Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

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.

---

Let me simplify it for you. He's calling you a moron for pretending that so-called "Black Lives Matter" was about the lives of blacks mattering. And he's expressing little faith your ability to recognize the obvious because you regular parrot stupidity like Trump banned Muslims or it is illegal to say gay in Florida. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows Burn Loot Murder had a very specific agenda and it has given little **** to black lives taken by blacks.

---

I parrot those things? Have not! Use that triple digit IQ of yours to not lump everyone different than you together.

I'm a little impressed you said it, that black lives matter is not about black lives mattering. I at least respect the stance, ignorant as you are. Most see the folly in saying that outright and try to skirt the issue. Like busty tarper.

---

I feel like you're sort of arguing with yourself at this point.

The organization was little more than a race-hustling grift based on disinformation.

If it thought black lives mattered it would be investing in work to reduce black-on-black crime rather than seaside mansions.

---

Bad read. It was never organized, but started as a slogan. A narrative that was simple and easy for hundreds of millions worldwide to get behind.

The effort now is to paint it as a way to grift, or normalize leftvwinf violence, or whatever other wacko thing, is just pathetic. Might be the common thinking amongst conservatives, which just shows you how powerful group think is. Doesn't impact reality.

---

That's why the BLM leader bought a $6,000,000,000 home with the donations...because it wasn't a grift. Thank goodness BLM wasn't also violent....

---

Is Christianity a grift? Many have gifted off of it. Is this really the level of intellectual im dealing with?

---

That's what I thought. Your little lie was immediately exposed with photographic evidence and the best you can come up with is to try and compare BLM to a 2,000 year old religion.

---

I can lay out the logic in an easier to understand way. Grifters tend towards large movements, and anything that could be described as fomo. The less established a thing is, the easier to grift off of it. So yes, there are people grifting off the blm movement. Thanks to logic, we can see that the movement itself is separate from grifters seeking to profit off of it. If you need a further explanation I suggest looking into logic and the myriad logical fallacies that are commonly used by political zealots to pseudo-intellectualize backwards thinking.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

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.

---

Let me simplify it for you. He's calling you a moron for pretending that so-called "Black Lives Matter" was about the lives of blacks mattering. And he's expressing little faith your ability to recognize the obvious because you regular parrot stupidity like Trump banned Muslims or it is illegal to say gay in Florida. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows Burn Loot Murder had a very specific agenda and it has given little **** to black lives taken by blacks.

---

I parrot those things? Have not! Use that triple digit IQ of yours to not lump everyone different than you together.

I'm a little impressed you said it, that black lives matter is not about black lives mattering. I at least respect the stance, ignorant as you are. Most see the folly in saying that outright and try to skirt the issue. Like busty tarper.

---

I feel like you're sort of arguing with yourself at this point.

The organization was little more than a race-hustling grift based on disinformation.

If it thought black lives mattered it would be investing in work to reduce black-on-black crime rather than seaside mansions.

---

Bad read. It was never organized, but started as a slogan. A narrative that was simple and easy for hundreds of millions worldwide to get behind.

The effort now is to paint it as a way to grift, or normalize leftvwinf violence, or whatever other wacko thing, is just pathetic. Might be the common thinking amongst conservatives, which just shows you how powerful group think is. Doesn't impact reality.

---

That's why the BLM leader bought a $6,000,000,000 home with the donations...because it wasn't a grift. Thank goodness BLM wasn't also violent....

---

Is Christianity a grift? Many have gifted off of it. Is this really the level of intellectual im dealing with?

---

That's what I thought. Your little lie was immediately exposed with photographic evidence and the best you can come up with is to try and compare BLM to a 2,000 year old religion.

---

I can lay out the logic in an easier to understand way. Grifters tend towards large movements, and anything that could be described as fomo. The less established a thing is, the easier to grift off of it. So yes, there are people grifting off the blm movement. Thanks to logic, we can see that the movement itself is separate from grifters seeking to profit off of it. If you need a further explanation I suggest looking into logic and the myriad logical fallacies that are commonly used by political zealots to pseudo-intellectualize backwards thinking.

---

Reposting.
Myriad logical fallacies are so self evident except to those of us who use them

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Journalist using a drone have been able to film anti-Israel students at Emory University in Atlanta training riot tactics ahead of expected clashes with the police at their university

🇺🇸🇮🇱 pic.twitter.com/RRWTdY1Bnt

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) May 8, 2024

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Journalist using a drone have been able to film anti-Israel students at Emory University in Atlanta training riot tactics ahead of expected clashes with the police at their university

🇺🇸🇮🇱 pic.twitter.com/RRWTdY1Bnt

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) May 8, 2024

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

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.

---

Let me simplify it for you. He's calling you a moron for pretending that so-called "Black Lives Matter" was about the lives of blacks mattering. And he's expressing little faith your ability to recognize the obvious because you regular parrot stupidity like Trump banned Muslims or it is illegal to say gay in Florida. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows Burn Loot Murder had a very specific agenda and it has given little **** to black lives taken by blacks.

