4 ms·

It's all pretty complicated, but one obvious mitigating factor is the ends being pursued by each movement. Rioting aside, BLM is ultimately pushing for justice

It's all pretty complicated, but one obvious mitigating factor is the ends being pursued by each movement. Rioting aside, BLM is ultimately pushing for justice and equality. There's also a question of blame - many would argue that most of the BLM rioting was provoked by a disproportionate police response. This movement, on the other hand, is quite transparently rooted in white supremacy, and had an explicit goal of trying to undermine democracy itself, and people showed up quite obviously looking for a fight. I mean, the news over the past few days have been plastered with images of a guy in a weird Davy Crockett the Viking hat, with enormous white supremacist symbols tattooed across his torso, brandishing a frickin' spear.

war1025 6y ago
> BLM is ultimately pushing for justice and equality. > This movement, on the other hand, is quite transparently rooted in white supremacy It's almost like people describe their side in the best possible terms, and the other side in the worst possible terms...
tw600040 6y ago
//Rioting aside? Aside? isn't that the whole point?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
systemvoltage 6y ago
BLM was a badly organized movement. I support the cause, not the way they're sending the message. Study Gandhi, MLK, John Lewis, Mandela - I understand BLM is a decentralized movement, but that's the problem. There is no leader and leadership. It has no coherency. It's dividing the society even more instead of pulling the entire populace behind it. Social movement has a singular goal - to change the minds of people that oppose their views. BLM has managed to just bring out people who were already supporting them, it hasn't quite changed the hearts of people that were previously racists. This is not how you make progress in the society. It is "pull", not "push".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- halostatue 6y ago
  For you to say this says that you haven’t studied MLK, John Lewis, or Mandela. Mandela was arrested and detained on Robben Island, in part, because he was part of a group that violently opposed the white supremacists of apartheid South Africa. MLK never said that there wasn’t a place for violent resistance to white supremacy. In fact, he called out that if the white supremacists of his time weren’t careful, violent resistance would be all that was left (MLK and Malcolm X were more aligned than most people believe; MLK believed that the time for violent resistance to white supremacist violence had not yet arrived). BLM is, in fact, a very _well_ organized movement and their leadership is consistently calling for protest that is vocal and meaningful, but not violent. Almost every single BLM protest last year that turned violent did so either because of (a) police rioting against the idea of being held accountable for their violence against BIPOC and LGBTQ+ communities and persons or (b) white supremacists who thought it would be a lark to start some violence and blame it on the victimized. BLM isn’t out to change open racists minds—they are correctly considered beyond redemption (and sometimes even beyond shame, like DJT and his coupistas)—and they don’t really care about changing the moderate person’s mind, either. They simply want the indiscriminate state violence against their community to stop. They want to stop the freedom with which the police murder their children. They want there to be no more Rodney Kings, no more Amadou Diallous, no more Philando Castiles, no more Tamir Rices, no more George Floyds, no more Brianna Taylors, no more Jacob Blakes, no more Mike Browns. I could go on, but these are the ones that I can remember right now. Even _if_ some of them were committing crimes, the police are NEVER supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner…and most of the crimes with which those were accused had no chance of a death penalty. That the police have been able to not only murder BIPOC, but to do so with impunity AS A MATTER OF POLICY, is truly disgusting. We as a society are lucky beyond belief that we _aren’t_ facing the violent revolution we deserve for our treatment of BIPOC communities and persons. Instead, we’re facing continued white supremacist violence.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
