As we wait for the jury to render their verdict in the Chauvin case, I wanted to mention a couple of outcomes that aren't talked about very much.
------ (edit)
Apparently this verdict will be announced within the next hour.
Yet, crowds of black voices fill the streets of downtown Minneapolis chanting "Burn it down!". One has to wonder if we'll see fires in Minneapolis no matter what the verdict is.
The pro Floyd/BLM folks have a choice to make regarding how they respond. What that choice is will seemingly shape these discussions for the forseeable future.
-------
1. The hung jury. I think that it's possible/likely that there are one or two people on the jury who will end up at one of the extremes (2nd degree murder or acquittal) and who aren't going to budge. I think it's possible, but less likely, that some on the jury will be swayed by the pressure and adopt a contrary position as a way to protect themselves from reprisals. No matter that the reason, I think that a hung jury is possible. The problem I see is that those who are ready to protest/riot are so uninformed regarding the workings of the judicial system that they will see a hung jury as the same thing as an acquittal. I suspect they'll be more incensed if Chauvin gets bail. The question is- Will a hung jury lead to rioting? I suspect it will.
The secondary issues around a hung jury are the reality that the prosecution against the other cops gets put on indefinite hold, and that the prosecution's case isn't going to be any better if they choose to retry Chauvin.
2. Over conviction. I and those in the legal profession I've talked to, do not see how either of the murder charges fits the facts of the case, and that the manslaughter charges are not particularly well suited either. I think that a 3rd degree manslaughter conviction will lead to riots, although I can see the jury thinking that it's a good compromise. But, if they convict him of 2nd degree murder, then the issue becomes the appellate process. There are multiple grounds for appeal, the timing of the settlement announcement and the Waters incitement are the two most obvious. But, let's say Chauvin gets convicted of murder 2 and promptly appeals. I think that it's likely that murder 2 gets overturned on appeal after years in the system. The question then is- Do people riot 3 years from now if Chauvin gets the conviction overturned on appeal?
What's interesting to watch is the National Guard FOB right down the street from my office. They've taken over two hotels and turned them into the staging area for the NG. They've also called in reinforcements from LEO in other states. On top of that are the number of businesses that are already boarded up in anticipation. The reality is that if there is rioting, there is absolutely no rational way to place responsibility on anyone except those on the political left. I know people will try, but it's simply not going to represent reality.
Finally, I can't think of anything that fits the words and actions of Maxine Waters better that inciting insurrection. She (and others) are literally threatening anything from confrontation to rioting if they don't get the verdict they want.
"insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government."
Given that the judicial system is an established branch of the civil government of the state of MN, and that the threat is to revolt against the verdict rendered by this branch of the government, it seems like insurrection fits this situation pretty well.
On another topic. Remember the Capitol Police officer beaten to death with a fire extinguisher? Remember how the media covered his death? Well, it seems that he wasn't actually beaten to death with a fire extinguisher and died of natural causes. Do you think we'll see front page headlines with the Truth of the story anytime soon?
91 comments:
I saw this earlier in response to the multiple instances of elected officials trying to push the verdict to what they think is the “right verdict”. The reality is that there is no right or wrong verdict, there’s just the verdict. Agree or not, the verdict is the verdict, and the appellate process will confirm or deny the legal process. B
Craig... "I and those in the legal profession I've talked to, do not see how either of the murder charges fits the facts of the case..."
I have to wonder how this is possible? I'm guessing you've ONLY spoken with conservatives in the legal profession and gone out of your way to avoid others in the legal profession saying, of course, he should be convicted, as he has.
The prosecution was right on when they said just trust your eyes. He appeared to kill Floyd because he DID kill Floyd. Just as we all saw.
Craig... "I can't think of anything that fits the words and actions of Maxine Waters better that inciting insurrection."
I'm sorry, but ANY conservatives who failed to speak out against Trump's assault on the democratic process just has no credibility.
No right or wrong verdict? Are you serious?
Why look Dan comes out of the gate making unfounded and unsupported assumptions.
Typical Dan bullshit.
Anybody who ripped Trump to shreds but fails to treat Waters the same is simply engaging in blind partisanship.
Yes, the verdict was always going to be the verdict regardless of anyone’s opinion. That’s how the legal system works.
Art, I think I accidentally deleted your comment. My apologies.
The difference between Trump and Waters is quite clear to all but the racists and useful idiots.
If you're one of those groups...
Trump has a clear history of supporting racists and violence against righteous protesters.
Waters has a clear and evident history of working for peaceful justice.
This is why character and decency matter. This is why rejecting racism and oppression matter.
Are you glad to see this verdict, Craig? Do you think an attempt at justice and accountability has been accomplished with this verdict.
Craig... "Do you think we'll see front page headlines with the Truth of the story anytime soon?"
Yes, I HAVE heard about that. And where was it that I heard about it? Oh, yeah, from the MEDIA... you know, the group you're trying to demonize with stupidly false accusations.
And what the MEDIA reported was that he died from natural causes (stroke) after facing down the insurrectionists that Trump encouraged. But do we hear CRAIG talking about THAT reality?
We see.
Craig... "Why look Dan comes out of the gate making unfounded and unsupported assumptions.
Typical Dan bullshit."
Why look, Craig comes out of the gate with empty-headed and vague and unsupported accusations.
Typical Craig bullshit.
What I did was ask a reasonable question. I've seen countless legal experts express that this was clearly a case of a wrongful death and that the charges were clearly supported. And GIVEN that reality, I ASKED the question, "How is it possible that Craig hasn't heard THAT side of the story?
It's a reasonable question and instead of answering it, you made a stupidly false and unsupported accusation.
Typical.
From CNN's (and NPR, etc, etc) headlines...
