I’m no longer interested in discussion about BLM with Damuri Ajashi. But when did I say I’m no longer interested in discussion about whether I’m interested in discussion about BLM with Damuri Ajashi?
We can talk about that some more, if you like. 
Okay, now four times.
Regards,
Shodan
No, just one. The other times were about the second topic.
Keep up, will you?
Aside from the rare pacifist, isn’t this generally the case with most people? You said violence during the Civil Rights era was justified because America had arbitrarily low levels of democracy.
First of all, I’m an Anarchist and a Satanist. I’m definitely not a liberal, so if all you have is partisan insults, consider me bored.
Also, I’m not losing an argument. I’m just opining that you are a racist asshole. No argument required for that, I can just assert it like I am doing now. So that makes you zero for two.
Your continued belief that BLM is a more inherently violent group than other similar but white groups that have protested in the past. The only way that your argument even makes sense to me is to assume that you have an unconscious bias against black people. That, by definition, is racism.
According to this article (which claims to have leaked FBI docs), the FBI has been investigating white supremacist infiltration into law enforcement for years, but has been afraid to speak up because of the political opposition to such investigations.
The discussion about the civil rights era kind bounced between two ideas.
MLK had peaceful marches. So violence is not inevitable. the fact that there was violence during the Civil Rights Movement does not associate MLK with that violence when none of HIS marches devolved into rioting and looting.
Violence is never justified within a functional democracy. Segregation and Jim Crow disrupted the function of democracy and violence is more acceptable in this situation. But MLK still didn’t have violent protests.
I’m not condemning protests against police brutality. I am condemning a movement, BLM specifically, where we have seen multiple incidents of rioting and looting and rhetoric to match. Now we hadn’t seen much rioting and looting recently but that might be a function of fewer incidents to get mad about or it might be a function of the BLM folks finally enforcing some discipline and presenting the clear message that violence was bad for the movement. Violent rhetoric and calls to violence has not always been excluded from BLM marches.
The claim was that you are an idiot (of the liberal variety). Just saying you are not a liberal makes you no less liberal than all those “independent” Tea partiers claiming they are not Republicans.
You can call yourself a turnip if you want. If your opinion is based on nothing that that is what your opinion is worth.
So what similar white group are we talking about? I have listed several like the Tea party, the Women’s march, the march for life, the million man march (which was black IIRC). Which of those groups was violent?
Which group did I hold up as peaceful that was actually violent? I’m sorry that just calling me a racist isn’t enough to shut me upon but you’re going to have to back up your accusation of racism or just admit that you just call people racist when you are losing arguments.
Dominance games?
I thought I made it clear earlier on that I may be less tolerant of violent riots and looting than the average person. I know too many people whose lives were derailed by rioting and looting.
Any chance the personal attacks can be moved out to another thread and this one return to its original purpose?
I mostly skip over your posts anymore, but this caught my eye.
You are correct that violence isn’t justified in a functional democracy. And a functional democracy is one that functions for its people.
If a democracy is not functioning for its people, and is not just leaving them behind in poverty, but also threatening their lives, bodies, and dignity with what is certainly perceived to be, (and I happen to believe is,) a justice system that discriminates against the poor and marginalized, (which doesn’t make it a racial issue, except in that african-americans tend to be poor and marginalized due to racial issues.) then you can’t really call it a functional democracy, and while I abhor violence, I also tend to expect it.
Remember, peace can come from oppression too. Are those who fight against oppression the real villains of the story?
In what way I our democracy not functional? Is the military going around and collecting the ballot boxes? Are we implementing literacy tests at the polls. Is the KKK standing outside polling stations discouraging voter participation by blacks?
In what way are Americans oppressed? There is racism and prejudice but oppressed? We recently had a black president,. it wasn’t that long ago. How did that happen with so much goddam oppression? Were the black resident Baltimore oppressed by their black mayor, black city council, black police leadership, 40%+ black police force?
I made that comment to say that to some extent I can excuse violence during the civil rights movement. I don’t condone it but I don’t apply the same strict standards I would apply today.
You keep using that word liberal, and I don’t think it means what you think it means. It is a term that references someone’s political views. It is not a slur that you just throw at everyone who disagrees with you. There are several special words we use for that, including asshole, moron, idiot, and my favorite shit-for-brains.
The difference between anarchists and liberals is that I advocate revolution against government, peacefully if possible, armed and violently if necessary. These are not traditional liberal values.
I’m not arguing about BLM with you. I’ve already seen you ignore every cite iiAndyiiii pulled out, and I don’t have near the patience he does. You can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into. Which is why I think you’re just a racist. I’m not using that word as a slur, merely as a description of what your posts say about your character.
Missed this before. That is the most naive piece of bullshit I have ever seen stated by an adult in my life. Are you a pacifist, where if someone hit you on the face, you would turn the other cheek and ask for more, or would you hit back?
Even ignoring self-defense, which is easily justified, violence is a requirement of police powers. Without the capacity for violence, the police would be useless.
Apparently you did not bother to read my post, because in it, I did explain how democracy was not functioning for the poor and marginalized members of our society.
If you had read my post, you also would see that all of your comments about race have no relation to my post, whatsoever.
land of the free, MY ASS.
Then what good are they.
Personal attacks are an important part of maintaining discipline and liberal orthodoxy. If you can’t shout down opposing views how are you supposed to discourage diversity of opinions?
After all, speaking with one voice is the most important element of liberalism.
If this is true, and white supremacists have successfully infiltrated various police forces to any significant degree (even if 1% of police officers are white supremacists, that’s a bit horrifying), at what point do constant defenders of police admit that there’s a problem?
I think it’s unlikely this is a “new” problem – in the mid 20th century, cops with Bull Connor’s openly white supremacist attitudes were most likely very common. I think they’ve always been there to some degree.
I don’t think of the word liberal as a slur. I consider myself a moderate liberal.
And when you vote, do you tend to vote for the more liberal candidate or the more conservative one?
Like I said, the Tea party did not consider themselves Republicans. But they were, they were just ashamed to admit it.
What cites has iiandyii pulled out?
Please cite the posts that indicate that I am a racist? Because AFAICT, you are using the word racist because you don’t know how to make rational arguments.