Your argument boils down to "I agree with one cause and reject a caricature of the other, so the first should be allowed". Not agreeing with something is not a reason to ban it.
roenxi 6y ago
You're allowing the BLM supporters to characterise their motivations, and the Trump opponents to characterise the motivations of this protest. That isn't fair. Someone who turns up in a Viking hat, tattoos and a spear isn't looking for a fight. A person looking for a fight wears a mask, armour, carries a gun and probably camouflage.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  When someone's prominently displaying white supremacist imagery on their torso, it's hardly putting words into their mouth to characterize them as a white supremacist. When people wear imagery and slogans to any demonstration, I afford them the courtesy of understanding that what they're displaying on their bodies is part of the message they want to communicate.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Mr. Viking hat probably isn't an entire protest, even if his horns are intimidating. And even as a group the people storming the capitol probably don't represent most of the protestors, typically the bulk of protests are law abiding and peaceful and there are just a few bad eggs looking to cause trouble. The core of the protest is electoral integrity and calls for the politically marginalised to have a voice, not racial supremacy.
    - mumblemumble 6y ago
      The stated purpose of the protest was to "take our country back" from the democratic majority. That's not a few bad eggs. That's an enormous crowd of people all deciding, tacitly or not, consciously or not, that democracy isn't for them anymore. And phrases like "take our country back" aren't even subtle; anyone who's been paying attention recognizes them as dog whistles. The obvious indication is that this crowd believes the votes of the democratic majority are not legitimate because they came from people who aren't entitled to run the country. And, while we can certainly spend an entertaining afternoon sealioning about particular examples, it would be easier to just take a look at some of the wide angle shots of the crowd. The crowd is clearly communicating exactly who they think isn't entitled to have a voice in how the country is run, either explicitly by holding flags and banners, or implicitly by consenting to be represented by the people holding the flags and banners.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Every movement claims it's advocating for justice and every class considers itself oppressed and they can all cherry pick the instances where they are. I'm not so convinced of a supposed difference.
amluto 6y ago
I don’t think you need to put moral or political judgments on this. As I understand (and I have not really done my homework here), there are two reasonably objective distinctions here: 1. The BLM protests were planned, in public at least, as peaceful protests. Things went wrong and they didn’t all end up peaceful and law-abiding, but I did not see any reports of people using major internet platforms to plan to start riots or cause property damage. The reports of planning of the DC riots on Parler, in contrast, seem to have been quite explicit about the intent. 2. (In my mind rather less clear cut.) The BLM protests were not based on objective lies. The DC riots were. Ignore all the people saying there was no proof of widespread voter fraud — that’s like people saying that there is no strong evidence that MSG causes headaches. In fact, there isn’t even a reason to suspect widespread voter fraud. The proponents of the fraud theory have, when they’ve presented evidence at all, presented comically weak evidence. The theory is obvious BS.
- fangpenlin 6y ago
  The BLM protests were based on objective lies. Have you watched the whole bodycam video of George Floyd's death? Or is that main stream media told you it's true that the police knee on his neck because he is black? https://youtu.be/lJlQvOgEx58 https://youtu.be/lJlQvOgEx58 Can you finish watching it and tell me which part of it is racist? It's unfortunately now people pick the lies they want to believe and claim it's the truth.

