3 ms·

> but we burned down a bunch of stuff, and millions of us marched in the streets over it this past summer. Sounds more like you are the threat vector, with the

by xyzzyz 6y ago

> but we burned down a bunch of stuff, and millions of us marched in the streets over it this past summer. Sounds more like you are the threat vector, with the whole burning things down thing and stuff.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
Ah, well, fair enough. It's 'we' as in 'we' rowdy Americans getting out and exercising the First Amendment, with a minority of protestors committing some property crimes along the way. A common sentiment among those who committed those property crimes was 'no one listened to us before we started burning buildings,' and in this sense I have a sympathy for their claims. I don't believe that the 2020 protests will ultimately be found to have been on the wrong side of history. My grandfather, as an old old man, still referred to MLK as the 'bane of the south.' In his time, the civil unrest of the Civil Rights movement was an unforgivable disruption to the lives of ordinary white folks, and...well, we all know 50 years later that this was such a trivial complaint in the face of the great progress made in healing a society still dealing with the ripple effects of a most monstrous institution, which our nation firmly embraced without hesitation upon its founding. We are still grappling with the fact that when my father was a boy African Americans had to enter through the 'colored' entrance, and the song 'Strange Fruit' was disturbingly still relevant. Remember Emmett Till was lynched in 1955. That's not that long ago. The wounds are still raw. The vast majority of protestors were peaceful, and the point of the protests was that law enforcement should no longer be able to commit violence with impunity against those without a voice. Many, including myself, have expressed sorrow at the damage done to small businesses over the course of the civil actions. But, it's good to see a robust and healthy willingness of the citizenry to turn out in order to oppose just the kind of targeting of the little guy that our friend from the former Soviet Bloc is concerned about.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  Sorry but the first amendment does not cover burning things down. Talk, hold signs, sure, but not violence. You and your comrades are dangerous. People would not have been condemning BLM if it wasn't for the burning.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    It's important to understand that a majority of the violence was initiated by folks that were seeking to take advantage of the protests to carry out violence: "Rather, the [Department of Homeland Security] bulletin said that “the greatest threat of lethal violence continues to emanate from lone offenders with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist ideologies and [domestic violent extremists] with personalized ideologies,” specifically pointing to boogaloo-related groups as likely to be “instigating violence” at the protests." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-cause... Does that change your reasoning about the situation at all? An overwhelming majority of peaceful protestors turned out to protest police violence and racial inequality, and a very, very small minority carried out the bulk of meaningful violence. Does that invalidate the movement? How am I in particular dangerous? No need to clutch at pearls comrade. Feel free to be unafraid. No one bears you any ill-will, unless you're a public servant who has murdered someone with impunity recently.
    - throwaways885 6y ago
      I agree with you on your first point, but in a previous comment you openly associated with the people [burning stuff down]. > No one bears you any ill-will, unless you're a public servant who has murdered someone with impunity recently. The situation is a lot more nuanced than this and I'm sure you know it. Yes the police is over militarised, yes there's a huge problem with urban killings, but you also don't get to solve those problems with violence. Consider the black business owners who suffered greatly from the BLM riots.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - phobosanomaly 6y ago
        I agree with your sentiment that violence is not the answer. I personally harbor no ill-will towards you, and I only ask that you empathize with those who have been at the receiving end of institutionalized violence themselves.

by xyzzyz 6y ago

phobosanomaly 6y ago

Ah, well, fair enough. It's 'we' as in 'we' rowdy Americans getting out and exercising the First Amendment, with a minority of protestors committing some property crimes along the way. A common sentiment among those who committed those property crimes was 'no one listened to us before we started burning buildings,' and in this sense I have a sympathy for their claims. I don't believe that the 2020 protests will ultimately be found to have been on the wrong side of history. My grandfather, as an old old man, still referred to MLK as the 'bane of the south.' In his time, the civil unrest of the Civil Rights movement was an unforgivable disruption to the lives of ordinary white folks, and...well, we all know 50 years later that this was such a trivial complaint in the face of the great progress made in healing a society still dealing with the ripple effects of a most monstrous institution, which our nation firmly embraced without hesitation upon its founding. We are still grappling with the fact that when my father was a boy African Americans had to enter through the 'colored' entrance, and the song 'Strange Fruit' was disturbingly still relevant. Remember Emmett Till was lynched in 1955. That's not that long ago. The wounds are still raw. The vast majority of protestors were peaceful, and the point of the protests was that law enforcement should no longer be able to commit violence with impunity against those without a voice. Many, including myself, have expressed sorrow at the damage done to small businesses over the course of the civil actions. But, it's good to see a robust and healthy willingness of the citizenry to turn out in order to oppose just the kind of targeting of the little guy that our friend from the former Soviet Bloc is concerned about.

throwaways885 6y ago
Sorry but the first amendment does not cover burning things down. Talk, hold signs, sure, but not violence. You and your comrades are dangerous. People would not have been condemning BLM if it wasn't for the burning.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  It's important to understand that a majority of the violence was initiated by folks that were seeking to take advantage of the protests to carry out violence: "Rather, the [Department of Homeland Security] bulletin said that “the greatest threat of lethal violence continues to emanate from lone offenders with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist ideologies and [domestic violent extremists] with personalized ideologies,” specifically pointing to boogaloo-related groups as likely to be “instigating violence” at the protests." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-cause... Does that change your reasoning about the situation at all? An overwhelming majority of peaceful protestors turned out to protest police violence and racial inequality, and a very, very small minority carried out the bulk of meaningful violence. Does that invalidate the movement? How am I in particular dangerous? No need to clutch at pearls comrade. Feel free to be unafraid. No one bears you any ill-will, unless you're a public servant who has murdered someone with impunity recently.
  - throwaways885 6y ago
    I agree with you on your first point, but in a previous comment you openly associated with the people [burning stuff down]. > No one bears you any ill-will, unless you're a public servant who has murdered someone with impunity recently. The situation is a lot more nuanced than this and I'm sure you know it. Yes the police is over militarised, yes there's a huge problem with urban killings, but you also don't get to solve those problems with violence. Consider the black business owners who suffered greatly from the BLM riots.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      I agree with your sentiment that violence is not the answer. I personally harbor no ill-will towards you, and I only ask that you empathize with those who have been at the receiving end of institutionalized violence themselves.