---

I parrot those things? Have not! Use that triple digit IQ of yours to not lump everyone different than you together.

I'm a little impressed you said it, that black lives matter is not about black lives mattering. I at least respect the stance, ignorant as you are. Most see the folly in saying that outright and try to skirt the issue. Like busty tarper.

---

I feel like you're sort of arguing with yourself at this point.

The organization was little more than a race-hustling grift based on disinformation.

If it thought black lives mattered it would be investing in work to reduce black-on-black crime rather than seaside mansions.

---

Bad read. It was never organized, but started as a slogan. A narrative that was simple and easy for hundreds of millions worldwide to get behind.

The effort now is to paint it as a way to grift, or normalize leftvwinf violence, or whatever other wacko thing, is just pathetic. Might be the common thinking amongst conservatives, which just shows you how powerful group think is. Doesn't impact reality.

---

That's why the BLM leader bought a $6,000,000,000 home with the donations...because it wasn't a grift. Thank goodness BLM wasn't also violent....

---

Is Christianity a grift? Many have gifted off of it. Is this really the level of intellectual im dealing with?

---

That's what I thought. Your little lie was immediately exposed with photographic evidence and the best you can come up with is to try and compare BLM to a 2,000 year old religion.

---

I can lay out the logic in an easier to understand way. Grifters tend towards large movements, and anything that could be described as fomo. The less established a thing is, the easier to grift off of it. So yes, there are people grifting off the blm movement. Thanks to logic, we can see that the movement itself is separate from grifters seeking to profit off of it. If you need a further explanation I suggest looking into logic and the myriad logical fallacies that are commonly used by political zealots to pseudo-intellectualize backwards thinking.

---

Reposting.
Myriad "of" logical fallacies are so self evident except to those who use them.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/28/ask-politifact-does-black-lives-matter-aim-destroy/
A more nuanced look at BLM

---

$4B in damage and 20+ murders.

We really have an anti-fact, anti-intellectual contingent in 'Murica.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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. It is difficult to find an extensive critique of Evangelicals and/or Christian Conservatives without an accusation of Christian Nationalism.

I probably agree with Atl more than anyone posting here and strongly disagree with many positions of those on the other side. But I don't chalk any of it up to Christian Nationalism. Heck, I'm still not sure it means or what it covers. I often disagree with Shooter, but he posed fair questions.

---

I genuinely don't know what is Christian Nationalism. It feels like another mythical bogeyman created by the extreme left to demonize Christians. Honest question - not being hyperbolic:
1. What specifically is Christian Nationalism? Is it a group? A set of ideas? Is there a membership role?
2. What are the tenets of Christian Nationalism? What must one believe to become a "Christian Nationalist?"
3. Can anyone share examples of Christian Nationalists? Who are the leaders? Where are their meetings?

My radical LWNJ friends always bloviate about Christian nationalists while excusing callas for Jewish genocide, so I sort of think it might be made up to get the left-wing noise machine content to fire up the crazy base.

---

Fair questions, so I'll give it a shot.

First for what Christian Nationalism is NOT, which is what the left way overplays applying the label.

It is not just having a belief in conservative Christian ideology.
It is not because one supports traditional Christian values.
It is not having a deep patriotic sentiment about America.
It is not defined by being opposed to the LGBTQ political and social agenda, or being anti-abortion.
It isn't because you support the Republican Party or Donald Trump.

Someone can check some or all those boxes and not be a "Christian Nationalist" regardless of whether the leftist opinion is otherwise.

What it is is an ethno religious philosophy that supports/advocates an expanding role of religion in all facets of society, and tries to frame God/Christianity in the context of specific national identity. In the Islamic world it manifests as a religious theocracy with harsh autocratic boundaries. We have the laws in this nation which limit that extreme. But the hyper powerful nature of the executive branch creates autocratic avenues for abuse. The left certainly uses those avenues.

In the U.S. we are in the sentiment/public advocacy phase. The ideas are able to gain some broader traction primarily due to the power and reach of social media. But the "Holy War" rhetoric is not lost on me.

Where do we see it? I fully support addressing the border as a policy, but when I see rallies calling people "God's Army" with a specific God/Country/Politician alignment, it's disheartening and cheapens our faith. It also smacks of Christian Nationalism. You're not fighting God's cause. You're fighting for the secular cause of a sound policy for a sovereign country with economic, social, security, and legal concerns.

I see the seven mountain mandate gaining traction, and the twisting of Washington's famous "An Appeal to Heaven" symbols. I believe Charlie Kirk and TPUSA are fomenting religious nationalist sentiment well beyond the cultural appeals of Reagan or Bush. Marjorie Taylor Greene and others even identified themselves as such.

Framing spiritual warfare around secular policy conflict is simply trying to channel God's authority to a political purpose, and the rhetoric of "good vs evil" in the religious context has gained tremendous traction and a national/political call to arms.

