Okay, let me put this to you. 20 BLM activists with AR 15s take over and fortify a rural post office or such. Think they'd get the same response the Oregon Ranch assholes got?
I am not sure you want to use them as an example? Because we can look up RIGHT NOW how they are treated by police when they turn violent.
Or heck how the Kidnappers associated with BLM were treated by the police (QUITE generously might I add)
Ooh, ooh, send me a link to BLM getting violent. I *love* to hear peaceful protests called riots. Here, I'll provide some evidence as to why BLM is admirable and why I'm choosing to use them as an example. Here's
BLM getting a peace prize from a foreign foundation. Here's a
CNN article describing peaceful protests in which hundreds of arrests were made, containing this quote:
Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, who called the press conference, said most protests had been peaceful -- with most arrests for minor offenses -- and blamed outside agitators for incitements to violence.
The article also contained quotes from the BLM organizers issuing calls for everyone at their protests to remain peaceful, as usual. Here's them
disrupting traffic as a form of protest. Oh, and here's
what they are
protesting. All 3 links to different perspectives on the same event; the first two are graphic videos, the third the daily show yet again being better journalists CNN (check out how the subtitles are different and which one matches the audio).
And here's the police stating that the kidnappers weren't associated with BLM in any way.
There's a double standard between what is considered violent behavior on the left and the right, and how much government response is necessary. Calling BLM out is a lot like the people who have been calling out antifa, except BLM doesn't even have violent
words. Just like antifa, so many people take it as a given BLM is violent, yet more BLM protestors have been
murdered by far-right terrorists than BLM has killed (which isn't hard because BLM "rioters" have never killed anyone). Yes, 5 cops were also killed by sniper IIRC over the police killings, but BLM didn't incite him to do that, didn't want him to do that, and didn't stand by him when he did. He was not part of BLM. To be clear, I'm not saying that far right terrorists killing BLM members makes BLM right or conservatives wrong. What I'm saying is that everyone in this thread seems to want the level of violence/misbehavior between the left and right to be equivalent, but the reality just can't be twisted to support that. And its getting tiresome that people continue to believe that progressive violence is constantly occurring "somewhere else" with no real evidence, but hate group violence needs to be verified with a forensic file and police report filed in triplicate or it didn't happen. To say nothing of the fact that a hate group that espouses violence can have one of its members commit violence, and that's not only not evidence to label them a violent group, its somehow equivalent to peaceful protests by peaceful groups.
In my original post that's been edited out of the quote chain, I quoted Frumple talking about what a reasonable response to Nazis is. What he said seemed pretty reasonable to me. Stop nazis using escalating steps starting with peaceful words, only use violence if called for and if the government is unwilling to. But when people called him out about violence, his defense (as reworded by me in my post) was essentially that nazis are inherently threatening and dangerous because they espouse genocide. And this is what I mean by double standards. How could it seriously need to be said what would happen if a neo-nazis waving third Reich German flags get power or resources? Like how is this a point of discussion.
Even the neo-nazis wouldn't defend themselves by saying they don't intend to commit genocide. They'd just say that killing/kicking out all the blacks or whatever is the right thing to do, not that their intentions are friendly. Yet apparently we need to write academic essays with MLA citations to prove "nazis are dangerous." And yes, we totally shouldn't start walking into neo-nazi rallies and shooting everyone. But then, we don't have a neo-nazi president, we have a neo-nazi lite president. He espouses 0 calorie war crimes and diet racial purges. Dictatorship with no artificial sweeteners. So we get le resistence lite in response; they don't fight usually nazis but they talk a lot about being ready to. Seems reasonable to me in light of how things have been going this year.
To you and everyone else who brought up police riot dispersal: I know, its covered in the edited out part of my post. I used BLM as a comparison to the Oregon assholes because there is no current liberal group that would do that, my point was what would happen if leftist "extremists" were actually extreme in the way that far right extremists are. My fear with the quote is that I would be called out as implying BLM and the Oregon assholes were equivalent. Apparently I was mistaken; people in this thread have such a skewed perspective that they already think that armed militia taking over federal property and threatening the FBI is the same thing as the modern version of the old civil rights movement performing civil disobedience and allowing themselves to be arrested. And your complaint, your
one complaint, with a fantasy scenario where BLM picks up guns and directly issues threats to the government, is that you don't think its a fantasy scenario. You think BLM has already done the hypothetical, we already know what the police would do in that scenario because its already happened.
But OK, I'll rephrase it. A muslim extremist with a gun shoots up a majority white church, then walks outside with the intent to surrender (guess he didn't read the ISIS guides on the internet very carefully). Think, in that case, the cops would arrest him and then give him a burger at the station. (yes, I know they didn't have any food at the station and Dylan Roof was cuffed inside the whole time, my statement works either way.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4180707 times)