbles]

That's where the road of increasing socialism takes us.

And here was me thinking you objected to fallacies in discussion.

 

[Traitorfish]

Civil disobedience is by definition passive resistance, peaceful. BLM does not limit their protests to civil disobedience. BLM was blocking roads and harassing 'ordinary citizens' long before the riots.

Civil disobedience is typically non-violent, but there is no tradition of defining civil disobedience as strictly "passive and peaceful". Probably the most famous strategy of civil disobedience, the sit-ins of the Civil Rights movement, were by design confrontational and provocative, and were regarded by hostile contemporaries as tantamount to violence.

 

[Yeekim]

Nope. There are 4 races of man - I mean biologically. There is no proof that one is better or worse than the other - like I've said it's propaganda. I strongly object against calling one another inferior or superior. Both brilliant and incredibly stupid been born on every side of the globe.

Biologically, there are no races.
There is a cultural tradition to lump people together into "races" based on their skin color, which is a superficial and misleading attribute.
As of yet poory understood process of human evolution has left us with a host of populations/ehnicities, distinct both genetically and in appearance.
Looking at a set of portraits, we can say whether a person is Norwegian, Nigerian or Chinese, and so can scientists by looking at their DNA.
However, just because Bantus and Bushmen both have darker skin does not mean they are somehow genetically closer to each other, as the idea of a "black race" would imply.
(Indeed, Bantus might well be genetically closer to Norwegians than to Bushmen).
There are black people and white people, like there are black dogs and white dogs. But there is no "black race" or "white race" - neither among people nor dogs.
Appearances are misleading like that.
Hyraxes look like marmots, but are more closely related to elephants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrax

 

[Berzerker]

Civil disobedience is typically non-violent, but there is no tradition of defining civil disobedience as strictly "passive and peaceful". Probably the most famous strategy of civil disobedience, the sit-ins of the Civil Rights movement, were by design confrontational and provocative, and were regarded by hostile contemporaries as tantamount to violence.

Were they violent? Rosa Parks was passive and peaceful and she wouldn't move. If people at a sit-in started fighting the cops who showed up to remove them its no longer civil disobedience.

 

[cardgame]

Were they violent? Rosa Parks was passive and peaceful and she wouldn't move. If people at a sit-in started fighting the cops who showed up to remove them its no longer civil disobedience.

If there was fighting it was the cops who started it, I guarantee you.