• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Social Justice Black Lives Matter Discussion Thread

I haven't seen the video in question... I really am not going to watch it because the content would be deeply disturbing to me and I don't need convincing (I can imagine what is described is true) - did this really happen? BLM protesters killed a raccoon on video?
Yes they are involved with black lives matter. The relative of the man in the video that tortured and killed the poor raccoon is in BLM and so is her animal murdering relative.

 
^ exactly. it is a troubling video for sure.

priest was invited to substantiate his claim. he is unable or unwilling to do so. the best he can do is "it'is pretty obvious". i.e. nothing...

alasdair
As I wrote previously why should I even bother? You would just claim what I write or link is not true, and that there is no way the animal killing people in the video are in the racist hate group black lives matter. 8)
 
As I wrote previously why should I even bother? You would just claim what I write or link is not true, and that there is no way the animal killing people in the video are in the racist hate group black lives matter.
that is simply untrue, not to mention a convenient dodge.

if you substantiate your claim, i won't be able to do either.

alasdair
 
Yes they are involved with black lives matter. The relative of the man in the video that tortured and killed the poor raccoon is in BLM and so is her animal murdering relative.


read through the entire link, the only thing that even mentions it once is a screenshot of a comment he made saying you're more worried about this animal than you are black people. And he says BLM once. Again it's a screenshot that Isn't linked to the source so it may have been tampered with. Regardless, uttering the words BLM doesn't make you a part of the organization or mean that you represent them.
 
Really? @Priest? Now it seems that you are just clowning yourself.

How is anyone supposed to take anything you posit here seriously, when you just can not explain yourself properly?
 
...

Chad Wolf’s Desperate Attempt to Rewrite History

Recognizing that he’s in hot water, Chad Wolf, who was illegally appointed as head of DHS, wants us to forget about the administration's lawlessness.


For weeks, federal agents with the Department of Homeland Security laid siege to the city of Portland to suppress the voices of those demanding justice for Black lives. The militarized agents used sharpshooters to maim people, swept protesters away in unmarked cars, and brutally attacked journalists, legal observers, and medics with sonic weapons and tear gas. They didn’t spare moms, dads, veterans, nurses, or even the city’s mayor.

The agency’s lawlessness was so profound that a federal court in Portland issued a restraining order against the agency after the ACLU filed suit. Congress held numerous hearings. The agency’s inspector general opened an investigation. Even former leaders of the Department of Homeland Security decried its abuses. Richard Clarke, who served on the National Security Council for Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, called for dismantling DHS.

The administration’s effort to use its response to the protests in Portland as some twisted campaign prop miserably backfired, and the agents were forced to retreat. Now, recognizing that he’s in hot water, Chad Wolf, who was illegally appointed as head of DHS, is on a media tour in an attempt to rewrite history.

But the truth was caught on video for the world to see. No press interview, no op-ed, and no statement by any administration official can undo the fact that DHS agents beat a Navy veteran for simply asking them questions. They can’t hide the viral video of unmarked federal agents — later identified to be with DHS — hauling a protester off the streets of Portland into an unmarked vehicle. They can’t make us forget the sight of DHS agents firing tear gas at individuals simply exercising their right to protest, or beating and dragging off medics providing aid to an unconscious bystander. They also can’t erase the decades of abuse, civil rights violations, killings, and discriminatory surveillance of Black, Brown, and immigrant communities.

Wolf did get one fact right: “Courthouses uphold everyone's rights.” The federal court in Portland did uphold the people’s rights when DHS brought its police state tactics there. It ordered the agency to stop arresting and attacking journalists and legal observers. But DHS didn’t comply with the court order — even after the court issued its restraining order, the agency continued to attack journalists and legal observers.

An agency claiming to defend the courthouse should, at a minimum, obey the orders coming out of it.

As we have for a century — much longer than DHS has been around — the ACLU will continue to unapologetically defend the Constitution from all those who undermine it. This includes the Department of Homeland Security. DHS is too powerful, too abusive, and too much of a threat to America’s democratic values. As ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero and former Bush administration official Richard Clarke put it, it's time to go back to the drawing board.

...

 
there are extremists in every movement. we probably agree on that and i do agree that the extremists in the antifa and blm movements do both of those causes a huge disservice. but it's a mistake to paint the entire organization - whatever that organization - with the actions of a small subset of those members

Fully agree with the quoted assertion. Though the bold part can also be applied to cops who kill blacks, and that's part of why I have an issue with BLM & Antifa.
 
wow, so now we're bringing back homophobia too. Great.

No, but not everyone agrees with trying to dismantle the "nuclear family". IIRC a guy was just recently beat by protesters for trying to help out a trans woman so they might not be the best representation of gay rights anyways.
 
Last edited:
No, but not everyone agrees with trying to dismantle the "nuclear family"

This is a bad faith argument, in my opinion, as it takes the verbage out of context.

"We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
"
 
This is a bad faith argument, in my opinion, as it takes the verbage out of context.

"We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
"

How exactly does that go against what I just said?
 
It's not trying to dismantle the nuclear family for the whole country, it's trying to put an emphasis and focus on bringing positive change to the people that would benefit from it. We all do this now, to a point, it's just putting more emphasis on the community side. The argument you gave tried to make this concept binary or absolute, and it is not.
 
It's not trying to dismantle the nuclear family for the whole country, it's trying to put an emphasis and focus on bringing positive change to the people that would benefit from it. We all do this now, to a point, it's just putting more emphasis on the community side. The argument you gave tried to make this concept binary or absolute, and it is not.

Well that means you don't fully support BLM's agenda then.
 
Top