Jump to content

"Love One Another" v. "Black Lives Matter"


Recommended Posts

On 11/7/2020 at 9:12 PM, Calm said:

No, not by my logic. I never claimed “should” in there. I was putting up stats and pointing out what they meant. Not drawing conclusions of the whys and shoulda about them.  Just pointing out that using absolute numbers ignors a huge factor of rates and leads to bad conclusions like suggesting people are sweeping away  the real tragedy of police deaths out there, the number of whites being killed or whatever version of justifying ignoring rates SR wants to go with. 
 

If whites were killed at the same rate, these would be the numbers. People can compare that to the absolutes and draw their own conclusions or better yet do some research on why this could be happening. 
 

Imo, there is a very complicated dynamic in place with hundreds of influences impacting those numbers. 

I don't get why these arguments exist. The numbers and percentages, tell it all. I had to sit and stay mum when my own in-laws sputed this during a dinner when the BLM started up with protests.  But I didn't have the exact numbers or wherewithal to argue back. I wish you'd been there to set them straight. The numbers don't lie, and it isn't some emotional response, it is what it is. 

Link to post
13 hours ago, CV75 said:

The media covers the protests. White people do not protest the killing of their unarmed suspects, nor do they organize protests across the nation. Black people do.

I suggest the reason for this is that, generally speaking, whites in the USA for hundreds of years have been socialized as individuals responsible for their own problems. This is to counter the problem of being a superior racial byproduct of the immoral invention of an inferior black race, needed to support the colonial economic strategy. So, they lack a personally meaningful racial identity but see one on their inferiors. This sense of superiority runs so deep that whites assume that only inferior people, white (the exception) or black (the norm), get themselves killed like this and their lives goes on.

On the other hand, generally speaking, blacks in the USA for generations have had to acknowledge the pervasive, false narrative about their race in order to navigate the white system into which they were liberated (to the degree the white-controlled laws and customs permitted), including to stay alive. So generally speaking, they relate to each other on racial issues on a racial level much better than white people do.

Of course, there have been policy improvements over the years, but the basic dynamics of the racial psyche are still the same and policies still need to be improved. Law enforcement is as good a place to start as any, and is more concrete than economics (including education, employment and housing), health, etc. White people have less to give up with law enforcement reform than they do in these other areas where more opportunity translates into more competition to advance.

Yup, not drinking that Kook-Aid. Just does not hold enough potable water for my taste and certainly does not hold enough logic for my brain to be that patient. If it works for you and you are happy, knock yourself out. However, it is an excellent dodge to the question "WHY THE MEDIA IGNORES WHITE DEATHS?"  Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to post
29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I find it disturbing that you are trying to establish equivalency between the police force and largely spontaneous gatherings that will accept anyone in terms of their willingness to engage in unwarranted violence or destructive activity. The bulk of BLM protestors have no say as to who shows up and no say as to whether some of them are involved in bad actions. Police departments very much DO have a say in who wears the badge. Expecting equal percentages in "bad apples" is ridiculous.

But it's not as if smac doesn't have a valid point.  We sit idly by watching conversation because if we dip our toes in it, we get trounced with reasoning that doesn't really work.  BLM peddles its message in a religious way.  That's exactly the cause of it's success, it seems to me.  But it makes it terribly dogmatic and as such causes problem as much as it attempts to fix problem.  John McWhorter's original piece on the matter still applies.  As a dogmatic religion there are enemies being created where there need not be enemies.  Smac, no doubt, feels black lives matter.  He's simply not convinced by the dogmatic messaging, it seems to me.  So as with religion BLM creates enemies where enemies need not be created.  Back when religion was central in my life I couldn't for the life of figure out what "the world" was which was supposed to be what we were to fight against.  Equally I couldn't figure out who was supposed to be the bad guys peddling the ways of the world, or why anyone who was identified should be seen as bad.  

I wouldn't say there is no issue involving race or BLM that we don't need to work through.  THe problem is, of course, BLM peddles religion and as such we get stuck at dogmatic propositions and those who dare question or explore beyond those dogmatic notions are seen as enemy.  It's a sad joke, in a way, and that's a big problem.