Sicknick death ruled 'natural' but experts say stress can set off strokes
"Sicknick suffered strokes that killed him, according to the medical examiner's office.
However, the medical examiner, Dr. Francisco Diaz,
told the Washington Post, that "all that transpired" on January 6 "played a role in his condition."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/20/health/sicknick-death-natural-strokes/index.html
When you cite the part of the news that the racists and anti-government/useful idiot types like, but FAIL to report the whole story, you're part of the problem of lending support to racists and insurrectionists.
No worries, Craig. I don't recall all of what no doubt was a very profound and insightful comment, but it included the following from a Yahoo article:
"The jury’s verdict might not be the end of the Chauvin case. Nelson raised multiple objections before and throughout the trial that could form the basis of a strong appeal, according to David Schultz, a visiting professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and professor at Hamline University.
“I am convinced that if there’s a guilty verdict, the defense has laid the groundwork for an appeal on the argument of saying that it was impossible to get a fair trial in this atmosphere,” Schultz told Yahoo News before the verdict.
“Even before jury selection starts, you’ve got the request for a change of venue,” he continued. “You’ve got the intensity of the coverage. You’ve got the concerns [that], perhaps that if a jury acquits, are there going to be riots? Then we throw in the Minneapolis settlement with the Floyd family. The [Daunte Wright] shooting, Rep. Maxine Waters’s comments.”"
With the above in mind, and without clarification on your comment regarding no right or wrong verdict, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of wondering as Dan does what exactly you mean. I would say that the verdict was indeed wrong given the details of the case as well as the manner in which the prosecutor did his job...which wasn't exactly cricket.
"The prosecution was right on when they said just trust your eyes."
This is a tell if ever there was one. "Trust your eyes"...ignore the evidence and expert testimony. The prosecutor knows that the defense has more than presented reasonable doubt which the prosecutor's case didn't overcome, or else he wouldn't have encouraged the jurors to ignore the evidence in favor of what they think they saw in a video. Of course for progressives suffering from white guilt, that's the only way a guilty verdict is possible, and it's clear that's how it came to be.
"I'm sorry, but ANY conservatives who failed to speak out against Trump's assault on the democratic process just has no credibility."
What assault, Dan? Be specific. Are you really suggesting that anyone who questions the outcome of an election is somehow guilty of launching an assault on the democratic process? Are you really that corrupt? Be careful how you answer given so many lefties who have questioned election results in the recent past.
RE Sicknik.
As I pointed out, the entirety of the story I was commenting on was the coverage of his death. The indisputable fact that he was not beaten to death with a fire extinguisher as the media reported for days. That's what I'm commenting on. The fact that the media chose to run with a false narrative, and the lack of correction/retraction after the narrative was proven to be false.
The fact that you have to resort to speculation in order to try to maintain and protect some semblance of the false narrative, says enough.
Dan,
I wasn't referring to your question, I was referring to this bit of unsupported, speculative, bullshit.
"I'm guessing you've ONLY spoken with conservatives in the legal profession and gone out of your way to avoid others in the legal profession saying, of course, he should be convicted, as he has."
What I actually said was that I was referring to people that I had actually "talked to". Again the fact that you have to manufacture bullshit by speculation about something that I didn't actually say, speaks volumes.
Yes, I was inundated by all sorts of "experts" on local media on a daily basis. I also talked to other people in the legal profession.
I appreciate your need to protect your ego by doubling down on your bullshit, unsupported, hunches, it's both sad and amusing.
"Do you think we'll see front page headlines with the Truth of the story anytime soon?"
Please provide some links to the days of front page stories pointing out the "corrections" to the original narrative.
"Are you glad to see this verdict, Craig?"
No, I'm not glad. As I said from the beginning, I think Chauvin should have been convicted of something, but the facts (as we knew them then) didn't seem to fit any of the charges. I personally think that there was ample room for reasonable doubt, but I wasn't on the jury. I'm disappointing by the number of people who are blatantly acknowledging that they believe that the verdict was the result of the threats of violence that have been present for the past 11 months. I'm trying to come to grips with the fact that there are so many who want to dispense with due process when it's convenient for their narrative. I'm surprised that the fact that MPLS has a (recent) history of convicting cops who wrongfully kill people, is getting ignored. I'm disappointed to hear the same folks who've done nothing to improve the situation trying to capitalize on this for political purposes. I'm grateful that we didn't see more destruction. I'm a lot of things, but "glad" isn't one of them.
"Do you think an attempt at justice and accountability has been accomplished with this verdict."
I think that (as we've seen before) that there has been accountability. Given the external threats, the publishing of the jurors personal information, and the heavy handed attempts by the city and the state to influence the outcome, I can't say that this was anything close to justice. I think Greg Gutfield was close to right when he said talked about how Chauvin was sacrificed regardless of his actual guilt as a way to prevent the violence and destruction that we saw last summer.
The problem is that, the system (mostly) worked the way it is supposed to and actually worked very quickly. The fact that many are denying this reality as a way to continue to push a narrative, is concerning.
If justice and accountability were really on the agenda, then we wouldn't be ignoring those who actually control the "systems". If justice was really the goal, we wouldn't be ignoring the reality that "racism" was not even attempted to be proven by the state, yet the "racist cop" narrative continues.
This notion that Water's incitement to insurrection should be ignored because "Trump bad" is simply absurd.
It literally takes the concept of agency and responsibility for one's individual actions and turns it on it's head.
The fact that a sitting US congressperson was openly advocating for the use of threats to influence a state court (especially as she's not from here) is egregious.
I'm not going to go down the road, but do we really want to paint Waters as a paragon of virtue?
Finally, after seeing what happened with Trump, the fact that Waters chose to behave as she did only seems that much more egregious.
