Assuming that they're the same people who are rioting which is just pure speculation on your part.
I mean it's not like there were similar occurrences long before anyone heard of any of these terms (except Kulturbolschewismus) Cough *Detroit 1967Cough *LA 1992.
Their ideas are the same, the rhetoric is the same, people with the same beliefs and banners have been violent before... yeah they’re the same group of people. We were warned about these ideas back then when the violence wasn’t as intense, and things are being destroyed in the name of the same ideas now as the violence continues to escalate. It’s pretty straightforward.Wow, okay. So are you saying they’re the same people, now? You know riots can be completely unrelated?Furthermore, the terms do predate that... so what are you even on about?And lastly, if you’re going to reference them as if they’re related then okay, the ideas don’t have to be new to be bad. Ideologies have roots. Critical race theory tracks back to like the 60s/70s, and its parent ideologies go back farther still. How does that change anything? The rioters are bad and they have bad ideas. It doesn’t matter how new or old they are or where they come from.So every interpretation of what you’re saying is just nonsense.Just stop.
What "ideas" are the same? "Marxism", a "desire to destroy the West"? What a load; it's a response to the criminal justice system, not part of some ploy to undermine the foundations of the US or the West in General. You've been warning people about this? Bullshit, who's been warning us about what's happening now are the people who've tried to draw attention to issues like mass incarceration:And the racial bias involved in it:www.aclu.org/.../...parities_aclu_submission_0.pdfThat's what caused the riots, not people being riled up by a bunch of SJWs. Get over yourself.
And lets not forget that fear mongers tried to label the Civil Rights movement as "communist" and knit picked similar rhetoric used by USSR leaders and Civil Rights Activists. Your shit is nothing new.
There are BLM leaders that are avowed marxists, so... yeah.It’s obviously not a response to the criminal justice system. They talk about cops as if they’re the problem but BLM advocates for shit like destroying the nuclear family. Not only are they not being “hunted” by cops, but the nuclear family would have nothing to do with it anyway. Interestingly, you know what did want to destroy the nuclear family? Marxism.The ACLU is objectively bad. So firstly, don’t read that absolute trashcan organization. But secondly, you know that the sjws of 2014 talked about the same shit right? So aren’t you undermining your position that these aren’t the same people? Careful lest you dig this hole any deeper.It’s exactly the same rhetoric as the sjws. If you actually paid attention, you would recognize the same terminology and concepts being voiced. It is *in no way* subtle. It’s straight out of critical race theory and they’re proud of it. Try listening to *them* when they tell you what they believe instead of projecting other bullshit onto them.
And there were Civil Rights activists who were communists as well but that did that mean that the movement was part of some secret plot by the USSR to destroy the US (in fact even by then the idea that communism would spark a worldwide revolution had largely faded away within communist circles). Why is the ACLU bad? Oh right because they call reactionaries out on their BS; notice you just attacked the partisan position instead of the arguments put fourth. I've been listening to BLM and the SJWs and the arguments are in no way "subtle" because the intelligentsia on the left has been talking about the racial issues in the US left unresolved by the Civil Rights movement (of which we're seeing the consequences now) and the emergent of pretentious wannabe intellectualism on the right is trying to use the SJWs to project blame on the left for the policies that you supported. Own your shit.
It’s not it some “secret” plot. They *openly* support people rioting over *justified* shootings by cops, and instead of talking about police reform they blame the nuclear family and capitalism. Again, it’s not some secret plot. You only frame it that way to try to dismiss it. It’s just people advocating for the things they believe in, just like everyone else.Interesting how you see “revolution, nothing less” in the rhetoric though. Their thought leaders flatly state things such as racial discrimination being necessary and violence being necessary for racial liberation. These are views antithetical to liberalism. It’s not some secret plot, they simply have incompatible values and follow them to their conclusion.If you’ve read ACLU content and fact checked it, you would understand it’s blatant lies. There’s an endless amount of it, but the most recent thing that really cemented it for me was them releasing a chat tracking all the riots, violence and terrorism. At a glance it seems fine, but then you realize they list every thing as right wing terrorism. They list zero violence from the left. There’s a huge spot on Portland where there have been riots for over 3 months... but it’s all “right wing”. Tbh, it really wasn’t that surprising that they would ignore all the footage, arrests, etc, from BLM and Antifa destroying and killing. The ACLU are *demonstrably* dishonest, and have been for a long time.What polices are you saying [the right] supported? The vast majority of the riots are in Democrat cities, they’re not bitching about republican policies. I’m a social liberal (an *actual* liberal) but I didn’t vote for any of the shit they complain about — unless you’re talking about capitalism and individual rights, yknow, liberalism, yeah I voted for that shit and many BLM activists don’t like those things. Is that what I have to own?
Again there are radicals in the BLM movement just like there were radicals in the Civil Rights Movement and there riots involved in the BLM movement just like there were riots involved in the Civil Rights Movement. But in both cases, that didn't mean that people rioted because they were inspired by radicals, they rioted because they were/are sick of the situation that they're in. The ACLU doesn't deny left wing violence occurs either so your point is pretty moot. The vast majority of the riots are in Democrat controlled cities because that's where most African Americans live and of course they would vote Democrat because they have less support for the the policies (like the war on drugs, privatization of prisons and laxed pollution regulation) that has hurt the black community. But mayors don't have dictatorial powers over their cities so they can't make those laws at the state and federal level go away. This whole talking point that liberal policies cause crimes because the most crime ridden cities are run by democrats is like saying that the farmland where the most pesticides are used are also the ones with the greatest number of pests so pesticides must be causing the problem; it completely flips the cause and effect.
“just like there were riots involved in the Civil Rights Movement”And that’s an excuse? No.“But in both cases, that didn't mean that people rioted because they were inspired by radicals, they rioted because they were/are sick of the situation that they're in.”We can treat them both individually. We can look at BLM and observe the support and permissiveness for violent action. We can talk to the people and examine their ideas and find that they are toxic. The situation they bitch about isn’t reflected in reality, so being “sick of it” is retarded. Their rhetoric *is* demonstrably radical, and what they appear to be “sick of” is ideological heterogeneity. For those who didn’t see this coming for years, they found out when white kids are burning black-owned businesses and when black people in the community tell them to fuck off, the white kids turn around and say “it’s okay, we support you, we’re here to help you”, and all under this under the façade of opposition police brutality –as if that business had anything to do with it.“ACLU doesn't deny left wing violence occurs either so your point is pretty moot.”They don’t deny that it’s *ever* occurred, but they absolutely do neglect to acknowledge it. They downplay it and call everything ‘right wing’ violence. There’s no shortage of critical race theory rhetoric.
“that's where most African Americans live”“they have less support for the the policies that has hurt the black community”Okay, stop and think about that for two seconds… *They* voted for the policies in the communities they are living in… that’s how that works. They’re complaining about the policies *they* voted for. But they’re barely even doing that, really it’s a bunch of out of state white folk tearing up black people’s stuff in the name of racial justice and acting like it has something to do with cops when it doesn’t. The issue they have is that they’re dissatisfied with the lack of racial collectivism/supremacy around them. They just use cops shooting violent criminals as a guise to push their ideology. Everyone was willing to listen after Floyd’s death, but what happened? They decided setting everything on fire was more desirable. Cuomo says “okay you win, what do you want?” they don’t have an answer. The violence *is* what they want.“But mayors don't have dictatorial powers over their cities so they can't make those laws at the state and federal level go away.”They have control over their own police force, and state’s rights take precedence over federal jurisdiction. What federal laws do you think they are complaining about? It took Trump deputizing state police so that rioters could be federally prosecuted to start quelling the violence because the state level DAs *aren’t* locking them up.
“This whole talking point that liberal policies cause crimes because the most crime ridden cities are run by democrats”Firstly, it’s not “liberal”. The left in the US doesn’t conform to liberalism. Second, it’s true that their cities are more violent. Even in relative terms, the rates of violence are greater in Blue cities – it’s not about “most” cities. Compared Red to Blue cities one to one and it’s more likely that the Blue city will be more violent. The maths tells me the likelihood of any one Blue city being more violent compared to any one Red city should be about 85%. So no, it doesn’t flip the effect. If you look at the data and normalize between Red and Blue cities you still see a significant discrepancy.
1. It's not an excuse but it debunks the BS claim that having associated riots makes the cause of a movement illegitimate. 2. Black people voted for policies at the state and city level but at the former they're only a small percentage of the voting block so no they didn't vote for the policies.3. Police violence is just the tip of the iceberg of mass incarceration; that's what BLM is against, not some imaginary black supremacy cause.4. The cities are more violent because they have a higher poverty rate (which is caused and maintained by a wide variety of factors beyond the control of the cities administration) which is why they elected a democratic mayor in the first place so no, you didn't account for co founding variables when you flipped the cause and effect. Again, by this logic pesticide use increases pest populations because areas with the most pesticide use have the worst pest problems.5. You're just using unfounded talking points to push the radicalized left mythos.
1. But you’re the one making that claim. It’s a strawman.“Associated riots” don’t necessarily make it outright illegitimate, but they do burn people’s good will if the intend is to be heard. However, the context is that these riots are *supported*, and furthermore they persisted in spite of people listening – which double undermines good will because at that point it’s apparent that the violence itself is the desired outcome. And after all that, regardless of violence, it is illegitimate because it’s ideas suck – which could be hashed out in discussion expect if only they were interested in that.2. They did vote for it. It doesn’t matter how many black people voted, the point is that within the demographic they voted for it. They voted for it *more* than any other demographic. So yes, they got what they voted for. However, another kink in that is that the demands of BLM are not supported by black people. So regardless of what they voted for, it doesn’t really matter since they want what BLM wants *even less*.3. Oh really? So why don’t they mention incarceration or cops or the justice system in their manifesto? Yet there’s a word salad of critical race theory and racial collectivism in there. They’ll talk about caring for black people, but then you can see them on the streets tearing up black communities, threatening black people who don’t support them with racist insults. It’s entirely consistent with everything these ideas have shown us for years. They don’t care about black individuals, they care about the racial collective just like how authoritarian states will sacrifice it’s citizens and oppress them for the “greater good”. Black people don’t matter to them all that much, that much is apparent. What matters to them is that their racial collective seizes power. But let’s be clear, BLM does not represent black people. Most black people aren’t on board with what BLM do. They represent black people as much as white supremacists represent white people.
4. “which is caused and maintained by a wide variety of factors beyond the control of the cities administration”No, that’s a cop out. You can run your city well or you can run it shit, and that will change the state of the city. These cities that have been Blue for decades continue to not get any better, the policies aren’t working. Now all the rich people are leaving and taking the tax base with them – so things are going to get worse. Dems aren’t making it better, they’re making it worse.How did I flip cause and effect? Cities that have been run under these policies for decades have continually gotten worse and Red cities have disproportionately lower crime. Reds seem objectively better at pulling people out of poverty or keeping people out of poverty.Own your shit.Again, the pest analogy simply doesn’t apply. You can’t just say “oh it’s because of poverty”, because that poverty is exacerbated by the shit policies. Don’t try to weasel out of it, just fix the poverty being perpetuated.5. “You're just using unfounded talking points to push the radicalized left mythos.Saying they’re “unfounded” doesn’t make it so. There’s years of footage and decades of literature showing off these ideologies at play. They flat out tell you what they are. When you say they’re not radicalized, you’re disagreeing with *them*.Try a search engine.
1. Yeah they undermine the credibility of the organization but that's not to say that they discredit it or the notion that people are rioting because they've been radicalized by a leftist undercurrent has any merit.2. They voted for the policies at the city level but many of the policies that they didn't vote for at the state level were put into effect.3. Because like I said, it's the "tip of the iceberg" i. e. the part that's going to get most people's attention. 4. You can run a city to the best of your abilities allocated to you under the federalist system but no matter how well you do, if the policies enacted at higher levels of government are shitty, it's going to make your city pretty bad as well. If you compare crime and poverty rates between states (where other factors are going to be controlled for more than city versus city comparison) Democrat run states have lower poverty and crime rates so this idea that the most violent cities are that way because they're Democrat run is unfounded nonsense. 5. If by decades of literature you mean knit picked examples used by Red baiting dipshits to braod-stroke then yes, but the idea that people are rioting because they've been inspired by a leftist undercurrent is reactionary Bilge.
1. Of course they discredit it – and yes, it does say they’re radicals because the *support* the riots. It’s that simple. Just “coincidently” always having rioters around them is not a good look, but supporting the rioters makes “peaceful protestors” complicit. They say they are onboard with it, they take actions that are onboard with it. What’s not to get? They’re straight up radicals.2. They voted for their governor too, it’s the same shit. What policies received a disproportionately low percentage of the black vote on the state level which BLM has exclusively proposed to fix?3. Except they aren’t addressing it. When there’s nothing more to it than a pretence to get people to attack cops it’s not the tip of anything. It’s just a mask. They scoot right on past dealing with any actual issues, and go straight to abolishing police and abolishing prisons because anything that isn’t controlled by black ideologues must be invariably racist. It’s not about justice, it’s about power.4. “if the policies enacted at higher levels of government are shitty, it's going to make your city pretty bad as well”But they voted for those policies too – assuming they’re even bad in the way you think they are. I would say they’re just bad in general and that the citizenry has responsibility in that.Democrat states do not have lower crime or poverty. I look at the top 20 for highest poverty and crime and I get 10R/10D for poverty and 9R/11D for crime – closer than I would have though tbh, but still there’s no advantage to the Democrats on the state level. So having more violent cities is not excuses by looking at it from a state level. Both parties seems to break even at states, so there’s something about Democrats that specifically makes their cities worse.
5. No, you thinking that I nit-picked is the nonsense. I’m talking about their though leaders, the books they reference and the ideological roots of that. I’m talking about the people on the street telling you to your face exactly what they want and it’s ideological framing. I’m talking about the media (even Pakman) and politicians engaging in *overt and demonstrable* lies in defence of rioting and couching it all in the same ideological rhetoric. I’m talking about organizing violence and propaganda in (often, but not always) closed social media channels.Are these people lying to you when they support people like Ricardo Munoz and riot in his name or in the name of the others they like to reference? Defense of violent criminals as if it’s the cops in the wrong and as if society is somehow in the wrong is overtly *radical*, these are *radicals* and they are the driving force. “Nit-picking” would be to find the reasonable people in this crowd. At best the majority are sheeple supporting the ideology and violence.In the original post, you literally provided a video from Three Arrows and you’re trying to talk about the absence of radical leftism here? Are you kidding me? Do you not know what Three Arrows is a reference to or are you just lying to us? You don’t represent the rioters as they themselves tell you they are. You don’t know the numbers on cities, for which I have to do the work for you, you deflect to the states and still I do the work and it doesn’t support you. You stumbled at every stage and none of it supports your position. Find some better sources then listen to them quietly and passively instead of talking shit and being aggressively wrong at people.Peace. I hope you figure things out.
1. They don't always have riots around them, that's a blatant exaggeration.2. They voted for their governor but where the rest of the population voted against them they have even more problems'3. No, it's a pretense to get people to look further into the issue.4. The ones that have the lowest crime and poverty rates are also democrat controlled; nice knit pick.5. You're conflating rationalizing them with defending them; a blatantly authoritarian tactic.6. Oh I did figure things out but you obviously can't see that dressing your dogshit in a gish-galloped word salad doesn't mean it's not dogshit.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
What about the last one?
They're not what I'd call leftist.
Got any votes, yet?
Yep, 1 for the last one (surprising given to toxic atmosphere on this site).
Some times you've got to go,where everybody knows your name...Maybe it's too obviously a trap?
More of a rhetorical question.
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!