Link to post
55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I find it disturbing that you are trying to establish equivalency between the police force and largely spontaneous gatherings that will accept anyone in terms of their willingness to engage in unwarranted violence or destructive activity.

I am not really trying to do that.  Also, I do not agree with the "largely spontaneous" characterization.  Again, BLM has been involved in 95% of the riots.  I can't chalk that up to happenstance or coincidence.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The bulk of BLM protestors have no say as to who shows up and no say as to whether some of them are involved in bad actions. Police departments very much DO have a say in who wears the badge. Expecting equal percentages in "bad apples" is ridiculous.

I do not have such an expectation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Yup, not drinking that Kook-Aid. Just does not hold enough potable water for my taste and certainly does not hold enough logic for my brain to be that patient. If it works for you and you are happy, knock yourself out. However, it is an excellent dodge to the question "WHY THE MEDIA IGNORES WHITE DEATHS?"  Cheers

Do you have a study on hand that shows that the non-protested deaths of white people at the hands of police are not reported, and that those of black people are reported outside of the newsworthiness of the resulting protests?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

As to the OPs topic, I think it's fascinating ot consider.  The two ideas shouldn't be compared, I don't think--afterall the love one another message has been valued by religions as the religions have gone out and murdered many millions.  In contrast BLM hasn't murdered anyone, in comparison.  But, they both presume that there is a message in them that others don't agree with, when as it turns out everyone agrees.  Religion doesn't hold a higher standard for loving others as it's been proven.  It simply pretends to value the universal statement more than others while employing dogma instead of reason, putting an end to conversation before it even starts.  BLM has become a religion in that sense.  

Of course I still have a BLM sign and have been to protests.  It's not that I've changed my mind.  It is that I understand the movement is religion, in it's simplest form.  And that's a big problem.  

Link to post
40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Do you have a study on hand that shows that the non-protested deaths of white people at the hands of police are not reported, and that those of black people are reported outside of the newsworthiness of the resulting protests?

There are more deaths caused by police of unarmed white people than unarmed black people. What that means is when police kill an individual, it should be reported in the media. When was the last time you saw or heard of a death caused by the police of an unarmed white person?  Did you hear about one in the last month? Two months? Six months? How about the last year? How about the last two years?  

Now, think about the number of times you have heard about an unarmed black person being killed by the police during the same time periods. What is the difference in coverage? Why?

Please do not go into summersaults of logic to explain racism - the question is not about  systemic racism or why there is a difference in how different races respond to situations of injustice. The question is about he media and its divergent coverage of the deaths of unarmed individuals based on race. Why does it exist? Who benefits from such divergent standards of coverage? Who is harmed? What would motivate the media to act this way?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

There are more deaths caused by police of unarmed white people than unarmed black people. What that means is when police kill an individual, it should be reported in the media. When was the last time you saw or heard of a death caused by the police of an unarmed white person?  Did you hear about one in the last month? Two months? Six months? How about the last year? How about the last two years?  

Now, think about the number of times you have heard about an unarmed black person being killed by the police during the same time periods. What is the difference in coverage? Why?

Please do not go into summersaults of logic to explain racism - the question is not about  systemic racism or why there is a difference in how different races respond to situations of injustice. The question is about he media and its divergent coverage of the deaths of unarmed individuals based on race. Why does it exist? Who benefits from such divergent standards of coverage? Who is harmed? What would motivate the media to act this way?

We went over these stats already, so I asked you for a study and you give me somersaults. Until you can show that the media coverage is about deaths/killings and not protests over deaths/killings, you are deflecting from discussion of the racial policy that explains the latter.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't get why these arguments exist. The numbers and percentages, tell it all. I had to sit and stay mum when my own in-laws sputed this during a dinner when the BLM started up with protests.  But I didn't have the exact numbers or wherewithal to argue back. I wish you'd been there to set them straight. The numbers don't lie, and it isn't some emotional response, it is what it is. 

