[Pants-of-dog]

Are you saying there weren't any BLM protests that turned into riots? Are you saying some members or supporters of BLM didn't riot?

Instead of worrying about what I am saying, please focus on your claim that BLM was rioting. This claim of yours is incorrect.

These riots are caused partly by conditions stemming from the racism faced by US communities of colour.

And the riots caused by white nationalists is also due to racism against people of colour.

So, this attempt at making both sides look equal is not really accurate.

What does this have to do with anything that I said?

Well, part of your justification for pretending that both sides are equally violent (so you can call this a war like the white nationalists do) depends on taking the cops’ side when it comes to protests against police brutality.

I am explaining why this assumption is wrong.

I'm saying there's a cultural and racial battle (war) going on.

Repeating the same thing over and over again without moving the discussion forward does not help.

I have explained why this metaphor is incorrect at best and excuses racist violence at worst.

i'm trying to look at it from an academic perspective.

No. You are trying to justify a metaphor after it has been pointed out to you that it makes both sides look equally guilt when the truth is that racists are responsible for almost all the violence.

[wat0n]

What’s your take on the police shooting in Englewood and the subsequent looting downtown?

Ariel Atkins: A lot of people are really attacking our pages. They’re like, ‘Oh, you support the looters.’ And yeah, we do, 100%. That’s reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting … without organizers just being like, ‘We’re angry and this is what we’re gonna do. We’re gonna take the power back.’

I feel like these stores, these Macy’s, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, they’re not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city. … Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I don’t care. I will support the looters ‘till the end of the day. If that’s what they need to do in order to eat, then that’s what you’ve got to do to eat.

What do you say to people who argue looting undermines Black Lives Matter’s message?

Atkins: I think that those people are forgetting the way that history has ever worked. The way that history has worked, the way that we’ve ever gotten wins, has never been through peaceful protests alone, and I will say with quotes, “peaceful protests.” Winning has come through revolts. Winning has come through riots. Winning has come through constant, constant work. … The only people that can undermine our movement are the police, our oppressors, and then us when we don’t believe in the people that we’re fighting with. If we are constantly trying to tell each other exactly the right way to do it, as opposed to finding ways to support each other and get that collective win, that is undermining. I don’t undermine my movement.

It sure sounds like some affiliates with BLM support riots and even call for them.

[Unthinking Majority]

These riots are caused partly by conditions stemming from the racism faced by US communities of colour.

And the riots caused by white nationalists is also due to racism against people of colour.

So, this attempt at making both sides look equal is not really accurate.

I'm not saying that at all, that's just how you're interpreting it in your own mind because you're filtering everything through your "racial warrior" lens. I never, ever said "both sides are equal" nor do I believe that. What I said is both sides have committed violence and have rioted and are angry at each other. I never made any claims or any comments on who is just and who isn't because that's not part of my argument. Actually that's not true, the one thing i did say is that white racists (which includes cops) have instigated the violence, just as you're claiming. So chillax bro.

Well, part of your justification for pretending that both sides are equally violent (so you can call this a war like the white nationalists do) depends on taking the cops’ side when it comes to protests against police brutality.

What are you talking about??? I haven't said ANYTHING about taking the cops side on anything. I never said "both sides" they were equally violent, I said both have been violent. That's a fact. A blue whale and I both eat food. That's a statistical fact. That doesn't mean a blue whale and I eat the an equal amount of food.

Same with the US Civil War in 1860's or WWII. Both sides were violent, that's a fact, doesn't mean one side didn't start it or one side wasn't far more just than the other. Saying "The Allies and the Axis powers are in conflict and both sides have killed many people" doesn't mean i'm taking the side of the Nazis, it means i'm pointing out statistical facts.

Repeating the same thing over and over again without moving the discussion forward does not help.

You're not understanding my point and keep picking a fight by flipping strawmen at me so I have no choice but to repeat it over and over hoping you'll finally understand. Not going to happen so forget it.

I have explained why this metaphor is incorrect at best and excuses racist violence at worst.

Really? So there isn't racial conflict going on in America? Coulda fooled me!

No. You are trying to justify a metaphor after it has been pointed out to you that it makes both sides look equally guilt when the truth is that racists are responsible for almost all the violence.

I've already said in a post to you that you have already read and responded to that white racists have instigated virtually all of the violence. Reading comprehension is a skill. This is what I said to you in my exact words a couple of posts ago:

I think the white nationalists and racists are almost always the instigators of the violence, though not the only ones committing violence.

