Comparing 1/6 to the BLM riots
24 Jun 2022, 6:41 am
This article from Politico directly addresses the OP.
I don't know if Politico has an editorial bias. They seem to publish pieces from different points of view.
I would like to quote The Wikipedia article about BLM:
Quote:
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and inequality experienced by black people. When its supporters come together, they do so primarily to protest incidents of police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people. It started following the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Pamela Turner and Rekia Boyd, among others. The movement and its related organizations typically advocate for various policy changes considered to be related to black liberation. While there are specific organizations that label themselves simply as "Black Lives Matter," such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network, the overall movement is a decentralized network of people and organizations with no formal hierarchy. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" itself remains untrademarked by any group. Despite being characterized by some as a violent movement, the overwhelming majority of its public demonstrations have been peaceful.
It aggravates me when people refer to BLM leaders who are "trained Marxists" like how do you train to be a Marxist and who would train you? Like there are people who have made such claims but they are insignificant nobodies. Their names are unknown to Americans. The people who came to BLM protests to commit violent acts or to loot had no political agenda. They were common criminals inspired by a culture of violence that seems to be everywhere.
I think we should pledge to stop using the phrase "BLM riots" as a way to confuse the issue, especially as regards non-Americans who could be confused into believing that a "BLM riot" is an actual thing.
24 Jun 2022, 7:29 am
ironpony wrote:
All they seemed to do was hang out and chill and gawk at everything for a full two hours or more. This is hardly what I would call an inssurection and it was quite amateur and incompetent.
The insurrection lies with the intent, not just the deaths and destruction of government property - although those are bad enough.insurrection, noun: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Their intent was to stop the completion of a voting process, a violent attempt at denying the votes of millions of Americans and forcibly making Trump president instead of Biden. Hence, "insurrection".
Did you miss the part where they were chanting "Hang Mike Pence", or calling for Nancy Pelosi?
What do you think would likely have happened if either of those were found - a nice cup of tea and some biscuits?
This was no slightly rowdy tourist party - the convictions of the participants were fully justified.
I suggest you use YouTube to see some of the videos and what they did - it's all very easily found.
While you're at it, check out the Jan 6 Committee sessions.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,480
Location: Long Island, New York
24 Jun 2022, 1:45 pm
MaxE wrote:
This article from Politico directly addresses the OP.
I don't know if Politico has an editorial bias. They seem to publish pieces from different points of view.
I would like to quote The Wikipedia article about BLM:
It aggravates me when people refer to BLM leaders who are "trained Marxists" like how do you train to be a Marxist and who would train you? Like there are people who have made such claims but they are insignificant nobodies. Their names are unknown to Americans. The people who came to BLM protests to commit violent acts or to loot had no political agenda. They were common criminals inspired by a culture of violence that seems to be everywhere.
I think we should pledge to stop using the phrase "BLM riots" as a way to confuse the issue, especially as regards non-Americans who could be confused into believing that a "BLM riot" is an actual thing.
I don't know if Politico has an editorial bias. They seem to publish pieces from different points of view.
I would like to quote The Wikipedia article about BLM:
Quote:
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and inequality experienced by black people. When its supporters come together, they do so primarily to protest incidents of police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people. It started following the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Pamela Turner and Rekia Boyd, among others. The movement and its related organizations typically advocate for various policy changes considered to be related to black liberation. While there are specific organizations that label themselves simply as "Black Lives Matter," such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network, the overall movement is a decentralized network of people and organizations with no formal hierarchy. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" itself remains untrademarked by any group. Despite being characterized by some as a violent movement, the overwhelming majority of its public demonstrations have been peaceful.
It aggravates me when people refer to BLM leaders who are "trained Marxists" like how do you train to be a Marxist and who would train you? Like there are people who have made such claims but they are insignificant nobodies. Their names are unknown to Americans. The people who came to BLM protests to commit violent acts or to loot had no political agenda. They were common criminals inspired by a culture of violence that seems to be everywhere.
I think we should pledge to stop using the phrase "BLM riots" as a way to confuse the issue, especially as regards non-Americans who could be confused into believing that a "BLM riot" is an actual thing.
How do you train Marxists? You are going to have to ask BLM founder Patricia Cullers how that is done as she is the one that made that claim.
Progressivism Marxism Underpins Black Lives Matter Agenda
Quote:
So, Black Lives Matter at least has a good start on accomplishing Garza’s goal of “dismantling the organizing principle of society.” But what does it seek to put in its place?
Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, Black Lives Matter’s three main founders, have always been candid about their Marxism, which is a synonym for communism.
In 2015, Garza told SF Weekly that “social movements all over the world have used Marx and Lenin as a foundation to interrupt these systems that are really negatively impacting the majority of people.”
Also that year, she told a gathering of world communists, Left Forum, that it’s “not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it’s under capitalism, and it’s not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression.”
As for Cullors, she has affirmed on the record several times that she’s a Marxist. In fact, with so many journalists denying that she is a communist, Cullors herself released a video on Dec. 14 stating clearly:
Am I a Marxist? … I do believe in Marxism. It’s a philosophy that I learned really early on in my organizing career … .
She subsequently adds:
… the U.S. is so good at propaganda and being like … it has sold the idea of the American dream, and that’s tied into capitalism and wealth. It’s much harder to sell communism … .
In a June 2020 interview, Cullors said of Garza and herself: “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”
Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, Black Lives Matter’s three main founders, have always been candid about their Marxism, which is a synonym for communism.
In 2015, Garza told SF Weekly that “social movements all over the world have used Marx and Lenin as a foundation to interrupt these systems that are really negatively impacting the majority of people.”
Also that year, she told a gathering of world communists, Left Forum, that it’s “not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it’s under capitalism, and it’s not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression.”
As for Cullors, she has affirmed on the record several times that she’s a Marxist. In fact, with so many journalists denying that she is a communist, Cullors herself released a video on Dec. 14 stating clearly:
Am I a Marxist? … I do believe in Marxism. It’s a philosophy that I learned really early on in my organizing career … .
She subsequently adds:
… the U.S. is so good at propaganda and being like … it has sold the idea of the American dream, and that’s tied into capitalism and wealth. It’s much harder to sell communism … .
In a June 2020 interview, Cullors said of Garza and herself: “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”
As far “BLM riots” there is rarely a perfectly accurate way to name a riot because as you mentioned there are so many motivations both personal and political. They named the 1992 riots the “LA riot” and the “Rodney King riot”. The “LA riot” was a continuation of the 1960s naming them after the location where they occurred. You could not do that in 2020;for obvious reasons. Naming them for George Floyd seems more inaccurate then “Black Lives Matter” which was the phrase everybody was using at time.
As for the claim it was just a bunch common criminals there is no way of knowing for sure, as far as I know no surveys have been done of the the rioters. You are probably right about the looters, but common criminals do not explain the burning of the police station in Minneapolis, the vandalism of over three hundred police cars and torching of 14 in New York.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
24 Jun 2022, 2:31 pm
When I was at the dog park today, a guy approached me and started talking about politics and this in particular. He thinks that people are making WAY too big of a deal out of 1/6 (an event which he doesn’t see as important) and that those people should’ve cared more about the BLM riots.
I really hate it when people bring up politics. I suggested that we talk about something else, and he got mad and left. The conversation was on its way to degenerating further so that’s probably for the best.
He told me that he had already “pissed off” one Democrat while he was there. The poor people are just trying to enjoy their dogs.
_________________
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. – Satan and TwilightPrincess
24 Jun 2022, 4:04 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
MaxE wrote:
This article from Politico directly addresses the OP.
I don't know if Politico has an editorial bias. They seem to publish pieces from different points of view.
I would like to quote The Wikipedia article about BLM:
It aggravates me when people refer to BLM leaders who are "trained Marxists" like how do you train to be a Marxist and who would train you? Like there are people who have made such claims but they are insignificant nobodies. Their names are unknown to Americans. The people who came to BLM protests to commit violent acts or to loot had no political agenda. They were common criminals inspired by a culture of violence that seems to be everywhere.
I think we should pledge to stop using the phrase "BLM riots" as a way to confuse the issue, especially as regards non-Americans who could be confused into believing that a "BLM riot" is an actual thing.
I don't know if Politico has an editorial bias. They seem to publish pieces from different points of view.
I would like to quote The Wikipedia article about BLM:
Quote:
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and inequality experienced by black people. When its supporters come together, they do so primarily to protest incidents of police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people. It started following the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Pamela Turner and Rekia Boyd, among others. The movement and its related organizations typically advocate for various policy changes considered to be related to black liberation. While there are specific organizations that label themselves simply as "Black Lives Matter," such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network, the overall movement is a decentralized network of people and organizations with no formal hierarchy. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" itself remains untrademarked by any group. Despite being characterized by some as a violent movement, the overwhelming majority of its public demonstrations have been peaceful.
