BLM and Protesting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why someone who thinks that white supremacy in America is a real issue must also support giving toddlers puberty-blockers is beyond me.
Oh cool, a strawman.
 
Why someone who thinks that white supremacy in America is a real issue must also support giving toddlers puberty-blockers is beyond me. It's not as if Scientologists and Mormons all had a single party line (do I miss the days when America's crazies weren't marching in alliance against everyone else).

This is a new low for you.
 
Tom Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania, Representative to the US House for PA, and the first Secretary of Homeland Security under George W. Bush:

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 22 July 2020 - "Ridge; It would be a cold day in Hell before I'd let uninvited federal agents into cities"

Tom Ridge said:
From my point of view, [DHS] wasn’t designed to become the president’s personal militia and so [their involvement in the unrest in Portland] is somewhat troubling
Tom Ridge said:
[If I were still Governor] I welcome the opportunity to work with any federal agency to reduce crime or lawlessness in the cities, but it would be a cold day in Hell before I would consent to an uninvited, unilateral intervention into one of my cities
A Republican, fwiw.
 
Why someone who thinks that white supremacy in America is a real issue must also support giving toddlers puberty-blockers is beyond me. It's not as if Scientologists and Mormons all had a single party line (do I miss the days when America's crazies weren't marching in alliance against everyone else).

EDIT: Note to mods, I am not claiming that supporting LGBTQ means you support giving toddlers puberty-blockers, only that it's an LGBTQ-related issue and some of their supporters want it.

What the **** are you talking about
 
1. Nothing about that indicates puberty blockers.
2. Not a toddler. No mention of puberty blockers.
3. Not a toddler. As of date of article, not on puberty blockers.
4. Nothing about puberty blockers. A single mention about "hormone blockers", but not related to any actual thing. Opinion piece, and the original MSN link appears to be dead.

This is of course completely bypassing the actual debate about the use of puberty blockers, which is better-saved for another thread regardless. I'm simply pointing out your use of a strawman (and apparently your very poor use of Google).
 
This isn't about solidarity.

That wasn't my question though, unless you think it's 0%?

Anyway, I agree that the name of the movement is disorienting and actually requires conversation. The weirdest part is that about 40% of people just got it within the first couple paragraphs of that conversation. And about 30% of people seem incapable
 
That wasn't my question though, unless you think it's 0%?

Anyway, I agree that the name of the movement is disorienting and actually requires conversation. The weirdest part is that about 40% of people just got it within the first couple paragraphs of that conversation. And about 30% of people seem incapable
Are you talking about BLM? (Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread.) I was listening to a radio program about folks in Ashtabula County, in Ohio, and it wasn't specifically about the demonstrations, but the subject came up, and a White woman mentioned that BLM raises her hackles because "Black Lives Matter" implies to her that other lives don't matter. That is, she understood it to mean - and continues to insist on understanding it to mean - that "Only Black Lives Matter." I'm genuinely astonished that people hear it that way; I immediately understood it to mean "Black Lives Matter Too." It didn't even occur to me to hear it the other way until someone explained to me what the resistance to it was about. I've never heard anyone in, or supportive of, that movement tell me that I've misunderstood their intent. I only ever hear it from people who resist or reject the message.
 
Are you talking about BLM? (Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread.) I was listening to a radio program about folks in Ashtabula County, in Ohio, and it wasn't specifically about the demonstrations, but the subject came up, and a White woman mentioned that BLM raises her hackles because "Black Lives Matter" implies to her that other lives don't matter. That is, she understood it to mean - and continues to insist on understanding it to mean - that "Only Black Lives Matter." I'm genuinely astonished that people hear it that way; I immediately understood it to mean "Black Lives Matter Too." It didn't even occur to me to hear it the other way until someone explained to me what the resistance to it was about. I've never heard anyone in, or supportive of, that movement tell me that I've misunderstood their intent. I only ever hear it from people who resist or reject the message.

Racists will think of any excuse to hate on a movement like that. This is so transparent.. These people don't complain that "Save the rainforest" doesn't include allll the forests. No, they're quiet when that is said. Because they have no issue with understanding what these movements are about, but you can't expect them to just drop their racism like magic.

If the movement was named "Can us Black Americans get some justice too and stuff?" these people would find a reason to complain about it.
 
You also have the language around the pro-life debate being incredibly similar, ready-made for super saiyan dickface mode "misunderstandings."
 
1. Nothing about that indicates puberty blockers.
2. Not a toddler. No mention of puberty blockers.
3. Not a toddler. As of date of article, not on puberty blockers.
4. Nothing about puberty blockers. A single mention about "hormone blockers", but not related to any actual thing. Opinion piece, and the original MSN link appears to be dead.

This is of course completely bypassing the actual debate about the use of puberty blockers, which is better-saved for another thread regardless. I'm simply pointing out your use of a strawman (and apparently your very poor use of Google).

I didn't mean literally giving them puberty-blockers (what would the point be?), I was just referring to the general way in which very young children are now being encouraged/groomed into becoming trans for dubious reasons.

That wasn't my question though, unless you think it's 0%?

