Always starts as a peaceful protest

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

No one is saying "one side is totally right". But this certainly isn't "right":

http://www.twincities.com/2016/07/09...hurch-service/

From a truck parked in the eastbound lanes, protest organizers chanted slogans, spoke of racial injustice and urged the crowd to remain peaceful. The group mostly complied early on, but later into the night, police were targeted with rocks, fireworks and construction rebar taken from the roadway.

Scores of white demonstrators stood side-by-side at the perimeter of the crowd to protect others from arrest. Many were taken into custody.

Peaceful protesting can be effective, but this is absolutely couterproductive.

As opposed to the unjustified killing of black people by the police?

https://twitter.com/MaraGottfried/st...805504/photo/1

The horror!

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Going 'na na they did it too' doesn't actually refute anything dave said, does it?

You are the poster boy for 'we can't even change positions on an internet forum one iota.' I don't recall you ever even slightly acknowledging that an 'opponent' has anything of a point. You never drop the keyboard warrior persona in the topics--though you are of course capable of doing so, as you did in the recent discussion of moderation here.

It certainly makes a point that you're apparently incapable of grasping or chose not to acknowledge. Let me try it one more time.

Inflammatory rhetoric is, in my opinion, cut from the same cloth as the emotional overdrive that turns peaceful protests into violent ones. It also undercuts reasonable debate because it blurs the meaning of certain words or phrases due to their misuse (the "dog whistle effect", if you will).

The Politico article I posted that referred to the Tea Party as terrorists - and there are plenty more articles like that - redefines terrorism as the legitimate use of protest and activism to produce an outcome that opponents don't support. Frankly, that reaction - and the use of the term "terrorism in this case - by the left is surprising because the left has a tradition of using protests and activism to achieve political goals. So when the term "terrorism" rebounds and is used in the context of some of the violence that has occurred during BLM events, its prior misuse becomes self defeating by those who used it.

You may disagree, but the Tea Party activists never resorted to "terrorism". If anything, they used non-violent protests and activism that has typically been a tradition on the left. The BLM events have turned violent, however. Protesters have been calling for violence against police. While there is no proof of terrorism in these activities, the violence and calls for violence do invite criticism and questions. When the definition of the word "terrorism" gets blurred, however, its may get easier to make the case for opponents of the movement that BLM members are behaving like terrorists.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

As opposed to the unjustified killing of black people by the police?

https://twitter.com/MaraGottfried/st...805504/photo/1

The horror!

So what John is apparently saying here is that if a few innocent cops get bloodied or killed in the process of protesters making their point, so what?

[nailer]

Back in the early 80s the Atlantic Monthly had an article that argued African-American males were being written off by society. The article made a very good case, especially from the political/governance perspective presented. That the BLM movement exists lays proof to the article's premise.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

So what John is apparently saying here is that if a few innocent cops get bloodied or killed in the process of protesters making their point, so what?

And if a few innocent darkies get killed in the process of "maintaining order", so what?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

And if a few innocent darkies get killed in the process of "maintaining order", so what?

You are one poor, sick little man.

[CarlV]

Take away their hopes for a comfortable future with security and a decent chance of not even get to elderly if they work hard and they start acting as if there is nothing to lose, the nerve....


Carl

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

The Politico article I posted that referred to the Tea Party as terrorists - and there are plenty more articles like that - redefines terrorism as the use of armed protest and activism to produce an outcome that opponents don't support.

Fixed it for you.

You may disagree, but the Tea Party activists never resorted to "terrorism". If anything, they used non-violent protests and activism that has typically been a tradition on the left. The BLM events have turned violent, however. Protesters have been calling for violence against police. While there is no proof of terrorism in these activities, the violence and calls for violence do invite criticism and questions. When the definition of the word "terrorism" gets blurred, however, its may get easier to make the case for opponents of the movement that BLM members are behaving like terrorists.

It's grotesquely unfair of you to attempt to conflate the peaceful protest in Dallas by BLM with the actions of one lone terrorist, a terrorist who shot a couple of the protesters, by the way, but that's precisely the sort of obscene casuistry we've all come to expect from you.

[whell]

Originally Posted by nailer

Back in the early 80s the Atlantic Monthly had an article that argued African-American males were being written off by society. The article made a very good case, especially from the political/governance perspective presented. That the BLM movement exists lays proof to the article's premise.

A 2011 DOJ study of homicide statistics indicated that:

- Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide
victims and offenders. Th e victimization rate for blacks (27.8
per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per
100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost
8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).

- black children under age 5 have remained substantially higher
than rates for white children or children of other races.

- Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1980 through 2008—
63% were killed by a parent—33% were killed by their fathers
and 30% were killed by their mothers.

- From 1980 to 2008, black victims were over-represented in homicides involving drugs, with 62.1% of all drug-related homicides involving black
victims.

- While two-thirds of drug-related homicides were committed by
black offenders (65.6%), black offenders were less likely to be
involved in sex-related killings (43.4%), workplace homicides,
(25.8%) or homicides of elders age 65 or older (41.9%) compared
to their overall involvement as homicide offenders (52.5%).

Most murders were intraracial:

From 1980 through 2008—
- 84% of white victims were killed by whites ( gure 19).
- 93% of black victims were killed by blacks.

Stranger homicides were more likely to cross racial lines than homicides involving friends or acquaintances:

For homicides committed by—
- a stranger to the victim, 26.7% were interracial
- a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 9.7% were interracial

In 2008, black males age 18 to 24 years-old had the highest homicide victimization rate (91.1 homicides per 100,000). That rate was more than double the rate for black males age 25 or older (38.4 homicides per 100,000) and almost triple the rate for black males age 14 to 17 (31.4 homicides per 100,000).

Why the BLM folks aren't focused on reducing these types of crimes, I don't know. I guess because there's no one around with a cell phone recording video when most of these crimes are occurring?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's grotesquely unfair of you to attempt to conflate the peaceful protest in Dallas by BLM with the actions of one lone terrorist, a terrorist who shot a couple of the protesters, by the way, but that's precisely the sort of obscene casuistry we've all come to expect from you.

Its not grotesquely unfair of you - though pretty typical - to miss the point. The most recent violent events - St Paul and Phoenix - are the ones I was referring to. Subtract Dallas from the equation completely, and the observation that outbreaks of violence at BLM protests have occurred still stands. The observation that the "violence" that has been alleged at any prior Tea Party function pales in comparison to what is actually happening this summer at BLM protests still stands.