Because we're often very invested in our perspective and biases and we don't easily accept evidence that shows that our perspective and biases are wrong.  That's a normal condition that we all have to fight against.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

How many times have you seen on the news in the last 12 months a report on an unarmed white person killed by police?  How many times has the media covered events where an unarmed black person was killed by the police? Think about it. You have virtually no news, zero, nada coverage for white people and every single time for a black person. Who pushes that kind of narrative? Why?

So you have no data or references to support your statement of fact?  

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What organization or collaborative have you found that gets it right for identifying and changing policy to reduce violence on Black individuals and communities?

This statement by the NAACP was very good:

Quote

Black leaders in Peoria are condemning the violence that broke out overnight, arguing it detracts from the message protestors are trying to send.
The city remained largely peaceful over the weekend, but in the early hours of Monday morning, people set fire to businesses, homes, vehicles, and dumpsters. Other incidents, including two shootings and a car accident involving a police officer, were also reported — though it’s unclear if those were connected to more widespread civil unrest.

Peoria NAACP President Marvin Hightower said if these people were trying to demand justice for George Floyd, who was killed by Minneapolis police last week, they’re missing the point.

“We all want all the officers involved arrested and convicted, but justice for Mr. Floyd also means the end of criminalization of black skin,” he said. “It means holding police departments accountable for their role. It means addressing policy in a way that is fair and just for us.”

Hightower said the NAACP will always support a peaceful protest, such as the “We Matter March” organized by young demonstrators over the weekend.

“However, what it has devolved into is trying to take the focus off of what’s important. You do not fight hatred, racism, and injustice with destruction of property, violence, and stealing,” he said. “I am asking all the individuals who have been involved in the criminal activity and the destruction of our city to please stop. This is not how we fight, this is not how we will win.”

Those sentiments were echoed by Carl Cannon, who runs the youth outreach program ELITE. He said those who engaged in destructive behaviour did more harm to their own community than anything.

“My question to those who commit selfish criminal acts is: who are you mad at? You mad at Target? Target announced it’s going to close, temporarily, 175 stores. Does that make our lives better? You mad at CityLink? How are we going to get around?” he said.

Cannon said the damage, especially to smaller businesses, will leave people in already resource-strapped neighborhoods without anywhere to shop or apply for jobs. He said the misguided anger needs to be redirected back toward the unfair murder of black people at the hands of police.

In contrast, let's consider this bit of BLM messaging:

Quote

Two officers were shot at close range while they sat in their cruiser Saturday night in Los Angeles. The victims, who were hit multiple times and in critical condition Sunday (but are now are expected to survive) are a 24-year-old man and a 31-year-old woman, whose six-year-old child stayed home while her husband came to her side in the hospital.

Outside, Black Lives Matter protesters blocked the emergency entrance to St. Francis Hospital, chanting “We hope they die” and “Y’all gonna die one by one.”

"We hope they die."

Here's a decent summary of the history of BLM (same link):

Quote

As a refresher, the group was founded in 2013, during President Barack Obama’s second term and after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida. It wasn’t until a rash of viral police-related deaths the next year that its national profile began to rise, including protests over the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York City, and then the following year Freddie Gray in Baltimore and Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina.

It was cheered on at the time by the media for all the same reasons it’s being cheered on today: Some of the viral videos and events convincingly depicted unjustified killings of black suspects by police, and despite the clear and radical politics of the founders, their name conveys an obvious truism. Unfortunately, it quickly showed its violent and intolerant side then, just as it has today.
...
Americans likely most clearly recall Ferguson’s protests, where for days black-owned businesses were torched and looted. Over the next few years, we watched in horror as Baltimore’s years-long revival was stopped in its tracks, block after block burned, and families attending an afternoon baseball game were set upon by screaming mobs.