You seem to often ignore things that don't confirm your biases but latch onto things that do or make up strawmen to argue with. It's very frustrating and happens all the time.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm not saying that at all, that's just how you're interpreting it in your own mind because you're filtering everything through your "racial warrior" lens. I never, ever said "both sides are equal" nor do I believe that. What I said is both sides have committed violence and have rioted and are angry at each other. I never made any claims or any comments on who is just and who isn't because that's not part of my argument. Actually that's not true, the one thing i did say is that white racists (which includes cops) have instigated the violence, just as you're claiming. So chillax bro.

Even your assumption about there being two sides is wrong. Not all communities of colour are “on the same side”. Their only commonality is often just being racialised.

And even if you are just simply saying both sides are violent, you are simplifying the situation so much that it actually confuses the situation.

Also, you should read my posts more carefully if you think I am accusing you of holding certain beliefs. It is about your arguments, not about you.

What are you talking about??? I haven't said ANYTHING about taking the cops side on anything. I never said "both sides" they were equally violent, I said both have been violent. That's a fact. A blue whale and I both eat food. That's a statistical fact. That doesn't mean a blue whale and I eat the an equal amount of food.

No, you probably have no idea how you took the cops’ side.

I will explain again: you are assuming Antifa and other groups are violent. Why? Because they supposedly got violent during protests against police brutality, and this is based on what the police said.

So I pointed out that police routinely lie in this situation.

This then undermines the whole argument by police against Antifa an other groups that these groups are violent. You, of course, also made this claim that cops make.

Same with the US Civil War in 1860's or WWII. Both sides were violent, that's a fact, doesn't mean one side didn't start it or one side wasn't far more just than the other. Saying "The Allies and the Axis powers are in conflict and both sides have killed many people" doesn't mean i'm taking the side of the Nazis, it means i'm pointing out statistical facts.

Okay.

Since the white nationalists are the ones shooting people and attacking people and organising for violence while no other group in your “war” is doing, your comparison to WWII or the Civil War is incorrect and only serves to confuse the audience into thinking both sides are belligerent.

You're not understanding my point and keep picking a fight by flipping strawmen at me so I have no choice but to repeat it over and over hoping you'll finally understand. Not going to happen so forget it.

Feel free to keep repeating your claims, even verbatim if you wish. I predict you will run into no problems at all.

Really? So there isn't racial conflict going on in America? Coulda fooled me!

Feel free to show me that black people are organising into racial supremacy militias.

We both know you cannot show that they have recently had the support of the government, or felt so emboldened by such support they attacked the government openly. So, to simply ignore these huge differences in scale, impact, and impunity and dismiss both sides as engaging in “racial conflict” is incorrect at best, because it simplifies a complex situation and implies a non-existent equality.

This is the same thing that Trump did when he said there were fine people on both sides of the Charlottesville incident.

I've already said in a post to you that you have already read and responded to that white racists have instigated virtually all of the violence. Reading comprehension is a skill. This is what I said to you in my exact words a couple of posts ago:


You seem to often ignore things that don't confirm your biases but latch onto things that do or make up strawmen to argue with. It's very frustrating and happens all the time.

The fact that you recognise that the facts contradict your metaphor does not change the fact that you insist on using a metaphor that is contradicted by facts and has been used to excuse racist violence.

[Unthinking Majority]

Even your assumption about there being two sides is wrong. Not all communities of colour are “on the same side”. Their only commonality is often just being racialised.

There are 2 sides. There's people for white nationalism and people against it. Antifa and BLM and violent rioters and peaceful protestors have different tactics but they're all struggling for the same thing: white supremacy.

Since the white nationalists are the ones shooting people and attacking people and organising for violence while no other group in your “war” is doing, your comparison to WWII or the Civil War is incorrect and only serves to confuse the audience into thinking both sides are belligerent.

People threw molitov cocktails, rocks, and whatever else they could at cops, shot cops, smashed their way into police stations, burnt out police cruisers. No they never stormed the Capital, they aren't traitors.

Feel free to show me that black people are organising into racial supremacy militias.

I never said they were. Black people (minus a few radicals) aren't fighting for racial supremacy, more like racial equality.

We both know you cannot show that they have recently had the support of the government, or felt so emboldened by such support they attacked the government openly.

Some of them attacked police and police stations, which is government, across the country in retaliation for police killing unarmed black people unjustly. A lot of police are racist a-holes, most of the police are on the side of the Trumpsters, and racist Trump-supporting police stood aside and even aided as the violent Trumpsters stormed the Capital building.