Craig... " Please provide some links to the days of front page stories..."
From npr on January 8th, they said...
"He died around 9:30 p.m. ET Thursday "due to injuries sustained while on-duty," Capitol Police said in a statement.
"Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters," the law enforcement agency said. "He returned to his division office and collapsed."
In other words, they repeated the news as it was told to them by the police department. Because that's what reporters do.
Because I'm on my phone, I can't easily copy and paste something then jump back to paste something else.But the link is easily found.
Later on, when more data was uncovered, they repeated the latest news from the experts, thereby updating the story. That's how reporting works.
You do understand that, correct?
Perhaps your problem with the media is just a lack of understanding of how the media works, or should operate. Your lack of understanding is not evidence of a lack of integrity on the part of the media. Shame on you for making that suggestion. It's a false suggestion. Unfortunately, this has become popular and accepted amongst Trump conservatives.
That you Completely fail to understand correctly Water's words is not an indication that she did something wrong. It's just another example of you reading words and drawing wrong conclusions.
You see, context matters. Words matter. Who is saying those words matter. If the person saying the words has a history of racism and oppression and violence, then those words may mean one thing. If the person saying them has a history of Working for Justice and peace, those words might mean something different. Context matters. Character matters.
Something that conservatives appear to have largely Forgotten.
Art,
As you might have noticed, I wrote at length about the appeals process. Even the judge agrees that there are grounds for an appeal. Because the appellate process is theoretically more insulated from the passions of the trial, and more focused on the technical aspects of the law, it's likely that we'll see some level of "victory" for the defense on appeal. But who knows.
As far as the verdict being "right". The reality is that in our legal system, the verdict of the jury is what it is. Based on what those people heard in that courtroom, they reached a legal, unanimous verdict. It's much like a sporting event (or what we tell our kids in youth sports), we may not agree with the official's calls but they are the officials and what they say goes.
Trying to say that the verdict was "right" because it aligns with someone's preconceived biases (or disagrees with) is simply absurd.
Where this gets interesting is on appeal. The defense isn't arguing that the jury's decision was wrong (given the circumstances). The defense is arguing that the circumstances (venue, external threats, settlement, various points of law, etc) were the problem, and that the jury under different circumstances would have decided differently.
Look we all agree that OJ killed Nicole and Ron, yet the jury decided otherwise, the legal reality is that that jury verdict still stands to this day. Because that's the way our legal system works. We may not agree with any given verdict, but that doesn't mean that we're right and the jury is wrong.
My biggest concern with this situation is the fact that everyone seems to accept that this verdict was influenced by external factors (threats of violence), and yet everyone seems to think that this is somehow a triumph of justice.
I'm not going to parse Dan's last two comments. I'll simply say that if you're going to simply trot out the same old tropes as it they represent reality, I see no reason to waste time with that any more.
I think that it bears pointing out as I think about the number of businesses that have been boarded up or been literally moving their inventory out every day when they close, that there was never any fear of riots by Chauvin supporters. The only question in most people's minds was whether or not the Floyd supporters would riot regardless of the outcome.
It seems a forgone conclusion that riots would have been inevitable had Chauvin been acquitted, but as one of the local reporters brought up yesterday, no one knew if a celebration would involve mayhem. If one looks at the recent history of sports fans celebrating championships with burning and looting, it was definitely a reasonable concern.
Om a related note, I can't believe that the Brooklyn Center city manager was fired for suggesting that they should give those involved in the Wright shooting due process. To think that the notion that we should afford people something guaranteed by the constitution is a fire able offense doesn't seem to bode well for the future.
Craig... "I'm not going to parse Dan's last two comments. I'll simply say that if you're going to simply trot out the same old tropes as it they represent reality, I see no reason to waste time with that any more."
1. YOU made the charge suggesting the media was collaborating to misrepresent the news and not admitting a "mistake" or false claim.
2. The REALITY is that the media reported what the police were passing on about the event. THAT is what the media should do.
3. The REALITY is that, when better information came along and the police changed their story, the media reported THAT. That is what the media should do.
4. The reality is that the media made no mistake and was part of no conspiracy to pass on fake news. The media reported what happened and the news they had AS they had it.
5. The reality is that you were caught trying to make a stupid, Trump-style attack on the free press and now you're saying, you are "not going to parse Dan's last two comments."
6. The reality is there's nothing to parse. The media reported the news they had and updated us as better data became available. I pointed that out to you and rather than do the right thing and admit that it was not the media, but YOU who were passing on vague and false claims and suggestions of impropriety and now YOU are the one not admitting your mistake.
Come on. You recognize that it's right to admit it when you're caught in a false claim. Do it yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.
Craig... "...I'll simply say that if you're going to simply trot out the same old tropes as it they represent reality, I see no reason to waste time with that any more."
Not at all sure what you mean with this (yet ANOTHER of the endless) vague accusations and probably false claims. Are you talking about me catching you misrepresenting the media's account of the events of Trump's insurrection day? I've already dealt with that.
Or, are you talking about noting that there's a substantial difference between dealing with words and claims and attacks from a notoriously vulgar, corrupt and dishonest man who's appealed to racists and racism and literally encouraged violence regularly in the real world... between such a corrupt man and a black woman who appears to be basically decent and who doesn't have a history of lies and corruption and attempts to stir violent response... but who instead has worked for justice and peace? The reality is that character matters. Trump has established that he is vulgar and violent and is glad to appeal to racism and undermine trust in the nation and the election.
So, are you saying the "trope" of noting that character matters? Because I don't find that to be a trope, but a great and profound truth.
We see who you attack and you you defend (by your silence and complicity, if nothing else... or by your attempts to paint those on the "other side" as being comparable to your vulgar and violent leader of your party and your white evangelicals.