“When I saw the guy heading our way with a hammer in his hand and a bandanna covering his face, I knew he meant business,” a New York Daily News reporter who ran to their aid and then drove our guys through the mob to safety wrote later that morning. By the time they escaped, Caller reporter Casey Harper was struggling to stay conscious with a severe concussion, broken eye socket, and stolen phone, while his colleague Connor Wolf got off with a broken nose (and managed to hold onto his blood-stained notebook throughout). The two had been targeted for being white. No one slept until after we were back in the newsroom and their story was filed.
...
The following year, 2016, national Black Lives Matter protests broke out against the killing of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Dozens of officers were injured with projectiles and threatened by protesters. Then on July 7, just before 9 p.m. CT, a man opened fire on police preparing for one of the protests in Dallas, killing three policemen, wounding three others, and wounding one civilian.

During his retreat, he killed another officer, shooting him in the back after sneaking around a pillar he was taking cover behind during a gunfight. Seeking to fortify an El Centro College building, he opened fire on two campus cops, hitting one in the gut and injuring the other with shattered glass.

Police followed the man’s trail of blood through the school, engaging when they could clearly make him out in the darkness. From a window near where he made his last stand, he was able to kill another police officer who was on the street below. After negotiations broke down, the department killed him with a remote bomb.

Before he was killed, the gunman told a negotiator he was motivated by anger on behalf of the Black Lives Matter movement. His Facebook page called for people to “KILL EVERYTHING IN BLUE EXCEPT THE MAIL MAN.” By the morning of July 8, the murdered men included Officers Lorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, former Army Ranger Michael Smith, former U.S. Navy sailor Patrick Zamarripa, and former Marine Brent Thompson.

BuzzFeed fondly looked back on 2016 as “the year Black Lives Matter went global.”

Just a few short weeks into the summer of 2020, it’s happening again: Seven shot in a Louisville protest park; one week later a protester killed; two dead in Chicago; four shootings in Seattle’s “autonomous zone;” a 77-year-old, black, retired St. Louis Police captain murdered; a 22-year-old, black woman in Davenport shot as she tried to leave.

Once again, politicians and media are defending and gaslighting for the violence. “I want to be clear how I characterize this,” MSNBC’s Ali Veshi said while buildings visibly burned in the night sky behind him. “This is mostly a protest. It is not, generally speaking, unruly.”

“But fires,” he admitted, back-lit by flames, “have been started.”

Meanwhile in Washington, D.C., rioters threw frozen bottles, glass, rocks, and bricks at police, then lit a church on fire. Afterward, corporate reporters, Democratic politicians, and even the leader of that church called the protests peaceful and attacked police tactics. The mayor allowed protesters to maintain that space, rename it Black Lives Plaza, and paint “Black Lives Matter” on the street.

“White women are lucky that we are just calling them ‘Karen’s,'” Washington Post editor Karen Attiah wrote June 29, “And not calling for revenge.” She listed her reasons for revenge on white women as the deadly racist massacre in Tulsa 99 years ago, the lynching of Emmet Till 70 years ago, liberal feminists making her feel excluded, and white women voting for Donald Trump.

Eight days later, she complained that “The ideas of the elite class is to be protected [sic] and supported at all costs,” but “black people… poor people… [and] uneducated people? We’re supposed to accept our marginalization.” She graduated from Northwestern University, won a Fulbright Scholarship, got a master’s at Columbia University, is now the global opinions editor for The Washington Post, and still has not been fired.

But the charade cannot stand. This past weekend, an eight-year-old black child was shot and killed besides her frightened mother as the driver tried to navigate around illegal barriers Black Lives Matter protesters were guarding near the Atlanta Wendy’s where a black man was killed after scuffling with police and stealing and firing one officer’s Taser. The little girl’s name was Secoriea Turner.

“They say ‘black lives matter,'” her father, hoarse with pain, accused the movement just hours later. “You killed your own. You killed your own this time.”

“You killed a child. She didn’t do nothing to nobody.”

“My baby,” her mother sobbed as family comforted her and helped her walk from the stage.

“At the point that an eight-year-old baby is killed, the discussions have ended,” the mayor announced. Just hours later, another person was killed and two more wounded nearby.

But some aren’t getting the message. “If you want an all-black lives matter movement started … then start that movement,” CNN’s Don Lemon told black actor Terry Crews Monday. “But that’s not what Black Lives Matter is about.”