A group like Antifa was specifically formed to confront fascist Trump and his Trumpsters. Some are violent, the majority aren't. BLM was specifically formed to protest racist cops. A very small minority have been violent, the overwhelming majority aren't.

I support a group like BLM over police and Trump/neo-nazis every day of the week. Not sure what else you want me to say. I'm not going to pretend there aren't different factions here struggling against each other. If you see that as "equality" then whatever, agree to disagree. Think of it like the Rebel Alliance vs the evil Empire if you like. Frodo & the Fellowship vs Sauron. Good guys vs bad guys, whatever.

This is the same thing that Trump did when he said there were fine people on both sides of the Charlottesville incident.

Give me a break. I never said there were any fine people storming the Capital or any fine people in Trump's admin. I hate racism and I hate riots.

The fact that you recognise that the facts contradict your metaphor does not change the fact that you insist on using a metaphor that is contradicted by facts and has been used to excuse racist violence.

Re-read this and you'll understand when I say i have no idea what this means.

[Pants-of-dog]

There are 2 sides. There's people for white nationalism and people against it. Antifa and BLM and violent rioters and peaceful protestors have different tactics but they're all struggling for the same thing: white supremacy.

People threw molitov cocktails, rocks, and whatever else they could at cops, shot cops, smashed their way into police stations, burnt out police cruisers. No they never stormed the Capital, they aren't traitors.

I never said they were. Black people (minus a few radicals) aren't fighting for racial supremacy, more like racial equality.

Some of them attacked police and police stations, which is government, across the country in retaliation for police killing unarmed black people unjustly. A lot of police are racist a-holes, most of the police are on the side of the Trumpsters, and racist Trump-supporting police stood aside and even aided as the violent Trumpsters stormed the Capital building.

A group like Antifa was specifically formed to confront fascist Trump and his Trumpsters. Some are violent, the majority aren't. BLM was specifically formed to protest racist cops. A very small minority have been violent, the overwhelming majority aren't.

I support a group like BLM over police and Trump/neo-nazis every day of the week. Not sure what else you want me to say. I'm not going to pretend there aren't different factions here struggling against each other. If you see that as "equality" then whatever, agree to disagree. Think of it like the Rebel Alliance vs the evil Empire if you like. Frodo & the Fellowship vs Sauron. Good guys vs bad guys, whatever.

Give me a break. I never said there were any fine people storming the Capital or any fine people in Trump's admin. I hate racism and I hate riots.

Re-read this and you'll understand when I say i have no idea what this means.

Another major thing that your metaphor misses is that people of colour are not attacking anyone. Any violence on our side is defensive. Even the riots against police are a reaction to ongoing violence.

This is another reason why the war metaphor is so bad: it implies that both sides have equal access to power and violence when the reality is that one side has almost all the access while the other side does not.

A lot of conservative positions seem to imagine a level playing field even though history shows us that the playing field is heavily tilted in favour of the racists and their cop allies.

[wat0n]

What does "our" side mean? Are you appropriating the struggle of POCs?

[Julian658]

Another major thing that your metaphor misses is that people of colour are not attacking anyone. Any violence on our side is defensive. Even the riots against police are a reaction to ongoing violence.

This is another reason why the war metaphor is so bad: it implies that both sides have equal access to power and violence when the reality is that one side has almost all the access while the other side does not.

A lot of conservative positions seem to imagine a level playing field even though history shows us that the playing field is heavily tilted in favour of the racists and their cop allies.

POD

Your excessive unbridled tribalism is noted. I am worried and pray you stop your radicalization. Attacking police station is as violent as what people did to the Capitol. It may not get the same press, but it is a violent act.

[Pants-of-dog]

People like to talk about me and not my argument, I guess.

Perhaps the third try will be the charm.

[wat0n]

You spoke in first person, so of course you raised my curiosity. Furthermore, it is your camp that likes to speak of "appropriation" when they suspect their interlocutor is not of their preferred groups.

As for your "arguments", I see a lot of unsupported claims (some of them being conspiracy theories) yet little evidence to support them. An example of this can be made with your claims about BLM's position about using rioting as a means of protesting and an example of what their actual position is on this matter: They see little problem with that.

[Pants-of-dog]

As soon as someone actually mentions one of my arguments and not a strawman, I will be happy to respond to the argument.

[Julian658]

Admin Edit: Rule 5 Violation

[wat0n]

As soon as someone actually mentions one of my arguments and not a strawman, I will be happy to respond to the argument.