It aggravates me when people refer to BLM leaders who are "trained Marxists" like how do you train to be a Marxist and who would train you? Like there are people who have made such claims but they are insignificant nobodies. Their names are unknown to Americans. The people who came to BLM protests to commit violent acts or to loot had no political agenda. They were common criminals inspired by a culture of violence that seems to be everywhere.
I think we should pledge to stop using the phrase "BLM riots" as a way to confuse the issue, especially as regards non-Americans who could be confused into believing that a "BLM riot" is an actual thing.
How do you train Marxists? You are going to have to ask BLM founder Patricia Cullers how that is done as she is the one that made that claim.
Progressivism Marxism Underpins Black Lives Matter Agenda
Quote:
So, Black Lives Matter at least has a good start on accomplishing Garza’s goal of “dismantling the organizing principle of society.” But what does it seek to put in its place?
Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, Black Lives Matter’s three main founders, have always been candid about their Marxism, which is a synonym for communism.
In 2015, Garza told SF Weekly that “social movements all over the world have used Marx and Lenin as a foundation to interrupt these systems that are really negatively impacting the majority of people.”
Also that year, she told a gathering of world communists, Left Forum, that it’s “not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it’s under capitalism, and it’s not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression.”
As for Cullors, she has affirmed on the record several times that she’s a Marxist. In fact, with so many journalists denying that she is a communist, Cullors herself released a video on Dec. 14 stating clearly:
Am I a Marxist? … I do believe in Marxism. It’s a philosophy that I learned really early on in my organizing career … .
She subsequently adds:
… the U.S. is so good at propaganda and being like … it has sold the idea of the American dream, and that’s tied into capitalism and wealth. It’s much harder to sell communism … .
In a June 2020 interview, Cullors said of Garza and herself: “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”
Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, Black Lives Matter’s three main founders, have always been candid about their Marxism, which is a synonym for communism.
In 2015, Garza told SF Weekly that “social movements all over the world have used Marx and Lenin as a foundation to interrupt these systems that are really negatively impacting the majority of people.”
Also that year, she told a gathering of world communists, Left Forum, that it’s “not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it’s under capitalism, and it’s not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression.”
As for Cullors, she has affirmed on the record several times that she’s a Marxist. In fact, with so many journalists denying that she is a communist, Cullors herself released a video on Dec. 14 stating clearly:
Am I a Marxist? … I do believe in Marxism. It’s a philosophy that I learned really early on in my organizing career … .
She subsequently adds:
… the U.S. is so good at propaganda and being like … it has sold the idea of the American dream, and that’s tied into capitalism and wealth. It’s much harder to sell communism … .
In a June 2020 interview, Cullors said of Garza and herself: “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”
As far “BLM riots” there is rarely a perfectly accurate way to name a riot because as you mentioned there are so many motivations both personal and political. They named the 1992 riots the “LA riot” and the “Rodney King riot”. The “LA riot” was a continuation of the 1960s naming them after the location where they occurred. You could not do that in 2020;for obvious reasons. Naming them for George Floyd seems more inaccurate then “Black Lives Matter” which was the phrase everybody was using at time.
As for the claim it was just a bunch common criminals there is no way of knowing for sure, as far as I know no surveys have been done of the the rioters. You are probably right about the looters, but common criminals do not explain the burning of the police station in Minneapolis, the vandalism of over three hundred police cars and torching of 14 in New York.
So the quote turns out to be from the Heritage Foundation which is a well-known source of right wing propaganda. Anyway, calling Patricia Cullors the Founder of BLM is a propaganda tactic. She founded an organization she called BLM but she is self appointed, she didn't originate the grassroots movement by any means. It's not much of stretch to imagine the Right put her up to this as she's such a convenient bogeyman. I challenge you to go into any public space and ask 100 people if they recognize the name Patricia Cullors and find anyone who says yes. I have only seen her name in the context of Right Wing propaganda. Back in my day, everyone knew who Angela Davis was. She was without a doubt a Marxist but I would have no idea who trained her.
Bottom line anything out of the Heritage Foundation is crap and should be properly labeled.
24 Jun 2022, 6:10 pm
Twilightprincess wrote:
When I was at the dog park today, a guy approached me and started talking about politics and this in particular. He thinks that people are making WAY too big of a deal out of 1/6 (an event which he doesn’t see as important) and that those people should’ve cared more about the BLM riots.