We see.
Indeed. And as we see so often from Dan's comments...as he is from among those most guilty of this...truth and justice isn't all that valuable these days.
I don't believe justice was served at all in this case. That's not to insist there isn't a just way of determining whether or not Chauvin bears any responsibility for the death of a thug, but simply that it wasn't justly determined here. Not at all. As you say, even from the start, there was no way all three charges leveled against the man could be true. It bored a stark resemblance to the expression, "let's throw all this shit against the wall and see what sticks".
This trial should have been ruled a mistrial for a variety of legitimate reasons, beginning with the venue itself. Asshats want the trial to be a case of racism and police brutality against a pure and compliant suspect guilty of nothing illegal. And now we have to hear from the leftist liars about "police reform" while not a one of them, including our own Kentucky asshat, so much as hints about reforming the behaviors of citizens...which would go a lot farther in reducing police misconduct in the use of force than any police reform initiative ever could. And now we have to hear from the race-huslters and hate-mongers that this trial and conviction is only the beginning and alone does nothing to move toward their false agenda, when in fact they are concerned about moving their true racist agenda.
"Are you talking about me catching you misrepresenting the media's account of the events of Trump's insurrection day?"
No, I'm talking about your stock (vague and unspecific) "you don't understand" bullshit. You keep saying this, without ever specifying what specifically I "don't understand", or demonstrating that I "don't understand".
"Or, are you talking about noting that there's a substantial difference between dealing with words and claims and attacks from a notoriously vulgar, corrupt and dishonest man who's appealed to racists and racism and literally encouraged violence regularly in the real world... between such a corrupt man and a black woman who appears to be basically decent and who doesn't have a history of lies and corruption and attempts to stir violent response... but who instead has worked for justice and peace?"
Well, other than the fact that Waters does have a history of corruption (identified by the left) you are spot on. Once again, this notion that because Trump did something, it becomes OK for leftists to do similar things is simply an idiotic argument. This hypocritical, partisan, double standard is why it's impossible to take you seriously.
"The reality is that character matters. Trump has established that he is vulgar and violent and is glad to appeal to racism and undermine trust in the nation and the election. So, are you saying the "trope" of noting that character matters?"
No. Although using Trump's lack of character as an excuse to ignore character flaws of those on the left is definitely a problem.
1. The media literally did report a "false claim".
1a. Your characterization of what I said is false, and does not represent the reality of what I said or the point I made.
2. Yes, and that information was false. The issue isn't what they reported (and how they reported it at the time) but how they've failed to give the Truth the same amount of sensational attention as they did to the lie.
3. Again, it's much more about how they reported rather than what they reported. Maybe you are the one who doesn't understand...
4. Thanks for repeating yourself.
5. No, the first claim is not accurate. The second is. Yes, I chose not to parse two of your comments because it wasn't worth my time to do so. I parse the vast majority of your comments, answering your questions and dealing with specifics. I'm under no obligation to parse every comment you make. You rarely do so.
6. You are correct, your comments had noting of value to parse, so I didn't. FYI, thanks for repeating yourself again.
The only "claim" I made was that the reporting of the false information was done in a way that drew attention to the false information and the reporting of the Truth was much more subdued. If you'd like to prove the (specific, and limited) "claim" wrong please do so.
"2. The REALITY is that the media reported what the police were passing on about the event. THAT is what the media should do."
It seems in order to rationalize media malpractice, Dan defends them by saying they're only reporting what they're told by whomever. Yet, I had this fanciful notion that journalism includes some level of curiosity objectively applied which would compel a deeper dive than merely phoning or emailing a spokesman and virtually copy/pasting they're response and posturing as having done serious journalism. My bad.
"3. The REALITY is that, when better information came along and the police changed their story, the media reported THAT. That is what the media should do."
So I guess contrary to my fanciful notions, Dan's favored journalists sit on their backsides waiting for "news" to drop into their laps, and that's what they call "journalism". This is very enlightening...except for the part where this level of laziness was among my complaints about these enemies of the people.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the lefty media continued to refer to Sicknick's death as being caused by those they falsely refer to as "insurrectionists" when reporting on the more recent case of a Capitol cop dying on duty. The fire-extinguisher angle had already been debunked and there was little to no evidence that his death was a direct result of his involvement in the disturbance at the Capitol the lefty media was and still is all too keen on hyping as some Armegedon-level event. Now, there is at best only speculation that his two strokes may have been brought on by the stress of the situation. But no doubt lefties in the press, politics and blogs will continue to tie his death to Trump, because they're hateful liars.
"If the person saying them has a history of Working for Justice and peace, those words might mean something different."
Waters has been inciting violence since way back during the Rodney King riots. This is nothing new. Her words in recent times have been far more direct than Trump's "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Of course, encouraging his supporters to "primary the hell out of" those GOP members of Congress who don't fight for election integrity is really, really...well...not violent at all.
"...a notoriously vulgar, corrupt and dishonest man who's appealed to racists and racism..."
You mean like George Wallace and Robert Byrd? Again Dan lies about Trump seeking support from racists. Dan, like Biden, lies far more and worse than Trump!! In the meantime, Maxine Waters is a vile, hateful race-hustler who has a history of lies and corruption and attempts to stir violent response and deserves no less than expulsion from Congress.
"So, are you saying the "trope" of noting that character matters? Because I don't find that to be a trope, but a great and profound truth."
BWAAAHHHH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!! You're a funny guy.
Art,
Excellent point. You’d think that someone with such an extensive background in journalism would have realized that the job of a journalist is to dig deeper than simple printing press releases. I guess actually interviewing those on site was just too much
Interestingly enough, the only death on Jan 6 was an unarmed white woman shot by police. As the death toll shrunk, the media and the Dans of the world got quieter.
Marshal... "Dan defends them by saying they're only reporting what they're told by whomever. "
Good God in heaven, who helps you all put your underwear on straight? How do you get through the day without a nanny assisting you?!
The MEDIA REPORTS the news that's out there.
IF SOMETHING happens to a police officer, the police authorities tell them what happened and they report it.
IF something happens to a preacher, the church folk who were around the preacher tells them what happened and they report it.
IF something happens to a child at a school, the teachers tell the media what happened and they report it.
AND IF new news or updates occur, THEN they report that. IF they have reason to believe that the police (or church or school) are lying, they report that. IF they have no reason to suspect or hazard a wild guess that the authorities are lying, they don't investigate what they have no reason to doubt.
IF, for instance, I live in a small town and my house is broken into and I tell the police about it and the media hears and I tell them about it, they might report that it happened.
What they DON'T do is check to see if there were any alien sitings that night or if mischievous elves were on the loose or if the break-in was part of a hoax by me, etc, etc... IF they have no reason to doubt what's being reported, they don't investigate ANY AND ALL other potential explanations.
Because that is how life works for rational adults, including the media.
The police reported what they apparently thought happened and, with time and more information, they corrected the report.
Tell me, boys, WHY are you not fussing at the police department for spreading "lies" and "false claims..."?
WE SEE YOUR DEVIANT bias against good, rational, normal people in favor of racists and rapists and corrupt deviants.
WE SEE.
And God sees, too.
Marshal... "You're a funny guy."
Says the guy who defended and VOTED FOR the SINGLE MOST OVERTLY CORRUPT, STUPID and PERVERSE/DISHONEST president in our nation's history.
You are history's laughingstock. History will view you as the enemy of decency, truth and liberty... amongst the many white evangelical Anti-Christ's, in that you've all landed so consistently solidly in opposition to the clear teachings of Jesus, the Christ.
So, I'm glad you find that funny. You won't always.
Marshal... "Waters has been inciting violence since way back during the Rodney King riots."
You mean, she has a history of working for JUSTICE way back during the King riots. She acknowledged, along with our nation's great Peacemaker, that riots are the violence of the unheard.
I suspect that, for Marshal, Waters saying "No justice, no peace" is "inciting violence..." but that would just speak to Marshal's ignorance, not Waters' alleged violence.
“There can be no justice without peace,
and there can be no peace without justice.”
~Dr Martin Luther King
But then, you probably would claim (insanely) that King standing against oppression WAS inciting violence, too. That is, after all, what the racists back in King's day would say (and still do).
Do you?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20022703/Waters%2C%20Maxine.pdf
Why yes, “No Justice, No Peace”, is (especially in the context of recent events), clearly a threat of violence. Particularly since “justice” usually refers to the outcome desired by the group chanting, not justice as its historically been understood.
Dan... "then, you probably would claim (insanely) that King standing against oppression WAS inciting violence, too. That is, after all, what the racists back in King's day would say (and still do)."
Craig... "yes, “No Justice, No Peace”, is (especially in the context of recent events), clearly a threat of violence..."
So, when Dr King said essentially the same thing, you think - seriously! - you think that King was advocating violence??!
Do you know how insane that is? Think about what you're saying.
Let me explain reality to you...
When people are harmed, oppressed, denied Justice repeatedly for years and decades and centuries, when their calls for Justice go ignored, riots and violence WILL happen.
This is a reality of the human condition. People will only be pushed so far. At some point, the oppressed WILL push back against the oppressor. Do you understand that much?
Now, given that reality, pointing out that reality is not a threat. It's just pointing out a reality. Do you understand that much?
Likewise, pointing out that reality is not an endorsement of that reality. It's just acknowledging reality. Do you understand that much?
Dr King, blm and other social Justice Warriors go way out of their way to prevent violence. Do you acknowledge that reality?
Finally, when the oppressed finally push back against the oppressors violently, it must be understood that this violent response comes BECAUSE of the oppressor's violence. Do you understand that much.?
If you're not understanding this, go back and read more from Dr King. Read his letter from Birmingham jail. Start there.
"So, when Dr King said essentially the same thing, you think - seriously! - you think that King was advocating violence??!"
No. Of course, I'm not trying to shoehorn Dr King's words into a totally different context. I'm also not the one trying to twist King's words into supporting riots.
"Let me explain reality to you..."
Oh look, Dan is going to whiteliberalsplain things to me. I guess that whole "listen to black voices" was always a bunch of bullshit.
"Do you understand that much?"
I understand that it is something that has happened throughout history. It's good to see you abandoning your unrealistic, strict pacifism finally. have you established that it's inevitable, no.
"Now, given that reality, pointing out that reality is not a threat. It's just pointing out a reality. Do you understand that much?"
That's an interesting notion. Pointing out the "reality" that people are going to engage in violence if they don't get what they want seems like the very definition of a threat. If A, then B... Are you really suggesting that there is no choice or agency involved? That violence, burning and looting are inevitable?
"Likewise, pointing out that reality is not an endorsement of that reality. It's just acknowledging reality. Do you understand that much?"
I understand that you've convinced yourself of this disconnect, but you haven't demonstrated that your hunch is "reality".
"Dr King, blm and other social Justice Warriors go way out of their way to prevent violence. Do you acknowledge that reality?"
Sure, i acknowledge that "some" civil rights leaders have done so, and there might be some who still do. I guess I'd suggest that anyone who's trying to encourage, promote, excuse, or facilitate violence (especially when threatening violence to force preferences) isn't actually trying to achieve "social justice".
Craig... "I understand that it is something that has happened throughout history. It's good to see you abandoning your unrealistic, strict pacifism finally. have you established that it's inevitable, no."
Good God, Man! LISTEN FOR UNDERSTANDING, not for ill-fated attempts to attack those you don't understand.
I have not abandoned pacifism/just peacemaking. KING did not abandon just peacemaking.
We're acknowledging the reality that white oppression of the sort that you continue to defend WILL eventually be met by pushback, even violent pushback. And IF YOU READ MY WORDS, King and I acknowledging that reality IS NOT the same as us endorsing it. It's just a reality.
How long would you sit by and see your family jailed, beaten and oppressed unfairly? Would you continue forever - after family member after family member has been raped, jailed or killed or otherwie oppressed unjustly... would you just sit by forever and say, "It's okay..." OR would you (and if not you, some member of your family) strike back? Even violently?
It happens. And when it happens, we MUST remember that it's the fault - it was brought on by the oppressors, NOT the oppressed.
Again, just go read King.
And I wouldn't have to explain things to you if you didn't so consistently misunderstand. And don't you DARE say I haven't shown you what you've misunderstood. I just told you that you were WRONG in your assessment of me abandoning pacifism/just peacemaking. You got it ASS BACKWARDS WRONG AS HELL. DO you understand THAT?
The way you can tell is by the way I'm TELLING YOU that's not what I'm saying or believing.
Lord, have mercy.
Case in point, you mistakenly foolishly diabolically stupidly said... "Pointing out the "reality" that people are going to engage in violence if they don't get what they want seems like the very definition of a threat."
THAT is not what I said. I never said, "If we don't get our way, we will get violent."
I've said, along with generations of wise and longsuffering oppressed folks, along with Dr King, that IF you continually deny justice to an oppressed people, SOME PEOPLE will riot, will push back. That's not a defense of it, it's a recognition of what continued oppression and injustice will result in.
Now, say that back to me JUST AS I SAID IT to indicate that you understand.
Am I saying that "those who don't get what they want should get violent..."?
NO, hell no. Good God have mercy on your poor soul, NO. That is LITERALLY not what I said.
Am I saying that violence is justified?
NO.
Am I saying that we should be peaceful UNLESS we don't get what we want?
NO.
I'm saying that IF there is no violence, THEN there will not be peace. Some people will strike back against the oppressors, even violently. Others will disturb the peace non-violently (against people, anyway... some may choose "violence" against material things, like Jesus overturning the tables in the temple and chasing out the traders' goods with a whip - That IS disturbing the peace... presumably you wouldn't side with the religious zealots that day and say that this Jesus must die?).
That is what I'm saying, no more, no less.
Do you understand now?
Craig foolishly and stupidly made this false claim... "I understand that you've convinced yourself of this disconnect, but you haven't demonstrated that your hunch is "reality"."
No. The REALITY IS that I am not advocating violence. I DO recognize the reality that oppressed people WILL strike back eventually AND that is not an endorsement of that reality, it's just acknowledging reality. People can simultaneously recognize reality AND push for a better way. And especially when we're talking about the oppression of historically oppressed people.
Likewise, EVEN THOUGH King acknowledged that there CAN BE no peace without justice DOES NOT MEAN that he was advocating war or violence.
Likewise, EVEN THOUGH protestors today say, along with King, "NO justice, no peace," that doesn't mean they're advocating riots or violence.
What part of reality are you failing to understand?
Go read King.
Craig... " I guess I'd suggest that anyone who's trying to encourage, promote, excuse, or facilitate violence (especially when threatening violence to force preferences) isn't actually trying to achieve "social justice"."
Yeah, that's precisely what the racists said about King, too.
Open your eyes.
Why are you fighting so very hard against those fighting for justice?
Get on the right side of decency and justice.
Craig... "Sure, i acknowledge that "some" civil rights leaders have done so, and there might be some who still do."
"Some..."? You piece of lying shit. How about the very BLM activists you continually attack without reason?
https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/
93% of BLM rallies have been peaceful. These are VERY tense situations where people are righteously upset about police violence/oppression AND they have often involved the police themselves provoking violence. NONETHELESS, 93% of the rallies have been peaceful. Why not BEGIN by acknowledging BLM for their efforts at peacemaking? Why not criticize the police for their provocation of violence?
You DO know that this is the exact reality-denying language that racists have been using for decades/centuries?
Have you READ King? His Letter from a Birmingham Jail, for instance?
Applying political pressure, EVEN BY disturbing the peace and making people (especially the white people in control) uncomfortable, is part of the process of fighting for justice. You're not SUPPOSED to feel comfortable with NVDA is happening, if you're not on the side of justice.
Does that make you pause, at all?
That is, if you're not feeling comfortable because of the work of justice activists, MAYBE you're on the wrong side of morality and justice...
Ohhhhhhhhhh, more whiteliberalsplaining!!
"Have you READ King? His Letter from a Birmingham Jail, for instance?"
Yes. Of course we're in a completely different context, where violence, death threats, and mayhem are part of the picture.
Craig... ". Are you really suggesting that there is no choice or agency involved?"
No. Choice and agency have been saving white oppressors for decades, clearly there is choice involved.
Craig... "That violence, burning and looting are inevitable?"
NO, but I agree with King that it's likely that oppression will result in violence and that WHEN it happens, it should be understood that it happened BECAUSE of the oppression, not because black people responding to violence with violence are "bad."
Craig... ". Of course we're in a completely different context, where violence, death threats, and mayhem are part of the picture."
Ohhhhhh... more conservative whitesplaining. I'll be sure to let the black folks know you've given us the answer, massah.
That is, I GET that YOU think the context is entirely different. But that's just your privileged white hunch. White racists ALSO always have found a way to justify oppression and blame the "uppity blacks" for "stirring up violence..." instead of owning it for themselves.