What is your question?

Anyway, I agree that the name of the movement is disorienting and actually requires conversation. The weirdest part is that about 40% of people just got it within the first couple paragraphs of that conversation. And about 30% of people seem incapable

All sides of the aisle already accepted that black lives matter. It's hard to resist the slogan during these riots because the killing was so obviously unjust, but the specific incidents that BLM has gone after in the past were pretty controversial. Imagine someone telling you that not specifically supporting the conviction of a police officer or implementing a new policy means that you "don't think [put a group here] deserves to live at all".

Racists will think of any excuse to hate on a movement like that. This is so transparent.. These people don't complain that "Save the rainforest" doesn't include allll the forests.

The correct analogy would be telling people who already want to save the rainforest that "mangrove trees are valuable", despite them thinking that they aren't really endangered or that there are bigger priorities in conservation. No, you sneer, mangrove trees are valuable. What about that don't you understand?
 
I didn't mean literally giving them puberty-blockers (what would the point be?), I was just referring to the general way in which very young children are now being encouraged/groomed into becoming trans for dubious reasons.

bolding mine, for this reason: this study studied transgender adults, 95% of them would have been older than 'very young' back in 1995, and was released in 2010. Young children are and have been trans, nobody's "grooming" them, you sound identical to an LGBT-pedohysteric saying the gay agenda is to recruit kids

wb3phIf.png



All sides of the aisle already accepted that black lives matter. It's hard to resist the slogan during these riots because the killing was so obviously unjust, but the specific incidents that BLM has gone after in the past were pretty controversial. Imagine someone telling you that not specifically supporting the conviction of a police officer or implementing a new policy means that you "don't think [put a group here] deserves to live at all".

Imagine someone telling you that they didn't support the conviction of a concentration camp guard, but they're definitely not anti-semitic. It would be unbelievable, right?
 
So, is it actually at least likely that if Trump loses the election, the US police will be reformed?
Cause it looks like this is the only hope atm.
Hopefully it will be reformed, but even if not, at least the expectation of this will help get Trump tfo. Police reform is something one can see Bernie voters getting motivated about, and so voting for Biden.
 
My analogy works well enough. Just because you want to focus on some specific cause does not mean that you don't care about any other cause.

The point is the casting of that focus as something everybody who cared at all about mangroves would want.

"#BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean your life isn't important - it means that black lives, which are seen without value within White supremacy, are important to your liberation."
- one of the founders of the movement

bolding mine, for this reason: this study studied transgender adults, 95% of them would have been older than 'very young' back in 1995, and was released in 2010.

I trust no studies whatsoever around this issue, but that's not relevant to what I'm saying. The majority of pre-puberty dysphoria is going to desist, so the parents shouldn't simply determine that their child is now their chosen sex (or not even chosen - in one of the links a woman tells her son, based on his behavior, that he was really a girl).

Young children are and have been trans, nobody's "grooming" them, you sound identical to an LGBT-pedohysteric saying the gay agenda is to recruit kids

Wait, so you aren't trying to recruit kids? I thought you were perfectly open about that these days. How on Earth do you think kids are going to interpret their school textbooks telling them "you can become a boy or girl, it depends on how you feel".

Imagine someone telling you that they didn't support the conviction of a concentration camp guard, but they're definitely not anti-semitic. It would be unbelievable, right?

I can think of worse apologists. ;)
 
Are you talking about BLM? (Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread.) I was listening to a radio program about folks in Ashtabula County, in Ohio, and it wasn't specifically about the demonstrations, but the subject came up, and a White woman mentioned that BLM raises her hackles because "Black Lives Matter" implies to her that other lives don't matter. That is, she understood it to mean - and continues to insist on understanding it to mean - that "Only Black Lives Matter." I'm genuinely astonished that people hear it that way; I immediately understood it to mean "Black Lives Matter Too." It didn't even occur to me to hear it the other way until someone explained to me what the resistance to it was about. I've never heard anyone in, or supportive of, that movement tell me that I've misunderstood their intent. I only ever hear it from people who resist or reject the message.

I was talking about BLM, yes. It is stunning, although I guess it shouldn't be, that some people can so seriously miscomprehend the intent
 
These words are an old rhetorical battle line recast to new purpose. Keeping the same rough intent within the orthodoxy of contemporary usage requires some doublespeaking the words. Lest one manage to both be racist and sexist simultaneously with no new views because, well, dickfaces.
 
Last edited:
I really don't think they're misunderstanding. They just dislike that equality might be coming. They enjoy being on top

Yeah, the hostile misunderstanding is a different beast from the genuine misunderstanding. It's not a very good name for a movement, and so some people think it's actually about saving lives. So when other people see even greater numbers of lives that could be saved elsewhere, they get jealous of the attention.

In my research, colorectal cancer didn't get anywhere near the same funding as breast cancer, and we were always trying to figure out how to get people to shift their donations without seeming jealous. But like BLM, efforts in one area actually had cross over benefit elsewhere. We didn't want the pool decreased, just shifted. And doing that messaging was too hard
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom