Political Violence

[Sunshine Jesse]

 

That said, I do understand your point that targeting the alt-right supports their narrative. However, I don't think that my side could've prevented the victim narrative by going over the "right" targets. Going back to your point about the media, think a bit more deeply. "Mainstream media" is still fairly broad. What outlets in the media are the greatest offenders? One relevant example that comes to mind would be Breitbart, a media outlet where Milo was a senior editor, that heavily promoted white supremacist and alt-right talking points, and was co-founded by Steve Bannon, who was also the former chief strategist for Trump.

 

I apologize if this seems like I'm trying to dismiss you. My intention here is to continue the position that I've been arguing from while trying to build on your examples. You say that my side could have prevented the fuel for the alt-right's victim narrative if we focused on the right targets. You also gave the mainstream media as an example of a far more appropriate target that people should be focusing on. The way I see it, these are not two separate targets, where people are focusing on one more than they should be focusing on the other. It's that they are both symptomatic of an even larger problem; specifically, the alt-right's influence on mainstream media. Rather than trying to delegate the focus between two different targets, challenge where they overlap. That may sound like a cop-out answer, but basically I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone to address what both you and I think are the greater problems here.

I'm late but I've spent the last two weeks with my mind elsewhere so ayyy.

 

I have some minor disagreements with a few details in your post but I don't think there's any need to debate them unless we make a separate MSM thread.

 

...that's a huge can of worms that I'm not sure if I'm looking forward to.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I still love that we're using like a sample size of 5 to make all these broad deductions. Then again that's the rhetorical rigor I expected from the people here

At this point i'm inclined to agree that we won't see eye to eye. So long as you still at least condemn political violence, and violence in general, then it's best to call it a day. you won't see my point, and i don't see yours.

They're gonna keep showing you the Pittsburg shooter, Dylan Roof, and the guy who ran over the Antifa girl, and then pretend that Antifa never meant to permanent maim anyone. A proper analysis with a larger n, ie, the black book, shows that their side is chest deep in blood, so hence the gaslighting and strawman.

 

If you wanted more proof that this is a load of sheet, I sourced close to 50 attacks by their side, and they did the lazy "ah it's a right wing source therefore false" despite the fact a google search would find non-right wing corroboration. And even beyond that, people here were shilling a sample size of ONE before the Pitts shooting happened. 

 

 Largely why I dipped out a page ago or so. No understanding of how statistical significance works, nor any desire to be objective 

[vla1ne]

I still love that we're using like a sample size of 5 to make all these broad deductions. Then again that's the rhetorical rigor I expected from the people here

They're gonna keep showing you the Pittsburg shooter, Dylan Roof, and the guy who ran over the Antifa girl, and then pretend that Antifa never meant to permanent maim anyone. A proper analysis with a larger n, ie, the black book, shows that their side is chest deep in blood, so hence the gaslighting and strawman.

 

If you wanted more proof that this is a load of sheet, I sourced close to 50 attacks by their side, and they did the lazy "ah it's a right wing source therefore false" despite the fact a google search would find non-right wing corroboration. And even beyond that, people here were shilling a sample size of ONE before the Pitts shooting happened. 

 

 Largely why I dipped out a page ago or so. No understanding of how statistical significance works, nor any desire to be objective 

well, the main argument is that everybody they don't like is a nazi, and nazis deserve to be silenced and possibly attacked. The actual topic of political violence is blatantly advocated in at least one case. There's very little, if any common ground to be had there. 

[Proto]

I still love that we're using like a sample size of 5 to make all these broad deductions. Then again that's the rhetorical rigor I expected from the people here

They're gonna keep showing you the Pittsburg shooter, Dylan Roof, and the guy who ran over the Antifa girl, and then pretend that Antifa never meant to permanent maim anyone. A proper analysis with a larger n, ie, the black book, shows that their side is chest deep in blood, so hence the gaslighting and strawman.

 

If you wanted more proof that this is a load of sheet, I sourced close to 50 attacks by their side, and they did the lazy "ah it's a right wing source therefore false" despite the fact a google search would find non-right wing corroboration. And even beyond that, people here were shilling a sample size of ONE before the Pitts shooting happened. 

 

 Largely why I dipped out a page ago or so. No understanding of how statistical significance works, nor any desire to be objective 

Pretty sure you didn't link it to me homie, I've shot every source you've brung to me in the head even in our private conversations. But, sure, if you wanna gish it up dig up the 50 sources and I'll go through every single one. Because datamining is well, that's what I find fun. Just don't back out when I call your sources bullshit @@THE Necromancer

 

 

well, the main argument is that everybody they don't like is a nazi, and nazis deserve to be silenced and possibly attacked. The actual topic of political violence is blatantly advocated in at least one case. There's very little, if any common ground to be had there. 

You're going to keep strawmanning me with this? I've listed so many people I didn't like in this discourse who aren't Nazis, Sargon, Thunderf00t, Rubin, Bill Maher. Hell I'm not sure if I mentioned them but I don't consider Ben Shapiro, Stephen Crowder or Jordan Peterson to be white nationalists despite them promoting heavily conservative ideals. The ONLY people I consider to be nazis are people who are white nationalist/identitarians that spread the belief of white pride like it hasn't been absolutely awful and lead to a shitton of violence. I.E. Gavin, Richard Spencer and their counterparts.

 

I don't call everyone a Nazi, I just hold being a Nazi as a possibility when coming to this sort of discussion while you folks seem to be absolutely devoted to when shooters are literally killing people after being fed lies about "the jewish question".

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Pretty sure you didn't link it to me homie, I've shot every source you've brung to me in the head even in our private conversations. But, sure, if you wanna gish it up dig up the 50 sources and I'll go through every single one. Because datamining is well, that's what I find fun. Just don't back out when I call your sources bullshit @@THE Necromancer

 

 

You're going to keep strawmanning me with this? I've listed so many people I didn't like in this discourse who aren't Nazis, Sargon, Thunderf00t, Rubin, Bill Maher. Hell I'm not sure if I mentioned them but I don't consider Ben Shapiro, Stephen Crowder or Jordan Peterson to be white nationalists despite them promoting heavily conservative ideals. The ONLY people I consider to be nazis are people who are white nationalist/identitarians that spread the belief of white pride like it hasn't been absolutely awful and lead to a shitton of violence. I.E. Gavin, Richard Spencer and their counterparts.

No I did,people didn't realize the "underlines" were hyper-linked, and after I told you they were, people just dismissed them cuz right wing sources. 

[Proto]

No I did,people didn't realize the "underlines" were hyper-linked, and after I told you they were, people just dismissed them cuz right wing sources. 

Oh, I dug it up now.

 

Yeah, I threw this out because the first five links were the same case twice, a funking comedian making a joke and a piece of fanfiction as legitimate threats versus Donald Trump. Equipped with ONE legitimate threat But I'll go through all of them.

 

Plus again, didn't quote me. But we'll get it cracking.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Your side got a rodeo clown fired and had a month long national discussion on racism cuz he wore a Obama mask

 

I wonder how you'd feel if the NYT published an OP ed on Obama being assassinated brutally. You're making it sound like some kid wrote a discord post rather than the paper of record shilling assassination porn

 

C'mon.....and the first three were ricin being sent to him and collins. You're so dishonest it hurts

[vla1ne]

 

I don't call everyone a Nazi, I just hold being a Nazi as a possibility when coming to this sort of discussion while you folks seem to be absolutely devoted to when shooters are literally killing people after being fed lies about "the jewish question".

Over 600 cases of assault and discrimination over the past few months alone against anybody wearing a maga hat or openly supporting trump. The BLM bomber actively attempting to blow up cops (10 injured, luckily no deaths) and you want to play the blame game. Trust me, the left has far more violence to it's name, and the lack of bodies on the left's side is NOT for lack of trying. In fact, pretty sure there were quite a few  attempted cop killers over the past years on the BLM faction alone. If we're stacking bodies, the right has more high profiles. but if we're stacking violence overall, the left is leagues ahead.

 

edit: On a side note, if the killer you're talking about is the most recent one, then he hates trump and his current administration almost as much as he hates jews. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Number 6 was a drive by shooting of a GOP office...like I said, you're not here in good faith at all

[Proto]

Alright, lets get it cracking.

 

Your first two sources were literally the same case. But sure, Ricin threat, you get this one.

 

October 25th. You're really counting a fiction story as a threat? Seriously? And you're the "pro free-speech" side? Are you one of those people that considered the play where Trump gets assassinated a threat? Is the South Park episode where Trump gets raped and murdered in Canada a threat?

 

October 18th. You're citing a comedian's joke. There were literal recorded laughs in the funking article you linked. Goddamn so equal to mass shootings of innocents.

 

October 29th. Alright, legitimate cite. Gunshots are bad yo.

 

October 2nd: Well the words were RAPE and SHAME rather then something that would imply that they would rape them. Still are we really considering funking graffiti as a legitimate threat? Is pissing Calvin an indicator of murder now?

 

October 25th: Signs and tampons. Wow. Such vandalism. How will they ever recover? This is violence?

 

October 23rd: This was a robbery. No evidence of it being politically motivated. 

 

October 12th: So a rock, woo. Brilliant. You get 1 on the legitimate politically motivated vandalism.

 

October 12th: Second rock! This one's more related to well, Proud Boys being in the building and having a street scuffle with antifa rather then the GOP but I'll include this 2 threats, 2 rocks.

 

October 19th: Funny how none of these have actual public convictions. I don't count a mean letter that didn't actually show any actual credence to the threat or an actual threat in it to be anything other then some scare tactics. Not to mention the kids were only mentioned as to make the stupid unlucky seven joke. Not gonna count that.

 

October 19th: Sure this is cut and dry like I like it, 3 threats, 2 rocks

 

October 2nd: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/10/02/false-alarm-white-powdery-substance-mail-sent-cruz-houston-campaign-hq-non-toxic Fake news.
 

October 15th: We're counting random people's facebook posts now? Seriously? You want me to include every single time someone said they were going to kill me over Twitter on this too?

 

October 6th: A tweet by a random person. Wow. Such scare. I'm quakin' in my boots.

 

October 15th: I enjoy how it cites right in the article that her opposition received death threats as well for being transgender so I'm gonna use that to nullify this one.

 

October 7th: Well, I don't have a problem with people sending shock videos over the internet but apparently a doxxing bit was involved so 4 threats 2 rocks

 

October 4th: Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and other members of the GOP's Senate coalition reportedly met behind closed doors Tuesday to discuss how to handle threats to their families, staffs, and offices.

no indication that these have actually happened according to the article itself, another one in the bullshit category.

 

October 8th: Some crazy lady talking about an event where after a year there is no evidence that it was politically motivated. Rand Paul could've been screwing the neighbors wife for all I know. Bullshit.

 

October 6th: No rape, one saying they wish she was dead, a few "i wish I could punch yous". On twitter. If you consider these to be legitimate violence you're funking stupid.

 

October 17th: Well, obviously this man isn't fearing for his life, no reports have been filed, no real fear and none of the actual "threats" were quoted. Only thing that got to him was "Nazi sympathizer". I'm gonna hit that with the bullshit.

 

October 11th: That was clearly not a legitimate threat. He touched her shoulder and made a Kavanaugh reference. What the funk Melkor are you even watching the videos? I don't endorse what the old dude said but none of this would hold up in court ever.

 

October 18th: Man hasn't been charged but benefit of the doubt. 1 grab, 4 threats, 2 rocks

 

October 6th: Slapping. A. funking. Sign while dancing around him is "accosting". funk out of here.

 

October 5th: She's literally just yelling at him how the funk is this a threat? Is all protesting a threat here?

 

October 2nd: Well, I watched the periscope of the incident, literally just protestors approaching him and he closed the door: https://www.pscp.tv/w/1zqKVLBaPVYJB?t=47s wow much assault, such threat.

 

October 10th: Well there's no tape of this, despite the man filming it being the one who was assaulted for filming it. So, I'm just gonna make the assumption that this alleged case is some bullshit until further investigation. I'll add it to the tally though because I wanna be generous. 1 shove, 1 grab, 4 threats, 2 rocks

 

October 16th: Alright, so some guy was calling at him all day with MAGA and stuff and then he fights him. I mean eh? This is about as political as your average bar fight. But sure there's a charge. 3 physical things, 4 threats, 2 rocks.

 

October 15th: This wasn't the coordinated assault that you believe it is, full story was some guy was on his 6-7th beer at a bar, the candidate was talking to him and he punched him because he was drunk and about the middle class. "A witness in the bar said Mekeland had "made a comment about eliminating the middle class" to which Schmit "got very upset and said 'I am the middle class,'" and punched him, the complaint said." Like does this sound like... anything? There's no indication that Schmit was a leftist in the slightest. I'm not gonna count this just because it was not only not pre-meditated but the situation is extremely preposterous.

 

October 16th: Mekeland again so disregarding that part. Anderson's case seems legitimate though 4 physical things, 4 threats, 2 rocks

 

October 13th: Finally! Cut and dry! 5 physical things, 4 threats, 2 rocks

October 28th: One person screaming she's a white supremacist is a mob? And how is this a threat for violence? Bullshit.

 

October 20th: I thought you were the freedom of speech guys? What the funk is this? This is just a guy screaming at him. 

October 17th: A funking harsh conversation is violence? No threats, nothing. Just two people who don't like eachother.

 

October 17th: Are you gonna arrest South Park for asking people to cum in Yelp reviewers food? funk off how in any world is this violence?

 

October 8th: Literally drove into the funking protest. Have you even watched these? That man was putting his pedal on the gas WITH PEOPLE IN FRONT OF HIM

 

October 6th: Protestors gonna protest, still not violent.

 

October 1st: Asking questions is assault now? Prostesting is assault now?

 

October 21st: There was no assault, there was arguably harassment in the form of protesting. How is this someone getting attacked?

 

October 9th: Hillary is clearly talking in the quote about playing the Democratic Congress playing hardball with them like the GOP did with Obama! There  is a huge leap from that and "punch people in the face for me antifa"

 

October 10th: Literally talking about political strategy again with no indication he's calling for physical assault.

 

October 10th: CNN said no such thing in that clip, just Breitbart lying again. This isn't mob sheet it's protesting. Also they NEVER MENTIONED THE MANHATTAN THING.

 

October 16th: Not an assault. Not even anything. Bullshit

 

October 8th: Somebody being retarded on twitter, not an attack.

 

October 11th: And finally, the third real thing.

 

So the tally, outta 50

 

1 shove, 1 provoked scuffle with George Lopez, 1 punch in the arm, 1 grab, 4 death threats, 2 rocks being thrown in the windows and the driveby.

 

Compared to 17 innocents getting murdered by assault rifles, 5 bombs being sent out etc.

 

I think we've still got this @ 

 

 

Over 600 cases of assault and discrimination over the past few months alone against anybody wearing a maga hat or openly supporting trump. The BLM bomber actively attempting to blow up cops (10 injured, luckily no deaths) and you want to play the blame game. Trust me, the left has far more violence to it's name, and the lack of bodies on the left's side is NOT for lack of trying. In fact, pretty sure there were quite a few  attempted cop killers over the past years on the BLM faction alone. If we're stacking bodies, the right has more high profiles. but if we're stacking violence overall, the left is leagues ahead.

 

edit: On a side note, if the killer you're talking about is the most recent one, then he hates trump and his current administration almost as much as he hates jews. 

Cite the assault and discrimination statistics. The BLM bomber, everything.

 

You don't get to lump me in with all of these politically vague people and anarchists and sheet like that and not take responsibility for the fact that the right's hatemonger pieces against Soros and the jewish run media in general and "the Zionists" were influential in that man's shooting.

 

 

Your side got a rodeo clown fired and had a month long national discussion on racism cuz he wore a Obama mask

 

I wonder how you'd feel if the NYT published an OP ed on Obama being assassinated brutally. You're making it sound like some kid wrote a discord post rather than the paper of record shilling assassination porn

I deadass don't care, it's not a murder. I'm not on "sides" here. I'm not representing the entire neoliberal elite of CNN here, I'm representing my own opinion. The fact that you constantly need to wrap me in with everyone else in order to make a decent insult shows how limited your field of perception is.

I wouldn't care because it's funking fiction my dude. I'd watch the Death of Caesar regardless of whether it was Obama getting murdered or Trump getting murdered because honestly? I don't care about fanfiction and I certainly wouldn't consider it a LEGITIMATE THREAT.

[vla1ne]

Funny enough, the main videos i was going to use in my response are in in the process of being wiped off the internet. If you can get them to work, or at least follow them to the channels, the titles alone show you exactly what they are about. If you can't get them to load, ignore them and move forward, but the second one in particular was actual video of the attempted bomb attack that injured 10 officers, and while i'm looking for more videos of it, this is the one i thought would be usable. In either case, the article is underneath it. People were attacking a man who they thought was a white supremacist, cops stepped in to save the man, and the bomb maker made a kid throw the bomb at the cops in his stead.

 

Also, there is flaw in my prior statement, but the 600 confirmed acts is less than that en masse, it covers a span of two years, not four months, like i initially thought. Though antifa events, if marked against both parties, and taken act by act, would definitely jump that number significantly.

 

 

 

that kinda bugs me, but that's fine, onto the next ones.

 

[spoiler=These videos discuss some of the articles, while the articles simply add more to the story]

 

 

https://fee.org/articles/the-danger-in-media-telling-only-half-the-story-on-political-violence/

 

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/07/05/rap-sheet-acts-of-media-approved-violence-and-harassment-against-trump-supporters/ This one has quite a few frivolous ones, but the actual bad ones are still insane.

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/left-wing-violence-midterm-elections/

 

https://nypost.com/2016/12/11/2016-was-a-deadly-year-for-cops-and-blm-may-be-to-blame/

This one's to point out that while nowhere near all the violence against cops is left wing inspired, if you want to tie in loose threads  then there's quite a few bodies that fall into your own side. and this is just the 2016 rap sheet.

 

 

 

 

The difference is, i already condemn violence on all sides, and have stated as much multiple times, all the while discouraging it and advocating conversation. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't actually sit on the right. I sit in the center. calling out both sides is what i do, i simply have far more to call the left out on than the right at the moment. While i definitely have a hierarchy (instigating violence being higher on my list of "which is worse" than responsive violence) I call it out no matter the side when it's advocated. You can quote all the calls for violence in this thread, and under pretty much any standard, you wouldn't see my comments in the list. yours however, i can think back to quite a few that said in no uncertain terms that you advocate initiating violence against political opponents.

[Proto]

The difference is, i already condemn violence on all sides, and have stated as much multiple times, all the while discouraging it and advocating conversation. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't actually sit on the right. I sit in the center. calling out both sides is what i do, i simply have far more to call the left out on than the right at the moment. While i definitely have a hierarchy (instigating violence being higher on my list of "which is worse" than responsive violence) I call it out no matter the side when it's advocated. You can quote all the calls for violence in this thread, and under pretty much any standard, you wouldn't see my comments in the list. yours however, i can think back to quite a few that said in no uncertain terms that you advocate initiating violence against political opponents.

 

I'll review your evidence at a later date, doing these breakdowns take a lot of time, mostly involving cross-referencing news sources and questioning the methodology utilized in these articles simply because these things aren't peer reviewed or anything. But before that I'm gonna take a bit to expand on what you said about your own political position.

 

If you were a centrist for any reason besides being a fence-sitter that doesn't want to deal with the bad blood of either side you wouldn't be linking me Breitbart articles. Still not understanding how murder of innocents at a church is comparable to some punches and some rocks being thrown. My issue with you is that you're acting like there's some sort of reason to be granted by debate between these two parties when there really well, isn't. Equating punches and protests with violent shootouts is exactly what people who are white nationalists want. Which is to have racism be considered "just another idea". You're someone who believes in the whole hokey "trans normalization" or whatever right? Well that's literally what their plan is with this whole name-game charade, it's to normalize racism, something that has been debunked multiple times, as a simple position that's to be had. And that's what I'm against for what I assume should be obvious reasons.

 

Judging by how often you've put your foot in your mouth regarding your opinions I'd even argue that your centrism isn't actually based off of simply "weighing both sides" but simply put, centrism is your way to seem smart without actually diving deep enough into history of these sorts of matters. It's easy to simply ignore bigotry and equate it with people wanting justice and then just simply sit on the sidelines. Martin Luther King Jr. has a quote that I believe reflects on your position quite well as a "moderate":

 

[spoiler=MLK Quote]

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. 

[vla1ne]

Breitbart, while slanted, did indeed post a long list of violence against the left, which is what you asked for. How many left sites do you know that are going to do that? I don't support the church shooter, but how many cops are dead because of the anti cop narrative? If you're going to tie the church shooter to a side that he explicitly said he hates, then there's all the reason in the world to tie in many of the cop killers to your own, as they have the same amount of connections to the left as the shooter has to the right. Again, the lower body count is not for lack of trying. People get attacked and hospitalized for holding right wing views, the kid that got abducted and tortured for hours on ( i believe it was) facebook, while the people attacking him screamed funk donald trump and funk whitey? What exactly makes them better then the synagogue shooter? the cop killers, inspired by the "pigs in a blanket" chant courtesy of BLM? When they say today i'm giving a pig wings, are they any better? As for racism, it is normal. It's not right, and it's not something i agree with, but it's normal. Historically, there was far more racism on all sides than what we have today, and we're still whittling it down. what you don't seem to see, is that your own side happens to be normalizing racism against whites. To the point where white people can't even be proud to be white without you considering them horrible people. 

 

You use of MLK was a mistake. Did MLK consider violence and justice to be one in the same? no. he preached nonviolence ant tolerance. even as he himself disagreed with his opponents, he didn't attempt to come to blows, because he understood that violence didn't do anything to change minds of those you disagree with. I advocate against violence, i support the movement towards individual equality. MLK held those exact same views. Not once did he attempt to hold a violent rally, or silence his opponents right to speech, even when his opponents were violent and abusive. He preached tolerance, and acted with dignity and respect. He didn't advocate shutting his opponent's mouths, but converting them through love. Even if he saw their actions as a diemma towards his own goals, he didn't attempt to silence them, but to convince them through words. If you want to use that quote and not have it backfire against you, you're gonna have to drop quite a few of your own positions first. Such as your advocating of violence.

[Phantom Roxas]

well, the main argument is that everybody they don't like is a nazi, and nazis deserve to be silenced and possibly attacked. The actual topic of political violence is blatantly advocated in at least one case. There's very little, if any common ground to be had there.

Oh boy, not this line again.

 

The "main argument" is that people will be called Nazis because of the specific beliefs, actions, and attitudes that they display. You yourself admitted that even if Spencer is not entirely a Nazi, he at least does seem to be a sympathizer. Reducing it to "everybody they don't like is a Nazi" is purposefully ignoring what people are actually saying, and you're instead assigning your own assumptions about an argument to those people.

 

There's no common ground to be had here because when you reduce someone's argument to just "You call everybody they don't like a Nazi!", you are putting words in their mouth. I've been focusing on maybe men two at most and why I believe their use of actual Nazi rhetoric and gestures reflects their genuine beliefs. When you brought up Richard Meyer, I never called him a Nazi. I explained why I dislike him because of the harassment campaigns he has personally orchestrated. While I am critical of many of the individuals you brought up, I feel confident in my arguments because I recognize them as individuals.

[Proto]

Breitbart, while slanted, did indeed post a long list of violence against the left, which is what you asked for. How many left sites do you know that are going to do that? I don't support the church shooter, but how many cops are dead because of the anti cop narrative? If you're going to tie the church shooter to a side that he explicitly said he hates, then there's all the reason in the world to tie in many of the cop killers to your own, as they have the same amount of connections to the left as the shooter has to the right. Again, the lower body count is not for lack of trying. People get attacked and hospitalized for holding right wing views, the kid that got abducted and tortured for hours on ( i believe it was) facebook, while the people attacking him screamed funk donald trump and funk whitey? What exactly makes them better then the synagogue shooter? the cop killers, inspired by the "pigs in a blanket" chant courtesy of BLM? When they say today i'm giving a pig wings, are they any better? As for racism, it is normal. It's not right, and it's not something i agree with, but it's normal. Historically, there was far more racism on all sides than what we have today, and we're still whittling it down. what you don't seem to see, is that your own side happens to be normalizing racism against whites. To the point where white people can't even be proud to be white without you considering them horrible people. 

 

You use of MLK was a mistake. Did MLK consider violence and justice to be one in the same? no. he preached nonviolence ant tolerance. even as he himself disagreed with his opponents, he didn't attempt to come to blows, because he understood that violence didn't do anything to change minds of those you disagree with. I advocate against violence, i support the movement towards individual equality. MLK held those exact same views. Not once did he attempt to hold a violent rally, or silence his opponents right to speech, even when his opponents were violent and abusive. He preached tolerance, and acted with dignity and respect. He didn't advocate shutting his opponent's mouths, but converting them through love. Even if he saw their actions as a diemma towards his own goals, he didn't attempt to silence them, but to convince them through words. If you want to use that quote and not have it backfire against you, you're gonna have to drop quite a few of your own positions first. Such as your advocating of violence.

If you valued my time or were confident in your statistics in the slightest you wouldn't make me have to dig through people shutting the door on others as literally being assaulted. And the fact that you need to use that instead of a nonpartial website makes me question the validity of your claims since I just dug through 50 cases (most of them reported by them) and a majority of those headlines turned out to be bullshit. You can't claim a source of information as being frivolous in the numbers and then QUOTE THEIR STATISTIC ANYWAYS. 

 

Also I didn't see the 600 number toted by anyone BESIDES Breitbart. So you quote the statistics and admit they're heavily bloated by bullshit in the same quote. You can't try to undermine a source when they're literally who you're quoting when you're talking about 600 Trump supporters getting attacked. That's like me saying "well Trump killed a billion people, there are a lot of maybes here and there and I don't really endorse the source all that much but I'm going to quote it anyways" who's REALLY concerned with the truth here in your eyes man? You readily threw that out there that you knew it so how many other people were you going to say 600 people got hit for being Trump supporters in the past 4 months and not question that belief at all if I wasn't the skeptical one here? Do you not see what's wrong with claiming you're a centrist when your talking points are coming from the farthest right sources you could possibly imagine? That you yourself KNOW to be unreliable and prone to exaggerating? How is this informed centrism and not just fence sitting because you're a coward?

 

You're claiming that I asked for this information. No. You said some bullshit unbelievable number in order to try to disprove my claims, then I asked you to substantiate it and what do you know, it's Breitbart. I didn't ask for the information, you GAVE IT TO ME, then I asked where it came from and you linked a Breitbart article, which means that this number was already in your head FROM the Breitbart article since the only thing you've linked with the 600 number is the Breitbart article and things quoting the Breitbart article. You're literally repeating Breitbart statistics freely and then saying I asked for them when you're the one who brought them into the conversation. I might not even go through them just because you yourself don't believe the number!

 

The fact that you have to use such a slanted website with a shitton of frivolous claims in the first place is absolutely preposterous. Sure the guys who tortured that kid were funked but what the hell do they have to do with Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA or well, any organization or policy in general? Just because someone's black and hates the system doesn't make them a member of these groups. You have absolutely no evidence that these killers subscribe BECAUSE of Black Lives Matter. Your whole perception of this is being told by a staunchly conservative white nationalists and claim that if you join Black Lives Matter you're going to join ISIS. Even if Black Lives Matter didn't exist you really think that black people would be absolutely stellar with the police? I didn't know N.W.A. was teleported back in time and that they were actually Black Lives Matter movements from the future to spread anti-cop propaganda. Attributing EVERY cop-hating, Donald Trump-hating black person to Black Lives Matter is funking stupid. You're a "centrist" and someone who cares about both sides right? funking read into some of these cases rather then just staring at a headline and going "that's probably everything there is to know about the case".

 

You're literally speaking for a dead man without using any actual quotations. I literally posted something of him saying "yes, the centrists that CONDEMN THE METHODS but ultimately they are subscribing to the same system that is oppressing people must be stopped." MLK literally condoned riots in his later speeches and also stated that indeed, whites were the real criminals compared to even the rioters in 1967 at the Psychology Association, does that seem like someone who's 100% peaceful? No, he understood the requirement and need of violence when it comes to making your voice heard because people literally weren't playing ball with his speeches. You're literally going off base assumptions without reading any of his speeches.

 

Also you know where all that peacetiming got him. Literally murdered by a white racist. There is love where there is it on both sides, but if someone's statement is literally "I want you dragged from your home, unable to breed or murdered" (which is the only way that preserving the white majority in the U.S. can be maintained percentage wise take it or leave it) I don't think we should have to play ball with them.

 

[spoiler=MLK Quotes]

“Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena, They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.”

 

“Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.”

[vla1ne]

 

 

Name a site that logs reports of left wing violence and harassment against right wing folks if you can, then you can replace breitbart with that site if you wish, till then, that's what we've got. There are very few prominent sites that report and file left wing violence against right wing parties. As for undermining my source, I do so because it’s a fact. They have a clear bias, and I pointed such out. That said, my point is that the left commits more acts of violence and harassment in general than the right. Is most of it nonlethal? Yes, but again, not for lack of trying. Throwing moltov cocktails and rocks into a crowd of people, or stalking and jumping people, or beating people in the head with a baseball bat while they're in the bathroom, can easily become fatal, or at least crippling. It’s only sheer luck that nobody has died yet. Sending kids to deliver a bomb that injures ten cops is attempted murder, and no cop dying was only by the greatest possible stroke of luck. As for breitbart, death threats, rape threats, physical assaults, vandalism, direct harassment, barring from stores, online harassment, robbery of possessions, calls for the death of the president (and republican senators), media defense of violent actions against normal people, left wing politicians calling for violence and incivility against political opponents, open incitements of violence against the right by politicians and celebrities, ect. all add up. There are indeed frivolous cases, but there are actual crimes there, and were the tables turned, would you be fine with left wing folks being barred from businesses simply because they have a hat? Would you be fine with parents or teachers teaching their children to disrespect their political opponents? Would you be fine with groups of people being bombed only because they were trying to keep the peace? Yeah, they’ve got slant, but they have a point. The violence and slander against anybody even remotely right wing has escalated over the past few years, and nobody wants to call it out.

 

 

I could also post video by video by video of violence against cops, reporters, and regular people by the left wing terrorist group antifa, pushing the number up by dozens, if not hundreds of cases. Hell, the “say no to marxism” rally, was attacked by antifa, and multiple assaults there weren’t even in the list, nor were many other antifa related assaults, or blm related cop killings. It’s simple there’s more violence against the right than against the left. There’s more discrimination towards right wingers than left wingers as well.

 

 

“pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon (relating to police)” is one of their most well-known chants, yet they hold no responsibility for inciting the actions of those who attempt to kill cops? Building racial tension on any case even remotely related to black people being injured is the bread and butter of many BLM groups, rioting whenever a black person is shot, before even a single fact is out on the case. Tell me then, at what threshold does BLM share some of the blame for endorsing the act of cop killing? I’m not going off gavin’s assertion, I already stated he was wrong with the ISIS thing. I’m going off the people who actually say “today I gave a pig wings” when discussing a cop they killed. I’m going off of some of their biggest names being known cop killers (Assata shakur, huey newton, Michael finney, ect.) they idolize cop killers, they chant about killing cops, heavily endorse violence at their allies instead of discouraging it. and they endorse rioting and destruction of private property. Why exactly would they get a free pass when cop killers are among the main idols, and their rhetoric is literally all about killing cops?

 

 

You seem to have missed a few key details of the quotes you’re tossing out there. Unlike 1968,  We aren’t talking about getting black people civil rights here.  We have rights, we have opportunities, black people get ahead and black people fall back every day, just like everybody else. We aren’t children who need to throw tantrums and damage the property of others when we don’t get what we want from society. The second point that you missed was that while he understood the cause, he did not endorse said riots. He was firmly against them, and called them counterproductive. And the last detail you missed is that black people have all the tools to move up in America that they could ever need. They simply don’t know how to use them, and rioting reduces the amount of options available. Who’s going to open up a store where people are constantly in the mood to riot over any and every issue? Advocating riots is the same as advocating that all intelligent businesses should avoid your neighborhood like the plague. Protesting is one thing, MLK both understood and endorsed protest, as do I, but rioting is another beast entirely. Understanding it is one thing, endorsing it, alongside endorsing the death of police, is to embrace the death of your community as a whole. Businesses will not come to your residences, because they fear losses from violent riots, police will be driven out of your hood, as has happened in Chicago, and violence will likely rise in prominence due to the lack of authority figures, which means even when the cops do show up (less frequently due to the anti-cop rhetoric), they’re more likely to encounter dangerous situations, which might lead to higher losses of life on both sides, which will only feed into the cycle. Understanding that violence is a response doesn’t change the fact that peaceful protest was and is the correct approach, and is the reason his name is even half as powerful as it is today. Tell me how much longer he’d have lived, or how much further he’d have gotten by attacking any and everybody who remotely opposed him? His peaceful method was what brought so many people of all races over to his side. His peaceful method was what lead to him being immortalized as a standard for discussion. Had he engaged in riots like others did, his name would not have the effect that it does today.

 

 

 

Oh boy, not this line again.

 

The "main argument" is that people will be called Nazis because of the specific beliefs, actions, and attitudes that they display. You yourself admitted that even if Spencer is not entirely a Nazi, he at least does seem to be a sympathizer. Reducing it to "everybody they don't like is a Nazi" is purposefully ignoring what people are actually saying, and you're instead assigning your own assumptions about an argument to those people.

 

There's no common ground to be had here because when you reduce someone's argument to just "You call everybody they don't like a Nazi!", you are putting words in their mouth. I've been focusing on maybe men two at most and why I believe their use of actual Nazi rhetoric and gestures reflects their genuine beliefs. When you brought up Richard Meyer, I never called him a Nazi. I explained why I dislike him because of the harassment campaigns he has personally orchestrated. While I am critical of many of the individuals you brought up, I feel confident in my arguments because I recognize them as individuals.

That's fair enough for the first point, at least on your own end. Just remember, one of the people being called a nazi happens to be the exact kind of person who would check off nearly every gas chamber candidate box, and has publicly criticized and ridicules the alt right and racists as much, if not more than he's actually used their symbols to troll people. He might be chill with people like Spencer, but he is not their ally so much as he's just not their enemy. (talking about milo here, the gay jew who likes black men, his very existence checks just about all the boxes that a nazi would hate)

 

as for the part about people advocating violence here that's a straight up fact.

[Proto]

Name a site that logs reports of left wing violence and harassment against right wing folks if you can, then you can replace breitbart with that site if you wish, till then, that's what we've got. There are very few prominent sites that report and file left wing violence against right wing parties. As for undermining my source, I do so because it’s a fact. They have a clear bias, and I pointed such out. That said, my point is that the left commits more acts of violence and harassment in general than the right. Is most of it nonlethal? Yes, but again, not for lack of trying. Throwing moltov cocktails and rocks into a crowd of people, or stalking and jumping people, or beating people in the head with a baseball bat while they're in the bathroom, can easily become fatal, or at least crippling. It’s only sheer luck that nobody has died yet. Sending kids to deliver a bomb that injures ten cops is attempted murder, and no cop dying was only by the greatest possible stroke of luck. As for breitbart, death threats, rape threats, physical assaults, vandalism, direct harassment, barring from stores, online harassment, robbery of possessions, calls for the death of the president (and republican senators), media defense of violent actions against normal people, left wing politicians calling for violence and incivility against political opponents, open incitements of violence against the right by politicians and celebrities, ect. all add up. There are indeed frivolous cases, but there are actual crimes there, and were the tables turned, would you be fine with left wing folks being barred from businesses simply because they have a hat? Would you be fine with parents or teachers teaching their children to disrespect their political opponents? Would you be fine with groups of people being bombed only because they were trying to keep the peace? Yeah, they’ve got slant, but they have a point. The violence and slander against anybody even remotely right wing has escalated over the past few years, and nobody wants to call it out.

 

 

I could also post video by video by video of violence against cops, reporters, and regular people by the left wing terrorist group antifa, pushing the number up by dozens, if not hundreds of cases. Hell, the “say no to marxism” rally, was attacked by antifa, and multiple assaults there weren’t even in the list, nor were many other antifa related assaults, or blm related cop killings. It’s simple there’s more violence against the right than against the left. There’s more discrimination towards right wingers than left wingers as well.

 

 

“pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon (relating to police)” is one of their most well-known chants, yet they hold no responsibility for inciting the actions of those who attempt to kill cops? Building racial tension on any case even remotely related to black people being injured is the bread and butter of many BLM groups, rioting whenever a black person is shot, before even a single fact is out on the case. Tell me then, at what threshold does BLM share some of the blame for endorsing the act of cop killing? I’m not going off gavin’s assertion, I already stated he was wrong with the ISIS thing. I’m going off the people who actually say “today I gave a pig wings” when discussing a cop they killed. I’m going off of some of their biggest names being known cop killers (Assata shakur, huey newton, Michael finney, ect.) they idolize cop killers, they chant about killing cops, heavily endorse violence at their allies instead of discouraging it. and they endorse rioting and destruction of private property. Why exactly would they get a free pass when cop killers are among the main idols, and their rhetoric is literally all about killing cops?

 

 

You seem to have missed a few key details of the quotes you’re tossing out there. Unlike 1968,  We aren’t talking about getting black people civil rights here.  We have rights, we have opportunities, black people get ahead and black people fall back every day, just like everybody else. We aren’t children who need to throw tantrums and damage the property of others when we don’t get what we want from society. The second point that you missed was that while he understood the cause, he did not endorse said riots. He was firmly against them, and called them counterproductive. And the last detail you missed is that black people have all the tools to move up in America that they could ever need. They simply don’t know how to use them, and rioting reduces the amount of options available. Who’s going to open up a store where people are constantly in the mood to riot over any and every issue? Advocating riots is the same as advocating that all intelligent businesses should avoid your neighborhood like the plague. Protesting is one thing, MLK both understood and endorsed protest, as do I, but rioting is another beast entirely. Understanding it is one thing, endorsing it, alongside endorsing the death of police, is to embrace the death of your community as a whole. Businesses will not come to your residences, because they fear losses from violent riots, police will be driven out of your hood, as has happened in Chicago, and violence will likely rise in prominence due to the lack of authority figures, which means even when the cops do show up (less frequently due to the anti-cop rhetoric), they’re more likely to encounter dangerous situations, which might lead to higher losses of life on both sides, which will only feed into the cycle. Understanding that violence is a response doesn’t change the fact that peaceful protest was and is the correct approach, and is the reason his name is even half as powerful as it is today. Tell me how much longer he’d have lived, or how much further he’d have gotten by attacking any and everybody who remotely opposed him? His peaceful method was what brought so many people of all races over to his side. His peaceful method was what lead to him being immortalized as a standard for discussion. Had he engaged in riots like others did, his name would not have the effect that it does today.

 

 

 

That's fair enough for the first point, at least on your own end. Just remember, one of the people being called a nazi happens to be the exact kind of person who would check off nearly every gas chamber candidate box, and has publicly criticized and ridicules the alt right and racists as much, if not more than he's actually used their symbols to troll people. He might be chill with people like Spencer, but he is not their ally so much as he's just not their enemy. (talking about milo here, the gay jew who likes black men, his very existence checks just about all the boxes that a nazi would hate)

 

as for the part about people advocating violence here that's a straight up fact.

Your whole paragraph didn't address the point of my claim which was you, while claiming centrism, seem to be very heavily biased towards right wing figures to the point that you immediately regurgitated the Breitbart number before me. You didn't go through and check to see what numbers were actually valid or did a tally of which were actually heinous crimes, you just assumed that number to be right and quoted it at me. That isn't skepticism, it's the complete opposite of that in fact. 

 

Also here's a hint, when you literally only have Breitbart defending your point, it's clearly not as universal as you believe it to be. Doesn't that tell you literally anything that the only really threatening number you have regarding right wing violence is literally the outlet that outright exaggerated 9/50 of their claims of "right wing threats/violence"?

 

Good, and I can bring up dozens of videos of police shooting unarmed or otherwise unhostile black men. Videos don't funking matter, statistics do, and yours are bullshit.

 

Okay, you literally ignored my point, hell Assata and them prove my point. Putting funking all the blame on Black Lives Matter, a protest group that's hosted hundreds upon hundreds of PEACEFUL protests for tension between african-americans and the police is absolutely ignoring the fact that BEFORE BLACK LIVES MATTER EVEN EXISTED you had militants like Assata, musicians like Ice Cube that supported shooting at the police, you had plenty of african-americans for some reason or another felt like the police system was oppressing them. Black communities had a history of disliking the police before 2013 vla1ne and trying to put that all on people who the VAST MAJORITY OF's only crime was annoying rich people with the reminder that yeah, racism is a thing is absolutely wrong. Why are three people torturing a mentally disabled kid while screaming "trump sucks funk white people" black lives matter when they were never recorded at a funking protest or anything? Is it because they were black and don't like Trump? Plenty of black people don't like Trump and aren't Black Lives Matter. Assuming every black criminal against white people is immediately tied to black lives matter or civil rights is racial bias. 

 

Alright if it's such a popular chant then there should be videos of more instances of it. If it's so popular give me different instances of them saying "pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon" because otherwise it's not a "well-known chant" it's a 30 second clip that doesn't represent the months upon months of footage of peaceful funking protest. Hell, if their whole model is killing cops then well, funk it since they're much more numerous then the white nationalist why has the alt-right killed more black people then BLM have killed cops? They're just as dangerous right? And their numbers are about a thousand to one at best. Yet why are their numbers not equivalent when it comes to violent crime if that's their organization's MO? Answer me. Because that's the thing with the "alt-left" and "alt-right" comparisons. When you start talking about the sheer SCALE of the movements. About how there's about ten thousand protestors compared to every lone white supremacist. Why are their numbers even comparable when it comes to violent crime? With physical assault it's comparable and with murders white supremacists are about 5x the death toll of the left despite there being far more leftists. Unless the chances of being violent is far, far higher amongst white supremacists that just doesn't add up.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/19/proud-boys-fbi-classification-extremist-group-white-nationalism-report?__twitter_impression=true

 

also the feds now agree with me, woo.

[vla1ne]

Your whole paragraph didn't address the point of my claim which was you, while claiming centrism, seem to be very heavily biased towards right wing figures to the point that you immediately regurgitated the Breitbart number before me. You didn't go through and check to see what numbers were actually valid or did a tally of which were actually heinous crimes, you just assumed that number to be right and quoted it at me. That isn't skepticism, it's the complete opposite of that in fact. 

 

Also here's a hint, when you literally only have Breitbart defending your point, it's clearly not as universal as you believe it to be. Doesn't that tell you literally anything that the only really threatening number you have regarding right wing violence is literally the outlet that outright exaggerated 9/50 of their claims of "right wing threats/violence"?

 

Good, and I can bring up dozens of videos of police shooting unarmed or otherwise unhostile black men. Videos don't funking matter, statistics do, and yours are bullshit.

 

Okay, you literally ignored my point, hell Assata and them prove my point. Putting funking all the blame on Black Lives Matter, a protest group that's hosted hundreds upon hundreds of PEACEFUL protests for tension between african-americans and the police is absolutely ignoring the fact that BEFORE BLACK LIVES MATTER EVEN EXISTED you had militants like Assata, musicians like Ice Cube that supported shooting at the police, you had plenty of african-americans for some reason or another felt like the police system was oppressing them. Black communities had a history of disliking the police before 2013 vla1ne and trying to put that all on people who the VAST MAJORITY OF's only crime was annoying rich people with the reminder that yeah, racism is a thing is absolutely wrong. Why are three people torturing a mentally disabled kid while screaming "trump sucks funk white people" black lives matter when they were never recorded at a funking protest or anything? Is it because they were black and don't like Trump? Plenty of black people don't like Trump and aren't Black Lives Matter. Assuming every black criminal against white people is immediately tied to black lives matter or civil rights is racial bias. 

 

 

I hold views on both sides, i sit closer to the center, in case you haven't noticed, i denounce violence on both sides, and have explained why the left has more problems than the right at the moment. As for breitbart, the list they showed are actual events, and still are within the past few months. as for the number, i was pulling from memory, The mistake is mine, I own that.

 

I showed more sites than just breitbart. go back and read them. They back the main point i made. Violence from left to right is less reported, and far more frequent than right to left violence. Name one right winger who's drenching people in urine at left wing rallies, or trying to stab or attack people at left wing rallies. you don't see the right coming to left wing rallies and attacking people wanton. You only see the opposite. there's no question that the right has more high profile cases, but going by sheer numbers, the left has more cases overall. A leftist mailed poison to government figures at the same tine that the right winger mailed bombs, both sides have their fair share of flat out idiots. thing is, the right gets called on it every day in mainstream media, and on social media networks not named youtube or gab (and even there they still get called out by right wingers)

 

 

Nobody on the right goes to said protests to start violence in the first place. That's the difference. look at any right wing protest, the instigators are always left wingers who show up and start sheet. The right wingers do not do that. Of course left leaning groups can have peaceful protests, the right doesn't show up to start fights with them. the opposite is not true. even when the right wants to hold as peaceful a rally as possible, groups like antifa show up, and start chanting ,and attacking people. 

 

 

Never said they didn't have problems with the cops. And there are numerous threads in the past where i've agreed with dad that there are problems between the police and black people. that said, how helpful is it for a group like BLM to show up, endorsing violence en masse against the police? The people torturing the white kid for hours were another example of leftist violence, That was the point. BLM came one statement after i used them as an example. and i didn't say those two were connected. also, the fact that they were blatantly screaming funk trump, and shouting funk whitey (quite racist of them mind you) kinda demonstrates that the violence in their case, was purely political. why shout the name of the man who had just became president if the violence weren't political? I ask you once more, do you condemn violence on all side? I do. No matter if i understand the reasons or not, i don't condone acts of violence. You have yet to say you do, so i'd like to at least get that out the way.

 

 

 

Alright if it's such a popular chant then there should be videos of more instances of it. If it's so popular give me different instances of them saying "pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon" because otherwise it's not a "well-known chant" it's a 30 second clip that doesn't represent the months upon months of footage of peaceful funking protest. Hell, if their whole model is killing cops then well, funk it since they're much more numerous then the white nationalist why has the alt-right killed more black people then BLM have killed cops? They're just as dangerous right? And their numbers are about a thousand to one at best. Yet why are their numbers not equivalent when it comes to violent crime if that's their organization's MO? Answer me. Because that's the thing with the "alt-left" and "alt-right" comparisons. When you start talking about the sheer SCALE of the movements. About how there's about ten thousand protestors compared to every lone white supremacist. Why are their numbers even comparable when it comes to violent crime? With physical assault it's comparable and with murders white supremacists are about 5x the death toll of the left despite there being far more leftists. Unless the chances of being violent is far, far higher amongst white supremacists that just doesn't add up.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/19/proud-boys-fbi-classification-extremist-group-white-nationalism-report?__twitter_impression=true

 

also the feds now agree with me, woo.

[spoiler=their chants for dead cops and assaulted cops come in many different flavors pigs in a blanket is just one of them]

The "All cops are bastards" flavor, with a dash of assault on police officers:

 

actively acting out the ideals espoused by BLM:

 

And who could forget the classic "What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want them? NOW!" chant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llkLsuIOUrs

 

And as a bonus, an attempted assault on a reporter who did not instigate violence at all:

 

 

Luckily for us all, BLM and their violent publicity has faded out slowly over the last two years, which is why the group doesn't have the prominence and balls to call for dead cops the way it used to. in case you forgot, many of their stated idols were known cop killers. Unfortunately for us, antifa took their place instead, and started attacking pretty much everybody. police, reporters, randon civillians, people carrying anything remotely patriotic. everybody.

 

Gonna have to ask for a citation on that murder claim. there's a lot of people who get thrown into the far/alt right bus that don't belong there. and about  BLM has died down, they still support disruption, and employ antifa tactics, as you saw in the above video, where BLM and antifa teamed up to chant all cops are bastards after assaulting multiple officers. You don't see them anywhere near the numbers that they were present two years ago, where there was serious chance of riots and violence. antifa picked that torch up for them. The discussion around BLM was held here a few years back actually, where i went directly to their website, pulled up their views at the time, and went over them one by one condemning or affirming each and every point. I don't have time anymore to do things that the way i used to though. in a nutshell though, Antifa has taken the place of BLM on the violence stage, and we've already been over much of what's wrong with them. All the while, BLM has yet to denounce the violence their group has been known to endorse.

 

The likes of elliot rogers are conflated to the alt/far right, the jewish shooter, the texas shooter, and the las vegas shooter (a registered democrat) are conflated to the alt right, and many more. even trump is tossed into the alt right category depending on the article of the week. alt/far right is literally used as a catch all term to pin negativity onto the right without having to back the claim. were i to start tossing shooters into the alt left category the way they're tossed into the alt right one, Chicago alone would fill the bucket to the brim.

 

Considering antifa's already on the list, the proud boys making it in is pretty much par for course. I'm somewhat fine with that. Though gavin could very well file a lawsuit to clear the name since they foolishly went for the white supremacist label, and the group openly admits people of all races, and has since it's inception. If they'd stuck with just the violent extremist label they'd have a safe accusation, but they went a touch too far and might get bitten back if they try to push the white supremacist label onto the group.

 

Once more though, do you condemn violence and violent endorsement from all sides? you might have answered it in the above comment, but it never hurts to put the comment down twice, since it's the main focus of the discussion.

[Proto]

I hold views on both sides, i sit closer to the center, in case you haven't noticed, i denounce violence on both sides, and have explained why the left has more problems than the right at the moment. As for breitbart, the list they showed are actual events, and still are within the past few months. as for the number, i was pulling from memory, The mistake is mine, I own that.

 

I showed more sites than just breitbart. go back and read them. They back the main point i made. Violence from left to right is less reported, and far more frequent than right to left violence. Name one right winger who's drenching people in urine at left wing rallies, or trying to stab or attack people at left wing rallies. you don't see the right coming to left wing rallies and attacking people wanton. You only see the opposite. there's no question that the right has more high profile cases, but going by sheer numbers, the left has more cases overall. A leftist mailed poison to government figures at the same tine that the right winger mailed bombs, both sides have their fair share of flat out idiots. thing is, the right gets called on it every day in mainstream media, and on social media networks not named youtube or gab (and even there they still get called out by right wingers)

I'm just saying if that's the number that you have in your head and it's from a right wing news source. A heavily right wing news source. Then well, maybe you need to reconsider if you're consuming enough from both sides considering that most of what you've been doing has been recycling right wing talking points yet whenever I try to pin you down for doing so you go "well actually I'm a centrist". If you paid mind to both sides for stuff besides talking points by right-wingers you'd notice the actual violence is slanted rather heavily towards the other direction. You can be a centrist if you want just well actually give actually reading sources a chance instead of literally developing your entire opinion of things on youtube videos.

 

Your other sources were either opinion pieces or things that cited the Breitbart number, there were no actual numbers to go into. I already stated I really don't give a sheet about going tit for tat regarding individual youtube moments. I don't know these individual protest memes because I straight up don't care what individuals do in SJW OWNED CRINGE COMPILATION 14. You have no evidence that reporting is different, media reaction, maybe? Also the main thing was the bombs were actual bombs, the threats were ultimately just threats, Cesar's bombs were x-rayed, they were intended to go off and his massive social media presence painted a very clear picture of who he was. Meanwhile, ricin threat dude was ultimately some nobody.

 

 

Nobody on the right goes to said protests to start violence in the first place. That's the difference. look at any right wing protest, the instigators are always left wingers who show up and start sheet. The right wingers do not do that. Of course left leaning groups can have peaceful protests, the right doesn't show up to start fights with them. the opposite is not true. even when the right wants to hold as peaceful a rally as possible, groups like antifa show up, and start chanting ,and attacking people. 

 

 

Never said they didn't have problems with the cops. And there are numerous threads in the past where i've agreed with dad that there are problems between the police and black people. that said, how helpful is it for a group like BLM to show up, endorsing violence en masse against the police? The people torturing the white kid for hours were another example of leftist violence, That was the point. BLM came one statement after i used them as an example. and i didn't say those two were connected. also, the fact that they were blatantly screaming funk trump, and shouting funk whitey (quite racist of them mind you) kinda demonstrates that the violence in their case, was purely political. why shout the name of the man who had just became president if the violence weren't political? I ask you once more, do you condemn violence on all side? I do. No matter if i understand the reasons or not, i don't condone acts of violence. You have yet to say you do, so i'd like to at least get that out the way.

Nobody on the right goes to left wing protests with the intent to start sheet? The Westboro Baptist Church? Hell the entire sort of sect of the JESUS CHRIST IS OUR SAVIOR YOU'RE ALL BURNING IN HELL and GOD HATES bastards sorts that are omnipresent in gay rallies? Like what the funk are you talking about? Do you have an actual figure for this sheet or is this another youtube hunch because you've watched a lot of videos, because go to a left wing rally and you'll see plenty of fundamentalists talking sheet and spitting on people for just wanting to live their funking life.

 

Okay again, proof that those black teens were leftists? Were they even old enough to vote? I'm not endorsing them, I'm just saying that your claim that it's leftist violence and not just a weapon used to undermine someone that you hate maliciously is just bullshit propaganda. And whatever it's racist, I'm not defending them. I'm pointing out that I'm not associated with them because I don't want the police shooting me for handing them my weapon or showing them my ID.

 

If one side's ideology has lead to 2/3rds of the acts of deaths by terrorism in the last year see: https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-surging-in-the-us-fueled-by-right-wing-extremists/ and you're for innocent people not getting murdered then I believe a valid answer is to give them an ass-whooping and literally deplatform them so we don't have more murders on our belt, yes. I condemn violence on both sides that's why I advocate for the deplatforming of right wing speakers and yes "punching nazis" because a majority of lives lost is coming from this ideology and I believe it necessary to be buried or else we'll simply face more and more murders.

 

 

 

[spoiler=their chants for dead cops and assaulted cops come in many different flavors pigs in a blanket is just one of them]

The "All cops are bastards" flavor, with a dash of assault on police officers:

 

actively acting out the ideals espoused by BLM:

 

And who could forget the classic "What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want them? NOW!" chant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llkLsuIOUrs

 

And as a bonus, an attempted assault on a reporter who did not instigate violence at all:

 

 

Luckily for us all, BLM and their violent publicity has faded out slowly over the last two years, which is why the group doesn't have the prominence and balls to call for dead cops the way it used to. in case you forgot, many of their stated idols were known cop killers. Unfortunately for us, antifa took their place instead, and started attacking pretty much everybody. police, reporters, randon civillians, people carrying anything remotely patriotic. everybody.

 

Gonna have to ask for a citation on that murder claim. there's a lot of people who get thrown into the far/alt right bus that don't belong there. and about  BLM has died down, they still support disruption, and employ antifa tactics, as you saw in the above video, where BLM and antifa teamed up to chant all cops are bastards after assaulting multiple officers. You don't see them anywhere near the numbers that they were present two years ago, where there was serious chance of riots and violence. antifa picked that torch up for them. The discussion around BLM was held here a few years back actually, where i went directly to their website, pulled up their views at the time, and went over them one by one condemning or affirming each and every point. I don't have time anymore to do things that the way i used to though. in a nutshell though, Antifa has taken the place of BLM on the violence stage, and we've already been over much of what's wrong with them. All the while, BLM has yet to denounce the violence their group has been known to endorse.

 

The likes of elliot rogers are conflated to the alt/far right, the jewish shooter, the texas shooter, and the las vegas shooter (a registered democrat) are conflated to the alt right, and many more. even trump is tossed into the alt right category depending on the article of the week. alt/far right is literally used as a catch all term to pin negativity onto the right without having to back the claim. were i to start tossing shooters into the alt left category the way they're tossed into the alt right one, Chicago alone would fill the bucket to the brim.

 

Considering antifa's already on the list, the proud boys making it in is pretty much par for course. I'm somewhat fine with that. Though gavin could very well file a lawsuit to clear the name since they foolishly went for the white supremacist label, and the group openly admits people of all races, and has since it's inception. If they'd stuck with just the violent extremist label they'd have a safe accusation, but they went a touch too far and might get bitten back if they try to push the white supremacist label onto the group.

 

Once more though, do you condemn violence and violent endorsement from all sides? you might have answered it in the above comment, but it never hurts to put the comment down twice, since it's the main focus of the discussion.

So your point of "pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon" being a well-known quote that represents the movement is a lie that you bought because Gavin said it. It was a chant that was used once then discarded immediately. Weird how that would work for an organization who's whole goal is killing cops to immediately cease using that chant. BLM's movement and their influence hasn't faded in the slightest, just their violence has died down, Kaepernick is literally the face of Nike right now. The Hate U Give is a funking film that's in theatres. Michael B. Jordan and the director of Black Panther (one of the highest grossing films this year) literally funking made their ENTIRE CAREER off of originally starring as Oscar Grant in Fruitvale Station. They still host protests and their influence has grown beyond it.

 

Alright lets see the video evidence.

 

You could've literally just googled the "dead cops" chant to know that video was false. What the funk are you doing man? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/black-lives-matter-protesters-chant-for-dead-cops-now-in-baton-rouge/

 

A police officer having a scuffle of which we literally don't know what the start of the fight was where people immediately backed up when they were told and the one guy who remained in the fight actually was trying to BREAK IT UP. For all we know the cop could've thrown the first blow as there's literally no evidence to the contrary. Skeptical proof of "assault" here when we literally don't know who started the fight and that if the police officer wasn't in the wrong, why wouldn't they move to arrest the suspect since the crowd immediately began to dispatch (rudely) from the scene? My money's on, cop started it.

 

You have a highly edited video in which a youtube reporter gets told to funk off repeatedly and then gets smacked twice while we don't actually know the context on why he was attacked. Either way these random civilians wanting some troll to funk off isn't necessarily much proof of a violent disposition, hell the right's got SENATORS that bodyslam reporters for having the wrong camera. He outright says at the beginning that his intent is to get on people's nerves and start a fight. Now, doesn't this run contrary to your first claim? That conservatives/centrists NEVER go to left-wing rallies and start sheet? That's quite funny that you consider this to be evidence. And yeah you don't see what he does to provoke because he literally EDITED IT OUT. 

 

Alright so three bullshit pieces of evidence with one literal black nationalist nation of islam shooter who's affiliation is far more linked to actual hate groups like the Nation of Islam moreso then Black Lives Matter. If you wanna fight the black nationalists then I'm all for it. Denounced, the one or two guys who shot people out of a movement of millions.

 

Did I ever say I considered any of those people alt-right? No, I didn't. I have Dylan Roof who killed 9 people. Bigger death toll from a fringe ideology then a perfectly legitimate movement.

 

The only way you could say antifa has taken the place of BLM and that they pattered out in the slightest is if you get your news from youtube or right wing sources where they did indeed, get replaced as a boogieman by the right.

 

If you condemn violence by all sides your eyes would be on the murders committed by right wing terrorists rather then the street scuffles by guys in masks. You wouldn't be making excuses for a gang like the Proud Boys who constantly get into fights if you saw everything through one lense. I believe that ultimately, there is no true centrism for when you go into the facts of the matter. Disavowing protests and riots and even violence as widespread occurrence entirely empowers ideologies who are willing to break those rules repeatedly such as white supremacists who already don't care for the law as it is written. I'm not going high when they go low, if they want to keep radicalizing shooters they can deal with getting punched in the face now and then.

 

Anti-Bigotry >>> Anti-Violence for me.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Question. What happened to "we're not going to agree might as well stop"?

[Phantom Roxas]

That's fair enough for the first point, at least on your own end. Just remember, one of the people being called a nazi happens to be the exact kind of person who would check off nearly every gas chamber candidate box, and has publicly criticized and ridicules the alt right and racists as much, if not more than he's actually used their symbols to troll people. He might be chill with people like Spencer, but he is not their ally so much as he's just not their enemy. (talking about milo here, the gay jew who likes black men, his very existence checks just about all the boxes that a nazi would hate)

 

That has not stopped Milo from soliciting advice from Neo-Nazis, including a man who encouraged his followers to harass anyone attending Heather Heyer's funeral. I get it, "he's a troll" and all that, and while he did disavow Richard Spencer, he's still interested in using neo-Nazis as a part of his "brand". Yes, his very existence is exactly what Nazis detest, and that's what makes it so frustrating that Milo collaborates with neo-Nazis anyway. The only reason he gets a pass from being a "gas chamber candidate" is that he works with Nazis to bring down other common enemies. That is exactly what makes him an ally.

[Proto]

Question. What happened to "we're not going to agree might as well stop"?

People started flexing awful sources as a victory lap and unfortunately I'm pretty decent at actually reading everything that gets posted. So when I say I'm done and then Melkor and vla1ne try to get the last laugh it is absolutely necessary to check what they actually link to.

 

I've given up on the philosophical argument, I'm not that dude. I can however laugh at their hypocrisies and the fact that Melkor considers shutting the door on someone to be assault or leaving garbage in front of their offices a legitimate threat to right wingers and vla1ne literally getting something wrong every post because his sources come from searching a video on youtube and then not actually watching them.

 

I gave up agreeing a while ago, I'm just laughing at them.

[cr47t]

I'm gonna make a really bold statement here.

 

With all the right-wing violencers doing their violence in the name of MAGA and then blaming the left-wing violencers (who are extremely outnumbered), and with Winter and Vla1ne backing them up, I'm going to say that "Make America Great Again" is becoming the new "Do What Thou Wilt" - both a phrase used by despicable people to claim the moral high ground while also using it to justify the most deplorable things (violent immorality in MAGAs case, belief system immorality in DWTW's case). I'm aware that Vlaine and Winter haven't cited MAGA much, but the people they're defending do.

 

I am also aware of the systems that have adopted DWTW and I am not comparing conservatism or rightism to it, just the MAGA movement, in terms of blind loyalty.

 

TLDR: Winter, Vlaine, cut the bullshit.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

nice post of debunked talking pts

[cr47t]

Stuff like this is why people don't take you seriously. What in my post is debunked or a talking point? If I'm proven wrong, I'll accept that I'm wrong, but you have to do more than throw discrediting phrases ("debunked","talking points") at me.