war1025 6y ago

> BLM is ultimately pushing for justice and equality. > This movement, on the other hand, is quite transparently rooted in white supremacy It's almost like people describe their side in the best possible terms, and the other side in the worst possible terms...

tw600040 6y ago

//Rioting aside? Aside? isn't that the whole point?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

systemvoltage 6y ago

BLM was a badly organized movement. I support the cause, not the way they're sending the message. Study Gandhi, MLK, John Lewis, Mandela - I understand BLM is a decentralized movement, but that's the problem. There is no leader and leadership. It has no coherency. It's dividing the society even more instead of pulling the entire populace behind it. Social movement has a singular goal - to change the minds of people that oppose their views. BLM has managed to just bring out people who were already supporting them, it hasn't quite changed the hearts of people that were previously racists. This is not how you make progress in the society. It is "pull", not "push".

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
halostatue 6y ago
For you to say this says that you haven’t studied MLK, John Lewis, or Mandela. Mandela was arrested and detained on Robben Island, in part, because he was part of a group that violently opposed the white supremacists of apartheid South Africa. MLK never said that there wasn’t a place for violent resistance to white supremacy. In fact, he called out that if the white supremacists of his time weren’t careful, violent resistance would be all that was left (MLK and Malcolm X were more aligned than most people believe; MLK believed that the time for violent resistance to white supremacist violence had not yet arrived). BLM is, in fact, a very _well_ organized movement and their leadership is consistently calling for protest that is vocal and meaningful, but not violent. Almost every single BLM protest last year that turned violent did so either because of (a) police rioting against the idea of being held accountable for their violence against BIPOC and LGBTQ+ communities and persons or (b) white supremacists who thought it would be a lark to start some violence and blame it on the victimized. BLM isn’t out to change open racists minds—they are correctly considered beyond redemption (and sometimes even beyond shame, like DJT and his coupistas)—and they don’t really care about changing the moderate person’s mind, either. They simply want the indiscriminate state violence against their community to stop. They want to stop the freedom with which the police murder their children. They want there to be no more Rodney Kings, no more Amadou Diallous, no more Philando Castiles, no more Tamir Rices, no more George Floyds, no more Brianna Taylors, no more Jacob Blakes, no more Mike Browns. I could go on, but these are the ones that I can remember right now. Even _if_ some of them were committing crimes, the police are NEVER supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner…and most of the crimes with which those were accused had no chance of a death penalty. That the police have been able to not only murder BIPOC, but to do so with impunity AS A MATTER OF POLICY, is truly disgusting. We as a society are lucky beyond belief that we _aren’t_ facing the violent revolution we deserve for our treatment of BIPOC communities and persons. Instead, we’re facing continued white supremacist violence.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago

Your argument boils down to "I agree with one cause and reject a caricature of the other, so the first should be allowed". Not agreeing with something is not a reason to ban it.

roenxi 6y ago

You're allowing the BLM supporters to characterise their motivations, and the Trump opponents to characterise the motivations of this protest. That isn't fair. Someone who turns up in a Viking hat, tattoos and a spear isn't looking for a fight. A person looking for a fight wears a mask, armour, carries a gun and probably camouflage.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mumblemumble 6y ago
When someone's prominently displaying white supremacist imagery on their torso, it's hardly putting words into their mouth to characterize them as a white supremacist. When people wear imagery and slogans to any demonstration, I afford them the courtesy of understanding that what they're displaying on their bodies is part of the message they want to communicate.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Mr. Viking hat probably isn't an entire protest, even if his horns are intimidating. And even as a group the people storming the capitol probably don't represent most of the protestors, typically the bulk of protests are law abiding and peaceful and there are just a few bad eggs looking to cause trouble. The core of the protest is electoral integrity and calls for the politically marginalised to have a voice, not racial supremacy.
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    The stated purpose of the protest was to "take our country back" from the democratic majority. That's not a few bad eggs. That's an enormous crowd of people all deciding, tacitly or not, consciously or not, that democracy isn't for them anymore. And phrases like "take our country back" aren't even subtle; anyone who's been paying attention recognizes them as dog whistles. The obvious indication is that this crowd believes the votes of the democratic majority are not legitimate because they came from people who aren't entitled to run the country. And, while we can certainly spend an entertaining afternoon sealioning about particular examples, it would be easier to just take a look at some of the wide angle shots of the crowd. The crowd is clearly communicating exactly who they think isn't entitled to have a voice in how the country is run, either explicitly by holding flags and banners, or implicitly by consenting to be represented by the people holding the flags and banners.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Every movement claims it's advocating for justice and every class considers itself oppressed and they can all cherry pick the instances where they are. I'm not so convinced of a supposed difference.

amluto 6y ago

I don’t think you need to put moral or political judgments on this. As I understand (and I have not really done my homework here), there are two reasonably objective distinctions here: 1. The BLM protests were planned, in public at least, as peaceful protests. Things went wrong and they didn’t all end up peaceful and law-abiding, but I did not see any reports of people using major internet platforms to plan to start riots or cause property damage. The reports of planning of the DC riots on Parler, in contrast, seem to have been quite explicit about the intent. 2. (In my mind rather less clear cut.) The BLM protests were not based on objective lies. The DC riots were. Ignore all the people saying there was no proof of widespread voter fraud — that’s like people saying that there is no strong evidence that MSG causes headaches. In fact, there isn’t even a reason to suspect widespread voter fraud. The proponents of the fraud theory have, when they’ve presented evidence at all, presented comically weak evidence. The theory is obvious BS.

fangpenlin 6y ago
The BLM protests were based on objective lies. Have you watched the whole bodycam video of George Floyd's death? Or is that main stream media told you it's true that the police knee on his neck because he is black? https://youtu.be/lJlQvOgEx58 https://youtu.be/lJlQvOgEx58 Can you finish watching it and tell me which part of it is racist? It's unfortunately now people pick the lies they want to believe and claim it's the truth.