Finally, the strange affinity for Putin has shaken out of the bush sentiments and people who view him as some leader of a Christian cause against the decadence of the West. It's as if the alignment of an autocrat and a supportive Christian church deserves our empathy and ignoring of the decidedly un-Christian actions of the despot. Who would have thought?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/28/ask-politifact-does-black-lives-matter-aim-destroy/
A more nuanced look at BLM

---

$4B in damage and 20+ murders.

We really have an anti-fact, anti-intellectual contingent in 'Murica.

---

That vile movement also came with mass support from the DC political class, the universities, Wall St, and most of the culture forming institutions of power in the USA

But to people like ATL the real danger is not Marxist revolution (in the streets or in the the Federal Government) it's always those dreadful White Christian nationalists…

---

So I was asked a question and answered and that means I think Christian Nationalism is a bigger threat than Marxism? Incredible. Learn to have some nuance, and maybe understand life isn't binary. You can have thoughts and opinions across a spectrum.

---

The point is that Christianity is total collapse in the USA

Whites have been drive down to less than 63% of population and declining

And in all US power centers (DC, Hollywood, Academia, silicone valley, and Wall St) Christianity is openly despised and seen as a hopelessly out of fashion

The whole of idea of "White Christian nationalism" is a bogeyman.

No one can be treated as serious who even brings up the idea that it's a real thing.

If the concept was a flight of fantasy in 1954 is absolutely impossible and ridiculous to bring up in 2024

Now racial-cultural Marxism….that has real power

---

I think you're proving my point that it is a "thing". Your comments made it both ethno and religious…

.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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. It is difficult to find an extensive critique of Evangelicals and/or Christian Conservatives without an accusation of Christian Nationalism.

I probably agree with Atl more than anyone posting here and strongly disagree with many positions of those on the other side. But I don't chalk any of it up to Christian Nationalism. Heck, I'm still not sure it means or what it covers. I often disagree with Shooter, but he posed fair questions.

---

I genuinely don't know what is Christian Nationalism. It feels like another mythical bogeyman created by the extreme left to demonize Christians. Honest question - not being hyperbolic:
1. What specifically is Christian Nationalism? Is it a group? A set of ideas? Is there a membership role?
2. What are the tenets of Christian Nationalism? What must one believe to become a "Christian Nationalist?"
3. Can anyone share examples of Christian Nationalists? Who are the leaders? Where are their meetings?

My radical LWNJ friends always bloviate about Christian nationalists while excusing callas for Jewish genocide, so I sort of think it might be made up to get the left-wing noise machine content to fire up the crazy base.

---

Fair questions, so I'll give it a shot.

First for what Christian Nationalism is NOT, which is what the left way overplays applying the label.

It is not just having a belief in conservative Christian ideology.
It is not because one supports traditional Christian values.
It is not having a deep patriotic sentiment about America.
It is not defined by being opposed to the LGBTQ political and social agenda, or being anti-abortion.
It isn't because you support the Republican Party or Donald Trump.

Someone can check some or all those boxes and not be a "Christian Nationalist" regardless of whether the leftist opinion is otherwise.

What it is is an ethno religious philosophy that supports/advocates an expanding role of religion in all facets of society, and tries to frame God/Christianity in the context of specific national identity. In the Islamic world it manifests as a religious theocracy with harsh autocratic boundaries. We have the laws in this nation which limit that extreme. But the hyper powerful nature of the executive branch creates autocratic avenues for abuse. The left certainly uses those avenues.

In the U.S. we are in the sentiment/public advocacy phase. The ideas are able to gain some broader traction primarily due to the power and reach of social media. But the "Holy War" rhetoric is not lost on me.

Where do we see it? I fully support addressing the border as a policy, but when I see rallies calling people "God's Army" with a specific God/Country/Politician alignment, it's disheartening and cheapens our faith. It also smacks of Christian Nationalism. You're not fighting God's cause. You're fighting for the secular cause of a sound policy for a sovereign country with economic, social, security, and legal concerns.

I see the seven mountain mandate gaining traction, and the twisting of Washington's famous "An Appeal to Heaven" symbols. I believe Charlie Kirk and TPUSA are fomenting religious nationalist sentiment well beyond the cultural appeals of Reagan or Bush. Marjorie Taylor Greene and others even identified themselves as such.

Framing spiritual warfare around secular policy conflict is simply trying to channel God's authority to a political purpose, and the rhetoric of "good vs evil" in the religious context has gained tremendous traction and a national/political call to arms.

Finally, the strange affinity for Putin has shaken out of the bush sentiments and people who view him as some leader of a Christian cause against the decadence of the West. It's as if the alignment of an autocrat and a supportive Christian church deserves our empathy and ignoring of the decidedly un-Christian actions of the despot. Who would have thought?

---

I am sort of tracking with you ... but my question remains ... who is the leader of the group? Where is the headquarters? When is its convention? When was its last march?

What acts of violence have been carried out by so-called "Christian nationalists?" What discrimination has been carried out by so-called "Christian nationalists?" To compare them to Muslim terrorists feels really immature and anti-intellectual.

Christian leaders have been calling for spiritual revival in the U.S. for 250 years. It's silly to think one's faith would not inform one's political ideas.

---