Secoriea Turner.  Let us not forget her name.

And then there's this messaging:

Quote

Even while the media falsely claims that the riots are peaceful, the hate group’s co-founders, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi, have not been asked to condemn it. On the rare occasions when they’ve been asked about it, they’re deflected or dismissed the violence.

Ask BLM’s co-founders about the hate group’s violent riots and they’ll typically reframe the question by dismissing it as a mere issue of property and claim that they value life more. That’s despite the fact that hundreds of first responders and civilians have been wounded in the riots.

Speaking at a Penn State virtual event, Cullors described rioters as "expressing righteous rage" and suggested that society needs to avoid situations where "people feel like they have to be so desperate that they disrupt people’s businesses.” Not only didn’t the Black Lives Matter co-founder condemn her movement’s violence, she justified it, while denouncing capitalism.

Cullors, who has in the past been paid $10,000 to appear at virtual college events, is represented by CAA, the top talent agency in the country which was accused of complicity in Harvey Weinstein’s abuses, and whose clients include Tom Cruise and Robert De Niro.

She’s also the author of “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir”, with an introduction by Angela Davis, a domestic terrorist who endorsed Biden, and an opening quote from Assata Shakur, a black nationalist cop-killer listed by the FBI as a most wanted terrorist.

That quote from the fugitive cop killer, "It is our duty to fight for our freedom," has become a BLM chant. It appears in Shakur’s biography just after she indirectly mentions the shootout that killed Trooper Werner Foerster and hails the “guerrillas” of her Black Liberation Army terrorist group.

The phrase just before the chant is, “We must gain our liberation by any means necessary.”

After the chant is a dedication to, among other black nationalist terrorists, Mark Essex, a racist killer who opened fire on New Year’s Eve in New Orleans killing, among others, a honeymooning couple. Betty Steagall was shot in the back of her head while embracing her murdered husband. Essex left a Black Liberation flag lying near the corpses of the doctor and his wife.

This is not the chant of a peaceful movement, but of a violently racist terrorist organization. ...

“I just don’t equate the loss of life and the loss of property,” Alicia Garza, another BLM co-founder, replied, when asked about the violence. “We want to value our love of people over property.”

Not only did Garza fail to condemn the violence, she reduced it to a question of property, while reframing the violent riots as a love of people over property. Property, like violence, is an abstraction, a way to avoid confronting what happens when people are terrorized, when the small shop they’ve poured their life and dreams into goes up in flames, while BLM’s founders get tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to condemn capitalism and defend the looting.

When the National Guard was sent to Baltimore, Garza complained that the soldiers were “standing between Black people and access to resources, they are protecting property.”

"I’ll be really honest: I’m not really concerned about broken glass," Opal Tometi, the third BLM co-founder, argued. "Property can be replaced, people cannot."

Not only do all of Black Lives Matter’s co-founders find ways to justify the violent riots, but some local chapters, which have more control, have been more direct about supporting the violence.

After the massive outbreak of looting in Chicago, Black Lives Matter Chicago issued a press release describing looters as protesters, and claimed that the products in the stores were "hoarded" wealth. The official press release ranted that, "Black lives are and always will be more important than downtown corporations," and claimed that, "when protesters attack high-end retail stores that are owned by the wealthy and service the wealthy, that is not 'our' city."

Black Lives Matter Chicago organizer Ariel Atkins called the looting “reparations,” claimed that “winning has come through riots,” and declared, "I will support the looters."

“Anything they want to take, take it,” she said.

Hawk Newsome, the Greater New York Chair of BLM, refused to condemn looting and instead claimed that America is based on looting.

“People just manifested it in different ways. Some people there just raised their fists and said 'I stand with the masses.' Other people were there to destroy things,” Newsome had said earlier of the Minneapolis BLM riots.

Melina Abdullah, the lead organizer of Black Lives Matter in Los Angeles, whose chapter has collaborated with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, had its rally lead to multiple attacks on Jewish synagogues and businesses complete with antisemitic chants and graffiti.

Before the rioting began, her daughter, and the co-founder of the BLM Youth Vanguard, ranted, “I know you want to tear some s___ up... if you want to set some corporations on fire, you know what? I don’t care about Target burning. I don’t care that capitalism burns. I don’t care that white people in their f____ office buildings are upset."

Abdullah, like her hate group’s co-founders, dismissed the rioting. “The looting is not as violent as the police violence that is the source of the protesting. Focusing on broken windows is a deliberate decision.”

Much like Kristalnacht.
...
Nobody in the media bothers to ask or discuss whether the Black Lives Matter philosophy and ideology is peaceful. That’s because there’s a large body of evidence that shows it isn’t. Instead, the media nods along as BLM leaders pull the same tired old trick of reframing their movement’s violence as an affirmation of the value of Black lives and reduce their victims to “property.”

Rioters are "expressing righteous rage."

One of the founders of BLM wrote a book that has an introduction by Angela Davis, a domestic terrorist, and an opening quote from Assata Shakur, a black nationalist cop-killer.

"Any means necessary."

“I just don’t equate the loss of life and the loss of property."

"I’ll be really honest: I’m not really concerned about broken glass."

BLM Chicago organizer Ariel Atkins called the looting “reparations,” claimed that “winning has come through riots,” and declared, "I will support the looters."  “Anything they want to take, take it,” she said.

And on and on and on.

And this messaging:

Quote

Its agenda is plain for all to see: cop-killing.

With another two police officers shot at the Black Lives Matter riot in Louisville on Wednesday, it’s time to lift the veil on the whole movement: It’s a haven for unrepentant cop-killers.

These aren’t isolated incidents. It has been fewer than two weeks since supposedly “peaceful” BLM radicals chanted, “We hope they die,” while blocking the entrance to a hospital where two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies were undergoing life-saving surgery. An assailant had walked up to their patrol vehicle and opened fire from point-blank range without provocation.

Those chilling words echo the rhetoric we hear from BLM founders and members, who make clear that a prime objective of BLM is to “Kill Cops.” Up until now, this has been kept well enough under wraps to ­deceive major corporations, professional sports leagues and countless well-meaning Americans.
...
Some people try to separate BLM “the organization” from “the movement” that goes by the same name, but at most they are two sides of the same coin. From the start, both the organization and the movement — BLM writ large — have been about hatred and violence that extends beyond police and includes all white people, all blacks who are conservative and the United States of America.

We saw this in 2014, when BLM first attained national prominence. After months of ­anti-police rioting, a man pledging “revenge for Michael Brown and Eric Garner” traveled to New York City, stuck a pistol through the window of a squad car and opened fire. Detectives Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu died on the scene.
...
Nineteen months later, a man opened fire at a BLM protest in Dallas, murdering five officers. BLM disavowed responsibility, but the killer had deep links to the movement’s radical ideology, stating that he “wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.” BLM supporters certainly didn’t stop chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” in the aftermath, either.
...
Black Lives Matter isn’t about black lives. It ignores the 8,000 to 9,000 black lives taken by other blacks every year in minority communities across the nation. Those black lives, and the lives of African American police officers, don’t matter.

Black Lives Matter isn’t about “holding police accountable,” and it isn’t a good-faith call for reasonable reform.

If we had a functioning mainstream media, this would be common knowledge by now. ­Instead, people are learning the real nature of BLM by watching protesters scream “We hope they die” outside a hospital where two cops are fighting for their lives.

The time has come to face the facts. If you ever supported Black Lives Matter, then you are either a left-wing radical — or you got duped. There is no shame in the latter. By design, the relentlessly repeated cry of “Black lives matter” is an unassailable moral truism, calculated to bully people into supporting a radical, revolutionary, anti-order movement.

“We hope they die.”

“Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon”

The last line above bears repetition: "'Black lives matter' is an unassailable moral truism, calculated to bully people into supporting a radical, revolutionary, anti-order movement."

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

As to the OPs topic, I think it's fascinating ot consider.  The two ideas shouldn't be compared,

I do.  Particularly given the ulterior motives and violent tactics of BLM.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think--afterall the love one another message has been valued by religions as the religions have gone out and murdered many millions. 

So telling people to "love one another" is likely to inspire people to murder millions?

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

In contrast BLM hasn't murdered anyone, in comparison. 

71131984.jpg

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

But, they both presume that there is a message in them that others don't agree with, when as it turns out everyone agrees. 

BLM rhetoric like “We hope they die” and “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” is not something about which "everyone agrees."

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Religion doesn't hold a higher standard for loving others

It certainly does.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

as it's been proven. 

It has not.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It simply pretends to value the universal statement more than others while employing dogma instead of reason, putting an end to conversation before it even starts. 

Not so.  

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

BLM has become a religion in that sense.  

A religion preaching violence and hatred.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Of course I still have a BLM sign and have been to protests.  It's not that I've changed my mind.  It is that I understand the movement is religion, in it's simplest form.  And that's a big problem.  

Says the guy promoting the religion of secular humanism?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do.  Particularly given the ulterior motives and violent tactics of BLM.

Of course in comparison to Christianity, BLM hasn't been nearly as violent in its short history.  So, we have to be clear if we want to maintain the comparison.  

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So telling people to "love one another" is likely to inspire people to murder millions?

If Christianity amounted to nothing more than "love one another" then you may have a point.  The murderous designs of the religion, as they've played out, rely on things like hating people because they don't agree with your religion, and God ignoring those who don't see the point to the arbitrariness of many of his requirements.  But that is the point.  Love one another is not the point of Christianity.  It's simply a universally accepted notion that everyone strives for.  BLM is likewise universally accepted, but the movement is simply religion.  

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

71131984.jpg

No.  But I'd say in comparison to CHristianity far less violence and far less killing has taken place due to the religion of BLM.  

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

BLM rhetoric like “We hope they die” and “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” is not something about which "everyone agrees."

Sure,..much like the rhetoric practicing Christians have spouted while they've set out to enforce dogma.  

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It certainly does.

It has not.

Not so.  

A religion preaching violence and hatred.

Far less so in comparison then Christianity, though.  Let's make that clear.  

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy promoting the religion of secular humanism?

Thanks,

-Smac

It's no religion.  You have misunderstood.  Religion in the sense we're discussing prizes dogma, which is the antithesis of secular humanism.  

Link to post
On 11/6/2020 at 5:35 PM, CV75 said:

At what age did did your appearance begin to cause you ethnic trouble?

I see no need to make this a personal issue about me, but FYI I was raised in a mixed race environment and I didn't always know if people didn't like me because of my race or because they just didn't like me.

Link to post
22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I see no need to make this a personal issue about me, but FYI I was raised in a mixed race environment and I didn't always know if people didn't like me because of my race or because they just didn't like me.

Your personal experience highlights a very general issue, which is why I brought it up.

Please take this as generally speaking: Among a white majority, black (or other people of color) may not always know whether their less-than optimal treatment is due to personality or race, but typically associate it with race (see the BYU Magazine article I linked earlier). They are fully aware of their racial standing in a predominantly white world. Especially when they feel it is a matter of life or death.

This is especially difficult for people of mixed race when their socialization is white (which means they lack, deny or suppress a strong racial identity), but are tied, often in a negative connotation, to another racial group. They have no white support system on this particular point, because whites do not pull together along racial lines, and they do not identify with the race in question either.

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you read anything that's not blatantly right wing? I mean... Breitbart as a source? Really? I suppose NY Post is least partisan from your list there, but that's not really saying much.

I'm rather disappointed in your lack of objective reading.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you read anything that's not blatantly right wing?

Yes.

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I mean... Breitbart as a source? Really?

If the facts reported are wrong, I'm certainly interested in knowing that.

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I suppose NY Post is least partisan from your list there, but that's not really saying much.

I'm rather disappointed in your lack of objective reading.

Again, if the facts reported are wrong...

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Of course in comparison to Christianity, BLM hasn't been nearly as violent in its short history.  So, we have to be clear if we want to maintain the comparison.  

