Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan and company now say they’re going to make it their top “all of the House” priority to focus on the critical, existential issue of “Anti-Semitism” on college campuses. Is this really the #1 issue for ordinary Americans? Or just the House GOP? pic.twitter.com/08UXqsMbMn

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 30, 2024

---

Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

---

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not

---

Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.

---

Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

---

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.

---

I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

---

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.

---

In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.

---

Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.

---

And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

---

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?

---

I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

---

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.

---

Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

---

"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Only if these kids were this passionate about getting a job

---

PorterosoIn an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.

---

Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.

---

And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

---

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?

---

I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

---

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.

---

Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

---

"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

---

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

The University of Mississippi student who made the monkey noises at a Black woman has been kicked out of his fraternity.

Phi Delta Theta announced his removal today.

Earlier, the UM NAACP called on UM to expel Phi Delta Theta member JP Staples. https://t.co/UDwjayEaTl pic.twitter.com/Ebd7PuoGgV

— Ashton Pittman (@ashtonpittman) May 5, 2024

---

"Thou must not mock sacred cows"

The modern USA is a religious state….its religion is just not Christianity

---

I couldn't tell exactly what was happening in the video, but assuming it's true, you think direct racial slurs against blacks are ok?

---

1. I don't see him say any racial slur.

2. After watching conservative coded protestors (usually white people) get called every name in the book on campus I am numb to the idea that women like this should get preferential treatment…. She got mocked…it was not the end of the world

---

Again, I said assuming it's true, he was doing monkey imitations. That's about as bad a slur as you'll find.

---

Why?

If some makes monkey noises at another person…that is implying they are acting like a comic animal

How does the persons race even come into play?

---

sombear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Strange days.

Islamic Radicals
Liberal Extremists
Right Wing Christian Nationalists

---

Islamic radicals behead people, rape and kill children.
Liberal extremists want to indoctrinate children into the rainbow cult and also support the Islamic extremists. Rightwing Christian nationalists don't want you to kill your unborn children, don't want the rainbow cult in schools and love their country.

---

And don't like the Jews, are sympathetic to Gaza, talk about ZOG, Zionist supremacy, etc.

---

Christian Nationalists is a BS creation of the leftwing nutjobs.

It is a label used to describe anyone who believes in God, or believes the Bible, or loves America, or voted for Trump, or doesn't like Joe Biden... or any combination of those.

In other words... anyone who is not a full supporter of Joe Biden is labeled as a "dangerous Christian Nationalist". It is just another stupid ploy by the uni-party, to keep the people behind Joe Biden, in power.

The very idea that a "right wing" person, or a Christian, or someone who believes in "America first" would have ANY common ground with either a Islamic Radical or a Liberal Extremeist... that is just ridiculous.

Islamic Extremists hate America and want to completely destroy the West. That is the polar opposite of a right winger, a Christian and the basic idea of "America first".

Liberal Extremists hate the founding of our nation, the Constitution as written, the Bible, Christianity, Capitalism, and the free exchange of ideas (especially on X). These are all polar opposite positions of right wingers, Christians and the "America first" crowd.

---

There are intersections on lots of issues. Don't be blind. I'm pointing out the intersection on this specific topic. I mean are you seeing some of the comments getting thrown around on this and related threads?

There is a new popularity of Christian nationalism that has nothing to do with Conservative or evangelical Christianity, which used to be the target of the left, or pro America patriotism, or even right wing. In fact this new breed has anti-capitalist leanings masking it in anti-globalism and/or pro labor anti-corporations that mimic the left (remember Occupy Wall Street?), and even anti-freedom as they seek not to reverse liberal trends of suppression (something I completely agree is occurring), but wanting to mirror their tactics in areas they support. An honest assessment of what's being argued and advocated would see the intersection of what would seemingly be ideological opposites.

If you want to define it under a different name because you think it disparages Christianity or patriotism, I'm open to whatever label you wish to apply. But unlike the left, I'm following a specific and known identity of Christian nationalism that dates back a long time. Even the "America first" label is being co-opted and abused as a cover for ulterior motives.

---

If you really want to explain this position, give an example. Who is a perfect example of a "Christian Nationalist", and then explain how they embody that label.

---

BarBearian. It's self explanatory so to speak.

---

You know what... I'll accept that title.

