5 ms·

Then the early black lives matter protests were nothing but a bunch of anarchistic rioters and looters. And every cop in those police departments is racist. And

Then the early black lives matter protests were nothing but a bunch of anarchistic rioters and looters. And every cop in those police departments is racist. And all those city councillors too. It isn’t true though and the point is you can’t just go around labelling people like that willy nilly. You can’t just group everyone together based on what the worst of them do. Imagine a world where every honest cop quit in order to avoid being associated with the bad ones

maccard 6y ago
I don't agree with the point you're making at all here. OPs point is that if you attend a gathering with people you don't know, and that gathering turns out to be heavily represented by white supremacist groups, you are going to be labelled with it. You're furiously defending an argument that you've made, which is exactly the point that is being made repeatedly in this thread, that's it's very difficult to have a discussion on many of these topics because the debate turns to this very quickly.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  In the same spirit, gentleman11's point is that if you attend a gathering with people you don't know, and that gathering turns out to be heavily represented by looters and rioters, you are going to be labelled with it. > You're furiously defending an argument that you've made More like trying to show to DanBC that their line of thinking is illogical. Regardless, I do not see anything furious about it.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti. I'm pointing out that this is a simplistic, dishonest, framing: > Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1]. A more honest framing would be "people out protecting Churchill statutes, many of them making Nazi salutes and chanting racist slogans, are labelled as racists in several stories". This isn't just the extreme left calling everything racist. Here's the Telegraph[1] quoting Boris Johnson[2] who condemns "racist thuggery". https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-matter-protests-london-statues-racism-churchill/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-matt... [1] A right wing newspaper. [2] A right wing PM.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      Why are you repeating the same thing over and over while ignoring the argument given? Oh well, here, let's repeat it. "There's nothing illogical about describing as looters and rioters a group of people who break windows, steal from shops, set buildings and cars on fire." You can extend the same argument to have racist undertones by including all black people for example because there are some criminals among them. Racism is bad not because it is racism but rather because it is yet another instance of prejudice and generalization.
    - textgel 6y ago
      > There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti. However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being with a group doing x means you will labelled as x. > If you're in a large group, and many members of that group are by any definition racist, you're going to be called part of a racist group. Now whether you meant that that is a case of will be vs should was not covered but that was what the original point was. The new point about framing would be in relation to the original point made where all in the protest centred around protection of the statues were labelled racist for doing so by major news organisations. At a guess there's at least two frustrations made in that that I can immediately think of 1) the lack of nuance from the papers (probably a hopeless ask given the way media operates in general for any story they handle but something worth discussing) And 2) the hypocrisy displayed. We've seen the recent riots described as "mostly peaceful protests" time after time when a simple look at the stories and videos coming out show anything but yet the difference in the media descriptions of the two is pretty glaring would you agree?
      - DanBC 6y ago
        > However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being with a group doing x means you will labelled as x. I still say that. If you attend a demonstration organised by a far right group (FLA), heavily promoted by other far right groups (Britain First, EDL), and prominent members of the far right (Stephen Yaxley Lennon, Paul Golding) then you're going to be called racist. You're desperately trying to say these crowds were people interested in statues and merely peacefully protesting to protect statues. That shows a complete lack of understanding of i) who organised the demonstration ii) the language used to organise the demonstration iii) the behaviours displayed during the demonstration and iv) the commentary across the political spectrum condemning this demonstration as racist thuggery. > yet the difference in the media descriptions of the two is pretty glaring would you agree? At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that in the UK the far right pose a far greater risk of harm than the left. The people you're desperately trying to defend were drunk, coked-up, racist, football hooligans on a rampage. That has been fairly and accurately described by UK news media, including those on the right. Daily fucking Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8404751/Police-fear-violence-erupt-London-football-hooligans-hold-counter-protests.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8404751/Police-fear...

maccard 6y ago

I don't agree with the point you're making at all here. OPs point is that if you attend a gathering with people you don't know, and that gathering turns out to be heavily represented by white supremacist groups, you are going to be labelled with it. You're furiously defending an argument that you've made, which is exactly the point that is being made repeatedly in this thread, that's it's very difficult to have a discussion on many of these topics because the debate turns to this very quickly.

dependenttypes 6y ago
In the same spirit, gentleman11's point is that if you attend a gathering with people you don't know, and that gathering turns out to be heavily represented by looters and rioters, you are going to be labelled with it. > You're furiously defending an argument that you've made More like trying to show to DanBC that their line of thinking is illogical. Regardless, I do not see anything furious about it.
- DanBC 6y ago
  There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti. I'm pointing out that this is a simplistic, dishonest, framing: > Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1]. A more honest framing would be "people out protecting Churchill statutes, many of them making Nazi salutes and chanting racist slogans, are labelled as racists in several stories". This isn't just the extreme left calling everything racist. Here's the Telegraph[1] quoting Boris Johnson[2] who condemns "racist thuggery". https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-matter-protests-london-statues-racism-churchill/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-matt... [1] A right wing newspaper. [2] A right wing PM.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    Why are you repeating the same thing over and over while ignoring the argument given? Oh well, here, let's repeat it. "There's nothing illogical about describing as looters and rioters a group of people who break windows, steal from shops, set buildings and cars on fire." You can extend the same argument to have racist undertones by including all black people for example because there are some criminals among them. Racism is bad not because it is racism but rather because it is yet another instance of prejudice and generalization.
  - textgel 6y ago
    > There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti. However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being with a group doing x means you will labelled as x. > If you're in a large group, and many members of that group are by any definition racist, you're going to be called part of a racist group. Now whether you meant that that is a case of will be vs should was not covered but that was what the original point was. The new point about framing would be in relation to the original point made where all in the protest centred around protection of the statues were labelled racist for doing so by major news organisations. At a guess there's at least two frustrations made in that that I can immediately think of 1) the lack of nuance from the papers (probably a hopeless ask given the way media operates in general for any story they handle but something worth discussing) And 2) the hypocrisy displayed. We've seen the recent riots described as "mostly peaceful protests" time after time when a simple look at the stories and videos coming out show anything but yet the difference in the media descriptions of the two is pretty glaring would you agree?
    - DanBC 6y ago
      > However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being with a group doing x means you will labelled as x. I still say that. If you attend a demonstration organised by a far right group (FLA), heavily promoted by other far right groups (Britain First, EDL), and prominent members of the far right (Stephen Yaxley Lennon, Paul Golding) then you're going to be called racist. You're desperately trying to say these crowds were people interested in statues and merely peacefully protesting to protect statues. That shows a complete lack of understanding of i) who organised the demonstration ii) the language used to organise the demonstration iii) the behaviours displayed during the demonstration and iv) the commentary across the political spectrum condemning this demonstration as racist thuggery. > yet the difference in the media descriptions of the two is pretty glaring would you agree? At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that in the UK the far right pose a far greater risk of harm than the left. The people you're desperately trying to defend were drunk, coked-up, racist, football hooligans on a rampage. That has been fairly and accurately described by UK news media, including those on the right. Daily fucking Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8404751/Police-fear-violence-erupt-London-football-hooligans-hold-counter-protests.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8404751/Police-fear...