Whiskey Pete said:

---

Taking a look at homicides in America, it seems that white people think black lives matter more than black people think black lives matter

---

We live pretty close to a planned parenthood. There used to be protesters out there every day with signs that read "black lives matter…but not here". Almost exclusively black protesters.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

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

Phi Delta Theta announced his removal today.

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

— Ashton Pittman (@ashtonpittman) May 5, 2024

---

"Thou must not mock sacred cows"

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

Why?

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

How does the persons race even come into play?

---

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

---

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

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

How convenient...

---

Your view on this is disappointing

---

No... its just consistent and logical.

Either no mockery is ever acceptable (regardless of the race)

Or all mockery is ok (regardless of the race)

There should NOT be special carve outs for certain special race groups in America.

If a Black male protestor at a college campus mocking a obese White female protestor would not be punished for making animal noises...(and he should not be)...then it goes for people of other races as well.

---

Unreal. Guess the N word is fine also.

---

At the end of the day it's just a word.

It has no more power that what you give it.

And there are no words forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

Do you think certain words or phrases should be outlawed?

---

What? Where have I ever posted anything suggesting bad words, even awful slurs, should be outlawed? You make a straw man blush.

No, it's not unlawful, should not be unlawful, and will never be unlawful. What it is, is abhorrent.

Any decent person and any Christian should condemn it. You choose not to.

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.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 30, 2024

---

Of course it is a top priority.

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



GOP leadership is weak,

---

They have been pretty strong on being against anti-semitism

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Start there. Please answer those questions.

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

Even if you claim that it isn't a question of fact there's no need to quibble over that question. We can call it a "statement" or an "assertion," but it still isn't a narrative. That statement may evoke any number of competing narratives in the minds of listeners or may have any number of intended narratives in the mind of the speaker, but it is not, by itself, a narrative.

---

The narrative is that they want everyone to acknowledge black lives matter.

---

And? Who are all these people who don't?

---

Who are all the racists in the USA? I can't name them. I am simply explaining the narrative. If the conservative line was that blm overreacted, generally, in its protests, that racism is not what primarily holds back blacks, statistically, that not everything including government, society, pop culture, and life itself is organized against blacks like some of the protesters say, I'd agree, but racism is also simply alive and well. This "the narrative is a lie" bs is another attempt by the mentally feeble to reduce the thing down to something they can say yes or no to, but reality is just more complex than that

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?

Wait. The kids at Columbia spelled “Palestine” wrong? https://t.co/Y5Ph66MgvT pic.twitter.com/xJLGlb4Zio

— Emily Zanotti 🦝 (@emzanotti) May 7, 2024

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.

Wangchung 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.

---

So a founding member and leader of the actual BLM organization buys a $6,000,000 mansion with donation money and you try to claim it's just some random grifter? Hilarious. Hey, remember when you claimed BLM wasn't violent? That was also hilarious. Try again.

---

First, there were no founders of blm. Didn't you say this was a grifter?

When presented with large scale movements like this, or the Civil Rights movement, or women's suffrage, or America declaring independence, we have to admit none of these have ever stayed 100% peaceful. That some have used them as opportunities to act badly. But because we can be reasonable, we don't paint the Civil Rights movement as an excuse for violence, or women wanting the right to vote as the same, or Bostonians throwing tea into the sea as a way for radicals to normalize violence and vandalism of innocent merchants. inb4 "comparing blm to American independence!"

But of course many did, in their day. Just like you! How many English said the colonials were complaining about nothing, needed a good spanking, and had it so good already?

Wow that was cringey. I didn't realize that white people in America were responsible for this conflict, didn't Hamas start this conflict originally?

Not for nothing there have been many, many Christian grifters. Essentially anyone preaching prosperity gospel is a grifter.

nein51 said:

---

Not for nothing there have been many, many Christian grifters. Essentially anyone preaching prosperity gospel is a grifter.

---

"Preacher man talking on T.V., putting down the rock and roll........Wants me to send a donation, cause he's worried about my soul.......He said " Jesus walked on the water." And I know it's true........But sometimes I think that preacher man would like to do a little walking' too......"

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung 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.

---

So a founding member and leader of the actual BLM organization buys a $6,000,000 mansion with donation money and you try to claim it's just some random grifter? Hilarious. Hey, remember when you claimed BLM wasn't violent? That was also hilarious. Try again.

---

First, there were no founders of blm. Didn't you say this was a grifter?