How about you address Ariel Atkins' interview in light of your claims about BLM and rioting?

[Pants-of-dog]

A refusal to condemn looters who are acting out of poverty (on grounds that this would divide the people in these communities at a time when solidarity against police is needed) is not the same as supporting or causing a riot, which is what BLM is accused of.

And none of this supports the idea that people of colour are attacking the other side in a race war.

[wat0n]

"...Ariel Atkins: A lot of people are really attacking our pages. They’re like, ‘Oh, you support the looters.’ And yeah, we do, 100%. That’s reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting … without organizers just being like, ‘We’re angry and this is what we’re gonna do. We’re gonna take the power back.’"

...

"Atkins: I think that those people are forgetting the way that history has ever worked. The way that history has worked, the way that we’ve ever gotten wins, has never been through peaceful protests alone, and I will say with quotes, “peaceful protests.” Winning has come through revolts. Winning has come through riots. Winning has come through constant, constant work. … The only people that can undermine our movement are the police, our oppressors, and then us when we don’t believe in the people that we’re fighting with. If we are constantly trying to tell each other exactly the right way to do it, as opposed to finding ways to support each other and get that collective win, that is undermining. I don’t undermine my movement."

Just bolding in case someone did not actually read what she said.

[Pants-of-dog]

Looters taking TVs from a Target is not race war.

To repeat the same quote without further elaboration does not move the discussion forward.

Supporting looters after the fact is not the same as the riots intentionally designed to subvert democracy and support a racist government.

What this comparison does do is distract the conversation away from actual racism and making it look like BLM and other movements opposed to racism are the real oppressors and threat.

This tangent is a good example, since there is an insistence on looking at BLM's supposed bad actions and nothing else.

[noemon]

BLM was specifically formed to protest racist cops. A very small minority have been violent, the overwhelming majority aren't.

I support a group like BLM over police and Trump/neo-nazis every day of the week.

Well said.

That is all there is to really.

Every protest must be weighed by the cause it is trying to advance. Not all causes are created equal.

1 in 1000 Black people are likely to die at the hands of the police in the US at some point during their lifetime.

That is an absolutely terrifying number.

BLM must be supported until concrete steps are taken to address this grave injustice.

[wat0n]

Supporting looters after the fact is not the same as the riots intentionally designed to subvert democracy and support a racist government.

You said BLM had nothing with the use of rioting as a political weapon, but now that I showed you an example of a BLM activist from Chicago supporting their use as a political weapon you are now changing the goalpost.

Is it really that hard to admit riots can be supported or even carried out by people of any race (or whatever other identity category you wish) and ideology?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not going to address any strawmen.

Also, making this debate about what a person meant instead of discussing racism is boring and does not move the discussion forward.

------------

Back on topic:

Another interesting contrast between the riots at the Capitol and the riots associated with police brutality is the degree of open government support.

In terms of the protests against police brutality, the government responded with more police brutality. This happened in cities run by both parties and regardless of the racial composition of the city's leaders.

This strongly suggests that the racism and other causes of police brutality are systemic and not simply a case of a few bad apples.

So the riots this summer were openly and strongly opposed by the government.

The Capitol rioters, on the other hand, were openly supported by Trump and police.

And while the rioters are getting charged, this faction of the GOP is vast enough and strong enough to seriously threaten the party if they decide to split off.

For its own survival, the GOP has to continue to court these racists.

[wat0n]

I am not going to address any strawmen.

Also, making this debate about what a person meant instead of discussing racism is boring and does not move the discussion forward.

It's boring only because it's an interview that undermines your narrative.

More generally, as it happens with Trumpists, facts are just optional to you. What matters, as it does for Trumpists, is the narrative.

That's why it's also why you repeat stuff that was already discussed below...

Back on topic:

Another interesting contrast between the riots at the Capitol and the riots associated with police brutality is the degree of open government support.

In terms of the protests against police brutality, the government responded with more police brutality. This happened in cities run by both parties and regardless of the racial composition of the city's leaders.

This strongly suggests that the racism and other causes of police brutality are systemic and not simply a case of a few bad apples.

So the riots this summer were openly and strongly opposed by the government.

The Capitol rioters, on the other hand, were openly supported by Trump and police.

And while the rioters are getting charged, this faction of the GOP is vast enough and strong enough to seriously threaten the party if they decide to split off.

For its own survival, the GOP has to continue to court these racists.

...As if no previous discussion had taken place about the claims there, and opt to push for tinfoil hat conspiracy theories instead. Just like Trumpists do with regards to last year's election.