I genuinely don't see anything wrong with being labeled a Christian Nationalist.

You guys mean it as a slur, but I'll take it as a badge of honor.

This country desperately needs more Christianity and Nationalism.

---

Christianity and nationalism are not particularly compatible.

---

please explain further

---

Nationalism implies a loyalty to the nation and placing the nation's interests above the interests of other groups. One of those "other groups" would be the Church. Christianity, on the other hand, tends to call for loyalty to Christ, and Christ alone.

---

So you do not believe it is possible to be a Christian, but also believe that the nation's interests should be above all other interest groups... except for Christ?
I am a Christian first, and an American second... but i do believe that the interest of America should come before all other groups, except for Christ. It is really funny that you think that Nationalists can only be called Nationalists if they put the nation above Christ. That's just silly.

I suppose someone couldn't be a Baylor fan and also a Christian? How can one be a fan of Baylor without placing Baylor above their devotion to Christ? LOL

---

You seem to align God and country as one, or advocate a joint loyalty of both to the exclusion of others. That's the issue. And I can tell you family comes in the slot between God and country for me, and I believe most do as well.

I spend too much time in places where religious nationalism creates nothing but turmoil domestically and internationally to stand by and not say something when I see some of the rhetoric going on. I feel as if the whole Putin/Russian church unholy alliance has emboldened a dangerous sentiment, having nothing to do with yes/no to Ukraine War support.

---

I think you are arguing with someone in high school, maybe a college freshman. The bar for entering into this forum is low, i.e. anyone can come. If we were meeting in person to discuss this, we probably wouldn't pay any attention to about half the folks weighing in

---

I think Christian Nationalism is a fair and important subject of discussion.

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I had this same thought....when you've got music and theater majors chanting USA your attempted protest is failing hard

It's quite an accomplishment to rouse an auditorium of parents and friends of *music, theater, and dance majors* [!!!] to chant "USA! USA!" in counterprotest to your attempt to disrupt their graduation ceremony. https://t.co/MB4dDffGMj

— David Frum (@davidfrum) May 4, 2024

---

At the George Washington University Gaza Solidarity Encampment today, the protesters held a "People's Tribunal" where they put President Ellen Granberg, Provost Christopher Bracey, the Board of Trustees, @GWPolice, and many others on trial.

Is it normal for students to want to… pic.twitter.com/M8F543q0MV

— Stu (@thestustustudio) May 3, 2024

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan and company now say they’re going to make it their top “all of the House” priority to focus on the critical, existential issue of “Anti-Semitism” on college campuses. Is this really the #1 issue for ordinary Americans? Or just the House GOP? pic.twitter.com/08UXqsMbMn

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 30, 2024

---

Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

---

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not

---

Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.

---

Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

---

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.

---

I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

---

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.

---

In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.

---

Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.

---

And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

---

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?

---

I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

---

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.

---

Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

---

"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

---

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.

---

Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

By the way, I answered your questions, but you have not given me an explanation of why black lives matter is untrue. I expect that in your next post.

---

"I rarely encounter people like you in real life." - that's pretty evident. It's quite evident there is a dearth of critical thinking within your circle, given your takes.

No, you did NOT answer my questions. Where is your answer as to why if you said "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" in a BLM riot/protest you would be met with hostility? Where is your answer as to why the BLM narrative is directed against white America instead of Black America given the statistics that 99% of black lives are killed by other blacks? Where is your answer as to why BLM thinks it is necessary to single out black lives as mattering, apart from other races, and why there is passion and anger behind it?? These questions were meant for you to see that the BLM narrative does not just begin and end with the face value of the slogan, as you were laughably asserting.

Your post is so dumb I don't even know where to begin. Capitalize "black lives matter"?? You don't need to capitalize it unless you are directly referring to the slogan or the organization. If you are simply just talking about "black lives mattering", e.g. if you're asking someone, "do you think black lives matter?" then there is no need to capitalize it. The fact that you'd make an issue over not capitalizing every instance of that phrase is just so pathetic it's beyond words. "Most conservatives would never post 'black lives matter' in lowercase" HUH?? What in the heck are you even talking about??

And HERE'S THE KICKER - YOU yourself didn't capitalize "black lives matter", EVEN when you were referring to the organization/movement!! Here's a direct quote from your previous post:

"Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter."

WOW. So are you the "zealot" you're talking about?

Again, let me reiterate the fact that I strongly suspected I wasn't going to get anywhere with you because of the level of your cluelessness, and that's been demonstrated here to a tee. If you are wanting my answer as to why BLM's narrative is false, well, that is what I was trying to do through those questions that you say you answered but didn't. So give them another shot, if that's what you really want. If your latest post is any indication, though, I won't be holding my breath for anything coherent.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan and company now say they’re going to make it their top “all of the House” priority to focus on the critical, existential issue of “Anti-Semitism” on college campuses. Is this really the #1 issue for ordinary Americans? Or just the House GOP? pic.twitter.com/08UXqsMbMn

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 30, 2024

---

Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

---

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not

---

Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.

---

Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

---

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.

---

I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

---

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.

---

In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.

---

Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.

---

And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

---

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?

---

I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

---

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.

---

Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

---

"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

---

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.

---

Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

---

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?

---

I am not sure you understand what "narrative" means. The statement "black lives matter" is an assertion of fact but it is not a narrative any more than saying "the sky is blue" is a narrative.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan and company now say they’re going to make it their top “all of the House” priority to focus on the critical, existential issue of “Anti-Semitism” on college campuses. Is this really the #1 issue for ordinary Americans? Or just the House GOP? pic.twitter.com/08UXqsMbMn

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 30, 2024

---

Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

---

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not

---

Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.

---

Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

---

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.

---

I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

---

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.

---

In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.

---

Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.

---

And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

---

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?

---

I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

---

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.

---

Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

---

"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

---

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.

---

Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

---

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?

---

But the problem here is you're either lying or ignorant. The entire reason people started the BLM movement was over the false narrative that police were hunting down and killing innocent unarmed black people. You cannot get around that. Those people didn't just wake up one day and say, "you know what? Black Lives Matter! I think I'll organize some marches because gosh darn it, Black Lives Matter!" We will never come to an agreement here as long as you deny this reality.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan and company now say they’re going to make it their top “all of the House” priority to focus on the critical, existential issue of “Anti-Semitism” on college campuses. Is this really the #1 issue for ordinary Americans? Or just the House GOP? pic.twitter.com/08UXqsMbMn

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 30, 2024

---

Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

---

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not

---

Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.

---

Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

---

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.

---

I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

---

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.

---

In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.

---

Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.

---

And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

---

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?

---

I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

---

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.

---

Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

---

"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

---

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.

---

Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

---

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?

---

For most people, BLM started because George Floyd was killed by cops, because he was black. THAT is the false narrative. The evidence is very clear that George Floyd was a career criminal who overdosed on fentanyl.
The St. George story is a completely false narrative. And so is the false narrative that police are racists who use unnecessary violence on black people.

Sorry pal, but the BLM organization and the BLM movement are totally and completely based upon false narratives.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

"Guillotine, Guillotine, Guillotine, Guillotine"

"Bracey, Bracey, we see you. You assault students too. Off to the mother****ing gallows with you."

"As you already know where I am sending her [to the guillotine], her and her ****ass bob."

Lovely free speech heroes!

At the George Washington University Gaza Solidarity Encampment today, the protesters held a "People's Tribunal" where they put President Ellen Granberg, Provost Christopher Bracey, the Board of Trustees, @GWPolice, and many others on trial.

Is it normal for students to want to… pic.twitter.com/M8F543q0MV

— Stu (@thestustustudio) May 3, 2024

---

no, no, no!!! Don't you know that the only outrage is the one kid who was dancing around like a monkey????

The rest of this is to be celebrated!! Academia just LOVES them some calls for violence & death!

---

Quick 🧵: The Regime's command and control apparatus works in very predictable ways. They would have you believe that one single random 20 year old making monkey noises is somehow worse than weeks of wholesale destruction of college campuses by leftist mobs. This is by design. 1/ https://t.co/WoH3NBEQdM

— Vagrant of Rhodes 🗡️🕯️ (@vagrantwires) May 6, 2024

- In this case, the story is picked up by major news outlets, Regime thinkers and writers, boosted artificially by politicians, grifters, activists and algorithms, to help feed the desired manufactured narrative ("America = racist, whites America = bad") to the public. 7/ pic.twitter.com/SW7LKvZNvV

— Vagrant of Rhodes 🗡️🕯️ (@vagrantwires) May 6, 2024

Porteroso said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan and company now say they’re going to make it their top “all of the House” priority to focus on the critical, existential issue of “Anti-Semitism” on college campuses. Is this really the #1 issue for ordinary Americans? Or just the House GOP? pic.twitter.com/08UXqsMbMn

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 30, 2024

---

Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

---

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not

---

Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.

---

Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

---

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.

---

I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

---

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.

---

In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.

---

Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.

---

And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

---

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?

---

I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

---

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.

---

Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

---

"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

---

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.

---

Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

---

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?

---

I am not sure you understand what "narrative" means. The statement "black lives matter" is an assertion of fact but it is not a narrative any more than saying "the sky is blue" is a narrative.

---

No but it is. It is not fact. Morality is not fact. People deserve freedom is not fact, it is an ideal, and yes ideals can be narratives. Obviously there are many ways we could say blacks deserve this and that, but generally this is a decentralized global movement that is saying black lives matter, and wanting everyone else to at least agree in principle.

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan and company now say they’re going to make it their top “all of the House” priority to focus on the critical, existential issue of “Anti-Semitism” on college campuses. Is this really the #1 issue for ordinary Americans? Or just the House GOP? pic.twitter.com/08UXqsMbMn

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 30, 2024

---

Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

---

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not

---

Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.

---

Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

---

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.

---

I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

---

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.

---

In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.

---

Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.

---

And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

---

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?

---

I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

---

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.

---

Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

---

"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

---

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.

---

Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

---

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?

---

But the problem here is you're either lying or ignorant. The entire reason people started the BLM movement was over the false narrative that police were hunting down and killing innocent unarmed black people. You cannot get around that. Those people didn't just wake up one day and say, "you know what? Black Lives Matter! I think I'll organize some marches because gosh darn it, Black Lives Matter!" We will never come to an agreement here as long as you deny this reality.

---

Yes the police have hunted down and killed unarmed black men and women. Are you in need of specific examples?

---

Porteroso said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan and company now say they’re going to make it their top “all of the House” priority to focus on the critical, existential issue of “Anti-Semitism” on college campuses. Is this really the #1 issue for ordinary Americans? Or just the House GOP? pic.twitter.com/08UXqsMbMn

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 30, 2024

---

Of course it is a top priority.

If one group of citizens can be targeted like this with impunity, and
no retribution for blatant antisemitism, then any group of citizens
can be targeted in a similar way.



GOP leadership is weak,

---

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

The question is where were they during the anti-White pogroms during BLM?

Mitt Romney was out there marching in the street with the DC BLM

Has any top GOP leader been out marching in the street with the pro-Palestinian protestors? of course not

---

Rarely do I defend BLM for anything, but there were different kinds of BLM marches and protests. Yea, it's become a punch line, but fact is, a majority were peaceful and reasonable. There were, in fact, multiple marches where police forces joined. There were prayer sessions involving all kinds. If any of those would have been near me, I may well have attended. As for those that were violent/radical, there were plenty of conservative politicians and influencers calling it out and saying more should be done.

---

Based on the fact that the BLM marches were predicated on the lie that police are hunting down innocent black people NONE of the BLM marches were "reasonable."

---

Whether police always do the right thing or not, it is always reasonable to ask them to do the right thing.

The vast majority of BLM protesters were asking that police who kill innocent blacks be held accountable, and that they seek to treat everyone fairly.

It could be argued that in the past decade or 2 police themselves have become much more diverse, better representing the demographics of the U.S., and that for every mistreatment of a black American, there are probably 3 of a white American. However, the centuries before that created a narrative very different, and when such injustice has been perpetrated for so long, it just takes more than 1 or 2 decades of fair policecwork to change the societal narrative.

The peaceful BLM protests were exactly reasonable, and anyone making use of their right to peacefully protest, I applaud, even if I disagree with the cause.

---

I'm glad that you also agree that the blm riots were about feelings and narrative rather than facts and reality.

---

Centuries of police brutality is a fact. Yes people care. I do think recent police brutality was vastly overstated by mainstream media, but I am glad that people protested this perception. If you thought it was real, you'd have to be a real monster to not support such protests.

---

In an earlier forum, you called me a racist for thinking that BLM was pushing a false narrative: https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/111918/replies/2849864

Here's your quote: "I love that phrase, false BLM narrative. You might as well just lead with "I'm racist.""

You were rightfully lambasted for that opinion. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you've learned anything since then, and if you still think it's racist for believing it's a false narrative.

---

Their narrative is that black lives matter. BLM was a movement about more than police brutality. Specific to police brutality, police still brutalize black men, just at the same rate as everyone else. There is little evidence that blacks are treated differently by police. However that is different from trying to paint the whole BLM narrative as false. Just think of what you are saying, when you say "the black lives matter narrative is false." Racist as hell dude.

---

And there it is. If you don't support the violent grift BLM then you are racist. Pitiful.

---

All you have to do is be capable of saying that black lives matter. Anyone who says they don't is probably racist. I'd love to hear the explanation of why though. You can support equality and still not support violence. Or is that too complicated?

---

I'd love to hear your explanation why simply believing the narrative BLM pushes is untrue is racist.

Maybe you aren't the one who should be determining the litmus test for racism.

---

Again, the narrative that black lives matter espouses is that black lives matter. Anyone who thinks that statement is false is racist, unless they think no lives matter. It is really simple. I don't think I can really make it any clearer.

Conservatives love to pretend that blm is actually about hatred, and sure, there are total racist haters in blm, but the narrative that much of the country accepted long ago is the very name of the movement.

---

Normally, at this point I would accuse the person with your take of employing a classic "motte and bailey" fallacy in defense of BLM. But considering that the whole body of your posts have revealed an alarming degree of general cluelessness, I'm going to assume that it is quite probable that you are unable to think past a mere slogan and so you authentically believe that is all what BLM is about. If you don't know what a motte and bailey fallacy is, look it up.

But if you know my posting history, you'll know that I don't give up so easily on the generally clueless (and/or dishonest), and I often take the effort to boil things down to try to make that person see/admit their error. But I have to admit, though, I don't think I'll see much success with you, given how in the past you've ended up just doubling down on what is obviously downright stupid to any normal, rational person (like how you blame parents for willfully and purposefully exposing their children to drag queens... but somehow you don't blame the drag queens themselves for their part in willfully and purposefully exposing children to drag queens).

Regardless, I will try. The first thing I'd like to tell you is this: read what others have been saying to you in response. Don't just dismiss what they're saying like you usually do and just go on repeating yourself just because what they said doesn't fit into your established schema regarding BLM. Try to actually process and incorporate it, and weigh it against your reasoning. For example, take the point someone made that if you say "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" at an angry BLM protest you'd be met with quite a bit of hostility. I think ANY sane, rational, thinking person knows this to be TRUE. I hate to put it like this, but whoever doesn't think so is a moron. An absolute moron. And this isn't just true for an angry BLM mob, this would happen to people in the workplace or to pundits on the news/twitter or in politics - people have been CANCELLED over such things. So ask yourself, since it is true that you'd be met with hostility (and as someone pointed out, maybe even killed) - WHY is that? Tell us why you think that is. That's the first step.

Next, look at the graphs given by RedBrick - if the narrative is just that black lives matter, then wouldn't they be directing that narrative to the wrong group of people?? How do these facts line up with your understanding of the BLM narrative?

Another question you need to ask yourself is this: why, if in this country it is widely held that ALL lives matter, is there even a need to single out one race's lives as "mattering"? If all lives matter, wouldn't that just be a superfluous truism, like saying "the sky is blue", "water is wet", or "breathing oxygen is good"? In other words, what exactly are they insinuating by saying we as a society need to affirm that "black lives matter"? Why is there so much anger and passion along with it? Would anyone be so similarly angry and passionate over the fact that "water is wet"? No, they wouldn't, it would be because there is more to what they're saying behind the slogan, right? What do you think it is?

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

So many assumptions, hilarious. You think I don't know that interracial violence is extremely low?

To the first question, it is more and more common for conservatives to be able to say out loud "black lives matter" but most wouldn't 2 or 3 years ago, because they hadn't yet figured out that you can say a group matters without supporting the ideology of te group. But all lives matter was a way to not have to say black lives matter. Of course it is true, but I only ever talked with 1 conservative who wouldn't agree that black lives matter. He kept saying all lives do, so I explained to him what j just said, and his response was that the slogan "black lives matter" made him feel like white lives don't. Point is the vast majority of conservatives here wouldn't even post black lives matter in lower case. It is truly a forum of ultra funding zealots. Just like yourself. I rarely encounter people like you in real life.

I'm not sure if you know about the history of blacks in America, but honestly just go talk with a black person about it, read a book, whatever. The level of ignorance, to say that it is widely held that all lives matter, as if that is the moral compass of the country, I just can't help you with that. You want to believe racism is dead so you don't have to deal with it. Others of us live in the real world.

To believe, that all your typing was an attempt to paint the narrative of "black lives matter" as false or untrue. Unreal.

---

"False narratives and riots and murder are okay because stuff happened in the distant past to other people that look like the rioters!" Simply moronic.

---

Why is that in quotes? I'm the one saying the narrative of black lives matter is correct and true.

---

Nope. Cops are not out hunting and killing innocent black people. The BLM narrative is false.

---

There are many things many in the black lives matter movement might say. But the narrative is that black lives matter. And that is true. I have defined 5his as the overarching narrative several times, but you insist there is a different narrative. Hard to have debate when we can't start from common ground.

Pretend that most people who support the black lives movement really do just think black lives matter. Would you attempt to argue with them and tell them their narrative is false?

---

For most people, BLM started because George Floyd was killed by cops, because he was black. THAT is the false narrative. The evidence is very clear that George Floyd was a career criminal who overdosed on fentanyl.
The St. George story is a completely false narrative. And so is the false narrative that police are racists who use unnecessary violence on black people.

Sorry pal, but the BLM organization and the BLM movement are totally and completely based upon false narratives.

---

BLM was a long, long time coming. It was after the Floyd video that it reached a boiling point and felt the need to say out loud, on signs, in public, black lives matter. Floyd did not need to be completely innocent to deserve his own life. He might have died anyways! But he didn't. He died with an officer choking his life out of him, on video.

Let's go on a theoretical journey. You've proven you can say black lives matter, but pretend you are a vocal supporter of the movement. Pretend Floyd was the worst human of all time, worse than Saddam and Hitler combined. Do you take it back, that black lives matter? Or was the movement actually not about 1 guy? Does the whole slogan really rest on the narrative that Floyd was unjustly killed?

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

The University of Mississippi student who made the monkey noises at a Black woman has been kicked out of his fraternity.

Phi Delta Theta announced his removal today.

Earlier, the UM NAACP called on UM to expel Phi Delta Theta member JP Staples. https://t.co/UDwjayEaTl pic.twitter.com/Ebd7PuoGgV

— Ashton Pittman (@ashtonpittman) May 5, 2024

---

"Thou must not mock sacred cows"

The modern USA is a religious state….its religion is just not Christianity

---

I couldn't tell exactly what was happening in the video, but assuming it's true, you think direct racial slurs against blacks are ok?

---

1. I don't see him say any racial slur.

2. After watching conservative coded protestors (usually white people) get called every name in the book on campus I am numb to the idea that women like this should get preferential treatment…. She got mocked…it was not the end of the world

---

Again, I said assuming it's true, he was doing monkey imitations. That's about as bad a slur as you'll find.

---

Why?

If some makes monkey noises at another person…that is implying they are acting like a comic animal

How does the persons race even come into play?

---

You're smarter than that. Monkey symbolism has been used against blacks since the slave trade. Heck, in many Euro countries, far right soccer fans still make monkey chants and throw bananas at black players.

---

So now another thing that Black protestors are exempt from (animal noise mockery by college kids) that White protestors are not exempt from.

Without double standards the modern West would have no standards at all....

How convenient...

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

"Guillotine, Guillotine, Guillotine, Guillotine"

"Bracey, Bracey, we see you. You assault students too. Off to the mother****ing gallows with you."

"As you already know where I am sending her [to the guillotine], her and her ****ass bob."

Lovely free speech heroes!

At the George Washington University Gaza Solidarity Encampment today, the protesters held a "People's Tribunal" where they put President Ellen Granberg, Provost Christopher Bracey, the Board of Trustees, @GWPolice, and many others on trial.

Is it normal for students to want to… pic.twitter.com/M8F543q0MV

— Stu (@thestustustudio) May 3, 2024

---

no, no, no!!! Don't you know that the only outrage is the one kid who was dancing around like a monkey????

The rest of this is to be celebrated!! Academia just LOVES them some calls for violence & death!

---