Can you acknowledge that just because you think the context is "completely different," not all folks - especially black folks - would agree with you?
So, if you've read King, YOU KNOW that he says that riots are the voice of the unheard, that NVDA involves applying pressure and making white folks like you feel "uncomfortable," and white folks with privilege will often view conflict raised by fighting for justice to be "stirring up conflict..." and that this discomfort white folks feel is vital for effecting change?
Then WHY are you questioning the discomfort you feel rather than owning it and recognizing it as part of the effort to effect change? You know, like the racists and their more liberal sympathizers complained about with King?
Craig... "Where violence, death threats and mayhem are part of the picture..."?
Are you saying that violence, death threats and mayhem were NOT part of the picture in King's day? You aren't that blind, are you?
"You're not SUPPOSED to feel comfortable with NVDA is happening, if you're not on the side of justice."
If we were actually talking about NVDA you might have a point. However, we're NOT talking about NVDA. The fact that you can't grasp the amount of VIOLENCE and threats of violence we've experienced up here. I have absolutely zero problem with peaceful protest. I do have a problem with "If you don't do what we want, we're going to burn things down". I really have a problem with your naive insistence that we're talking about King and nonviolence when the burned out shells of buildings dot the landscape and multiple police stations are surrounded by barricades. The fact that any "systemic racism" up here is the direct responsibility of the DFL and DFL/liberal/progressive political policies just makes your ostrich-like behavior even worse.
"Does that make you pause, at all?"
Lots of things make me pause, but watching the citizens of MPLS vote themselves into a shithole where nobody wants to go stopped giving me pause quite some time ago. I'm perfectly willing to let the citizens of MPLS do whatever the hell they want.
"Are you saying that violence, death threats and mayhem were NOT part of the picture in King's day? You aren't that blind, are you?"
I'm saying that King and his supporters were not engaging in death threats, violence, and mayhem. I'm not that blind, but apparently you are.
" it should be understood that it happened BECAUSE of the oppression, not because black people responding to violence with violence are "bad.""
Got it. Black people who resort to violence aren't doing anything bad, and they're not responsible for their actions. I guess we should have just not even bothered to stop the burning and looting. It's inevitable, so just let them roll.
Holy crap. 4 more comments of Dan whiteliberalsplaining fountains of bullshit.
Dan, I get it. You have no problem with riots, with physically attacking police engaged in their lawful duties. A big race war is inevitable and we should just let it happen.
This "listen to black voices" you spout is clearly bullshit, you're perfectly willing to speak for black voices.
I'll post your whiteliberalsplaining later when I have the patience to wade through all the crap and parse it all.
Craig... "I'm saying that King and his supporters were not engaging in death threats, violence, and mayhem. I'm not that blind, but apparently you are."
And are you now trying to say that BLM is involved in death threats, violence and mayhem?
If so, then you are either a diabolical lying piece of shit OR a useful idiot for the racists and the Trump-type conspiracy-spinning con men out there.
Which is it?
Can you acknowledge that you can't point to a SINGLE DEATH THREAT - NOT A GOD DAMNED ONE - from BLM leadership? That you can't point to a single bit of violence by BLM leaders?
Admit it, you liar, or provide proof.
And don't you dare drop back to phrases that YOU INTERPRET to be violent, not without proof.
Because I don't give a God damned bit of care what YOU are READING INTO people's comments. You've established quite well that you are not good at interpretation.
Re: "attacking police engaged in lawful duties..."
1. Just another stupidly diabolical false claim from yet another Trumpian liar, the ones who are comfortable with making up stupidly clearly false claims to advance their racist-endorsed agenda.
2. WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE the reality that the police were often PROVOKING violence? Shooting rubber bullets into peaceful crowds, at reporters doing their job, at protesters protesting POLICE VIOLENCE? Here's a hint, oppressors, IF you're being accused of police violence, ENGAGING IN police violence won't help your case.
Open your eyes.
We see, it's time you do.
Craig... " I get it. You have no problem with riots, with physically attacking police engaged in their lawful duties. A big race war is inevitable and we should just let it happen."
You have TWO options that I can see.
1. Admit I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS and OF COURSE, this is not what I'm saying. You can know that by the way I never said anything like it and because it is so stupidly satanically false that it could ONLY come from the father of lies... or, perhaps, a modern conservative.
2. Show me where I said that.
And of course, the reality is that you CAN'T do that (show me where I said it), so, you have ONE option: Admit you are making up God damned lies.
Shame on you. You're letting yourself get dragged under by your partisan allegiances.
I guess the other option is to do nothing and just admit you don't mind making up false claims.
We see.
I find pathetic that Dan tries to force a parallel between racists like Maxine Waters or BLM leaders and MLK. When MLK said a riot is the voice of the unheard, he wasn't in any way condoning it. It wasn't the voice he believed the black community should express, given he was staunchly opposed to it and felt the vast majority of the black community preferred non-violent methods to promote change. Those Dan supports are not on the same page.
Craig... "whiteliberalsplaining..."
You keep saying this when I'm just telling you what the vast majority of black people are saying. But you telling the vast majority of black people that they're wrong and they should listen to you and the tiny minority of black people Please opinion you approve of.., that's not white splaining?
We see.
Yes Dan, when you acknowledge that you are explaining what "the vast majority of black people" believe, it's pretty much exactly what "whiteliberalsplaining" would be. I'd rather listen to black voices, and I do.
You've frequently said that "riots and violence WILL happen." or similar things. Either you are saying-
1. "riots and violence WILL happen.", and that you will be supporting them.
or
2. "riots and violence WILL happen.", and you think that riots and violence are wrong and should be avoided.
Why don't you explain in detail your thoughts on what "will happen"? Maybe then we wouldn't have to try to extrapolate from your vagueness.