When presented with large scale movements like this, or the Civil Rights movement, or women's suffrage, or America declaring independence, we have to admit none of these have ever stayed 100% peaceful. That some have used them as opportunities to act badly. But because we can be reasonable, we don't paint the Civil Rights movement as an excuse for violence, or women wanting the right to vote as the same, or Bostonians throwing tea into the sea as a way for radicals to normalize violence and vandalism of innocent merchants. inb4 "comparing blm to American independence!"

But of course many did, in their day. Just like you! How many English said the colonials were complaining about nothing, needed a good spanking, and had it so good already?

---

Again you try comparing a movement based on a lie, that cops are hunting down and killing innocent black people, to legitimate movements like the American revolution and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Even you recognize the giant gaping hole in your claim.

And yes, BLM had founders and funders. Your assertion that BLM just appeared magically by people suddenly getting together and saying, "You know what? Black Lives Matter! Let's go march and tell the world!" is moronic.

---

Grassroots movements are not magic. Why are they moronic? It's not my assertion btw.

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung 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.

---

So a founding member and leader of the actual BLM organization buys a $6,000,000 mansion with donation money and you try to claim it's just some random grifter? Hilarious. Hey, remember when you claimed BLM wasn't violent? That was also hilarious. Try again.

---

First, there were no founders of blm. Didn't you say this was a grifter?

When presented with large scale movements like this, or the Civil Rights movement, or women's suffrage, or America declaring independence, we have to admit none of these have ever stayed 100% peaceful. That some have used them as opportunities to act badly. But because we can be reasonable, we don't paint the Civil Rights movement as an excuse for violence, or women wanting the right to vote as the same, or Bostonians throwing tea into the sea as a way for radicals to normalize violence and vandalism of innocent merchants. inb4 "comparing blm to American independence!"

But of course many did, in their day. Just like you! How many English said the colonials were complaining about nothing, needed a good spanking, and had it so good already?

---

Again you try comparing a movement based on a lie, that cops are hunting down and killing innocent black people, to legitimate movements like the American revolution and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Even you recognize the giant gaping hole in your claim.

And yes, BLM had founders and funders. Your assertion that BLM just appeared magically by people suddenly getting together and saying, "You know what? Black Lives Matter! Let's go march and tell the world!" is moronic.

---

Grassroots movements are not magic. Why are they moronic? It's not my assertion btw.

---

When they are funded and "community organized" by democrat politicians, the belief that they are organic is moronic.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Not for nothing there have been many, many Christian grifters. Essentially anyone preaching prosperity gospel is a grifter.

---

"Preacher man talking on T.V., putting down the rock and roll........Wants me to send a donation, cause he's worried about my soul.......He said " Jesus walked on the water." And I know it's true........But sometimes I think that preacher man would like to do a little walking' too......"

---

PorterosoLet 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. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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 brainwashed by (as painfully evident in this thread).

The effort now is to paint it as a way to grift, or normalize leftvwing 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.

---

FIFY above.

And how about answering the question as to WHY they want everyone to acknowledge that "black lives matter"? You still don't understand what a "narrative" is, apparently. A slogan is not a narrative. The "why" behind the slogan is where the narrative lies.

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

Even if you claim that it isn't a question of fact there's no need to quibble over that question. We can call it a "statement" or an "assertion," but it still isn't a narrative. That statement may evoke any number of competing narratives in the minds of listeners or may have any number of intended narratives in the mind of the speaker, but it is not, by itself, a narrative.

---

The narrative is that they want everyone to acknowledge black lives matter.

---

And? Who are all these people who don't?

---

Who are all the racists in the USA? I can't name them. I am simply explaining the narrative. If the conservative line was that blm overreacted, generally, in its protests, that racism is not what primarily holds back blacks, statistically, that not everything including government, society, pop culture, and life itself is organized against blacks like some of the protesters say, I'd agree, but racism is also simply alive and well. This "the narrative is a lie" bs is another attempt by the mentally feeble to reduce the thing down to something they can say yes or no to, but reality is just more complex than that

---

Don't look now, but you're kinda describing a narrative, and you're agreeing that it is false.

Are you a racist?

Anti-America student mob attempt to raise the Palestinian flag at George Washington University.

Police however, swiftly move in and cut it down.

GWU students have repeatedly torn down the U.S. flag during protests and replaced it.

pic.twitter.com/z81HjECQ7L

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) May 7, 2024

lol that's amazing

BREAKING: President Biden, warning of a rise of antisemitism, says too many people are forgetting the horrors unleashed on Israel by Hamas on Oct. 7. https://t.co/ll5Bq5HvO2

— The Associated Press (@AP) May 7, 2024