Well, let's maintain comparisons then. BLM has been around for the last seven years or so. In that time, which Christian religions promoting the ethos of loving one another have "gone out and murdered many millions"?

 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, let's maintain comparisons then. BLM has been around for the last seven years or so. In that time, which Christian religions promoting the ethos of loving one another have "gone out and murdered many millions"?

 

Do you want to compare any 7 years in Christian history or this particular past 7 years?  Seems like an arbitrary comparison.  Its akin to comparing ones worst with another's best.  

Link to post
4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Do you want to compare any 7 years in Christian history or this particular past 7 years?  Seems like an arbitrary comparison.  Its akin to comparing ones worst with another's best.  

Not really.  Christianity has matured a lot.  in 2020 it patently unreasonable to accuse it of "murder{ing} many millions."  That's not happening,  BLM, meanwhile is presently and actively fomenting violent riots that have caused billions in property damage, injured dozens/hundreds, and resulted in the deaths of many dozens.

I am surprised and disturbed at how many people are indifferent to, or justifying/rationalizing/excusing, or actually supportive of, this violence.

I am strongly supportive of peaceful protests, and of using legal means to affect political and social change.  Riots, looting, etc. are extremely destructive and counterproductive.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  Christianity has matured a lot.  in 2020 it patently unreasonable to accuse it of "murder{ing} many millions."  That's not happening,  BLM, meanwhile is presently and actively fomenting violent riots that have caused billions in property damage, injured dozens/hundreds, and resulted in the deaths of many dozens.

I am surprised and disturbed at how many people are indifferent to, or justifying/rationalizing/excusing, or actually supportive of, this violence.

I am strongly supportive of peaceful protests, and of using legal means to affect political and social change.  Riots, looting, etc. are extremely destructive and counterproductive.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would just reiterate the point I made--the comparison is silly if you are wanton to suggest Christianity is good or true or useful.  It has inspired far more destruction and far more deaths in its history than BLM has.  

I have not justified/rationalize nor excused anything.  And as I pointed out BLM has acted as a religion.  And that's a problem.  

Link to post
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would just reiterate the point I made--the comparison is silly if you are wanton to suggest Christianity is good or true or useful. 

I think the goodness and usefulness of Christianity is axiomatic.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It has inspired far more destruction and far more deaths in its history than BLM has.  

Again, in 2020 it patently unreasonable to accuse Christianity of "murder{ing} many millions."  

Again, BLM, meanwhile is presently and actively fomenting violent riots that have caused billions in property damage, injured dozens/hundreds, and resulted in the deaths of many dozens.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the goodness and usefulness of Christianity is axiomatic.

Then perhaps you are seeing hte point.  Many take the goodness and usefulness of BLM as axiomatic.  

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, in 2020 it patently unreasonable to accuse Christianity of "murder{ing} many millions."  

You mean within this year?  That again is not the point.  The point is far more damage has been done, far more deaths have come about because of Christianity, than the damage done and deaths that have come about due to BLM.  

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, BLM, meanwhile is presently and actively fomenting violent riots that have caused billions in property damage, injured dozens/hundreds, and resulted in the deaths of many dozens.

Thanks,

-Smac

Which again is far less than the damage, injury and death caused over the centuries by Christianity.  

Link to post
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

So you have no data or references to support your statement of fact?  

 

I can google it as easily as you, have at it.

Coincidentally, you avoided all my questions, why?  Is it so hard to admit the truth? When have you ever seen the media talk about an unarmed white person being killed by a police officer?  Name just one, please. You can't can you? Yet, you want me to dig up references for something that is staring you right in the face. It is just bizarre. I have aske this question multiple times of individuals with your position - every single one of them avoid answering the question. White deaths are NOT COVERED. Black deaths are covered ad nauseum. Who is being led around by the nose? Why?  Who profits from that situation? Just ask a few questions at least rather than having one's emotions manipulated. 

Some people refuse to kill the golden calf; they would rather kneel before it and worship it regardless of how many times they are told, "You know, that is not really a god, just a calf of gold, right?"  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...