That hasn't happened in Australia since the 1970s where a random strikes up a conversation about politics, religion or immigration. Nowadays dog walkers/random people strike up a conversation its about the weather, holidays, sunsets and what a nice day it is.
24 Jun 2022, 6:19 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
When I was at the dog park today, a guy approached me and started talking about politics and this in particular. He thinks that people are making WAY too big of a deal out of 1/6 (an event which he doesn’t see as important) and that those people should’ve cared more about the BLM riots.
That hasn't happened in Australia since the 1970s where a random strikes up a conversation about politics, religion or immigration. Nowadays dog walkers/random people strike up a conversation its about the weather, holidays, sunsets and what a nice day it is.
I wouldn’t say that this was typical. He was strange.
_________________
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. – Satan and TwilightPrincess
24 Jun 2022, 6:26 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
As far “BLM riots” there is rarely a perfectly accurate way to name a riot because as you mentioned there are so many motivations both personal and political. They named the 1992 riots the “LA riot” and the “Rodney King riot”. The “LA riot” was a continuation of the 1960s naming them after the location where they occurred. You could not do that in 2020;for obvious reasons. Naming them for George Floyd seems more inaccurate then “Black Lives Matter” which was the phrase everybody was using at time..
The hyper focus on BLM protests (which is a once in lifetime uprising) distracts from regular rioting - In Europe and Australia the G7 economic summits attract similar levels of "rioting" and damage to public property. In Europe soccer hooligans regularly damage public property after a game. In the US young drunk white men (often college students) damage public property after their team loses.
The real and impending threat to democracy and society is obvious - angry white men
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/20/us/a ... index.html
I've been repeating this ad nauseam for about 7 years now. The republican party didn't create this, it's been bubbling away under the surface ready to be harnessed by somebody like Trump. The writing was on the wall a long long time ago. It was harnessed by Nigel Farage in the UK to vote for Brexit.
White male anger has become one of the most potent political forces in contemporary politics. It was harnessed here in Australia in the 1990s over the issue of aboriginal rights/immigration and linking it to jobs and education, It was harnessed in the UK and EU over refugees/immigration. It's being harnessed by the US republicans right now.
The narrative is really simple psychological fact - a lot of conservative white men believe their privileges in society are being eroded. So much so that even peripheral issues such as claims of the 2020 electoral fraud, blaming foreigners for losing their job, abortion rights, gay rights, religious freedoms, public speech are being used as evidence that their biased perceptions are confirmed.
24 Jun 2022, 6:34 pm
I don't think most women are that extreme....maybe Karen types?
Most of the time, I believe a woman who doesn't want to talk to a man would merely just look at her phone, and pretend to be reading on it.
In my 20s, I went up to plenty of women. I never had a reaction like a woman would call the cops on me. The worst I've gotten is that I was ignored.
24 Jun 2022, 6:37 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
I don't think most women are that extreme....maybe Karen types?
Most of the time, I believe a woman who doesn't want to talk to a man would merely just look at her phone, and pretend to be reading on it.
In my 20s, I went up to plenty of women. I never had a reaction like a woman would call the cops on me. The worst I've gotten is that I was ignored.
Most of the time, I believe a woman who doesn't want to talk to a man would merely just look at her phone, and pretend to be reading on it.
In my 20s, I went up to plenty of women. I never had a reaction like a woman would call the cops on me. The worst I've gotten is that I was ignored.
That’s what I tried to do.
I didn’t have my phone on me, but I was trying to make it obvious that I just wanted to play with my dog.
I gave short responses to what he said and tried to give clear clues that I wasn’t interested.
_________________
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. – Satan and TwilightPrincess
24 Jun 2022, 6:44 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
The guy, obviously, has quite a bit on his plate.
It's probably good that you didn't interact with him too much. I'm sorry he was so persistent with you. If somebody was persistent with me, I wouldn't like it, either.
I don't like people who like to impose their values upon me.
It's probably good that you didn't interact with him too much. I'm sorry he was so persistent with you. If somebody was persistent with me, I wouldn't like it, either.
I don't like people who like to impose their values upon me.
I didn’t mind too much.
Part of the problem is that I live in a very conservative area, so other people assume that I will see things the same way they do. Perhaps this sort of thing wouldn’t happen as often if I lived in an area with more diversity.
_________________
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. – Satan and TwilightPrincess