"And are you now trying to say that BLM is involved in death threats, violence and mayhem?"
I'm saying, more precisely, that BLM supporters are involved in death threats, violence, and mayhem, while wearing BLM merch and carrying signs that advocate for and support BLM. I'm saying it because I've seen it with my own two eyes. I've also NOT seem BLM intervene to stop the death threats, violence, and mayhem. I guess you could argue that silence is support.
1. This is what happens when you try to argue against your version of what I've actually said.
"Which is it?"
It's what I've seen with my own eyes.
"Can you acknowledge that you can't point to a SINGLE DEATH THREAT - NOT A GOD DAMNED ONE - from BLM leadership?"
Of course, the BLM leadership canard. I was unaware that ONLY the actions of the "BLM leadership" were valid representations of the organization as a whole.
"That you can't point to a single bit of violence by BLM leaders?"
Not off hand, just by their followers.
Craig...
"Why don't you explain in detail your thoughts on what "will happen"? Maybe then we wouldn't have to try to extrapolate from your vagueness."
1. Except that I have not been vague. I have always been quite clear that I am one that leans towards just peacemaking Or pacifism.
2. That I and doctor king knowledge that continued denied Justice will likely lead to riots or push backup some sort is just acknowledging reality, not endorsing violence.
See point one.
3. Yes. Of course violence and riots should be avoided. After all the years of reading me, did you really think I was suggesting otherwise?
The oppressors should not keep oppressing and denying Justice and thus, push people into rioting. Again, I've always been abundantly clear.
4. I have also been quite clear that we should acknowledge that when oppressive people continually deny Justice and oppress, when oppressed people push back, it is the oppressors who are at fault for provoking it.
Understand now?
Marshal... "Those Dan supports are not on the same page."
Bullshit. Plain and simple. Another diabolical lie that he can't support.
Craig... "it's pretty much exactly what "whiteliberalsplaining" would be."
Oh? So, when I read and hear what black people are saying and seeing the polls that say that 85%+ of black people feel this way, I'm whiteliberalsplaining? To be more clear come up when a point out reality about what black people are saying by vast majorities... pointing out reality is white liberal? Thanks for that endorsement of liberalism come up but is not confined to White liberals, of course. But you are correct. We do tend to live in the world of reality.
I encourage it, as is right.
"I'll be sure to let the black folks know you've given us the answer, massah."
You do that. Of course you'd be lying, but I doubt that you care.
"That is, I GET that YOU think the context is entirely different. But that's just your privileged white hunch."
No, it's pretty much reality. King and his followers were not engaged in death threats against the police, the destruction of the property of POC, and violence. You keep insisting that it's all NVDA, make up your mind. Of course it's a different context you moron, any idiot can see that the legal situation is significantly different now than it was in the 60's.
"White racists ALSO always have found a way to justify oppression and blame the "uppity blacks" for "stirring up violence..." instead of owning it for themselves."
What, people have a tendency to blame others for their actions, are you kidding?
Please explain how you manage to remove the responsibility for people's actions from them at attach that responsibility to others?
For example, IF there is a "racist police system" in MPLS, then who bears responsibility for that system? Do immigrant restaurant owners? Does the local government? Be specific.
"Can you acknowledge that just because you think the context is "completely different," not all folks - especially black folks - would agree with you?"
Sure. Of course, the fact that there is disagreement doesn't demonstrate which "side" is right. That's just you making assumptions.
"So, if you've read King, YOU KNOW that he says that riots are the voice of the unheard,"
Yes, I have and I've pointed out how badly that out of context quote has been misused.
"that NVDA involves applying pressure and making white folks like you feel "uncomfortable,""
NVDA like attacking cops with deadly weapons, burning down buildings, and looting? That kind of NVDA?
"and white folks with privilege will often view conflict raised by fighting for justice to be "stirring up conflict..." and that this discomfort white folks feel is vital for effecting change?"
Do you even understand that there is a difference between "discomfort" and fear for one's life? How does burning down the restaurant of an African Immigrant help make things better? How does looting entire stores full of booze advance the cause?
I have no problem with discomfort, I've felt it frequently, what's happening up here goes way beyond discomfort.
"Then WHY are you questioning the discomfort you feel rather than owning it and recognizing it as part of the effort to effect change?"
The bigger question is. "Why are you making idiotic assumptions about me?". If you mean why don't I "own" the violent actions of other people, it's because I'm not stupid enough to think I'm responsible for other's actions and choices. Of course, I guess that decades of directly helping POC with employment and housing doesn't count in your twisted calculus.
"You know, like the racists and their more liberal sympathizers complained about with King?"
What the hell does this shit even mean?
Craig... "It's what I've seen with my own eyes."
So, Craig reports that he has allegedly anecdotally seen some number of people allegedly wearing blm logos or whatever, and engaging in rioting or some misdeeds, And that means that blm supports violence and rioting?
So, I've seen white conservatives in their trump hats endorsing terrorism and violence. By your reasoning then, all white conservatives endorse violence. Is that how you wanna go?
I am sure that there probably have been blm wearing people engage in violence. Often times in response to violence from the police. Nonetheless come up short happened. What I am saying is that this is not blm endorsed activity. We don't blame all white people for the large number of terrorist in white Trump conservatism. Likewise, rational people don't blame all BLM supporters for a vague number of alleged misdeeds by people wearing BLM.
The reality is as I stated, BLM is not endorsing violence. If you are making that claim, you are a God damned liar.
"So, when I read and hear what black people are saying and seeing the polls that say that 85%+ of black people feel this way, I'm whiteliberalsplaining?"
If your white and liberal, then yes you filtering what you gather from polls through your white liberal filter and explaining that result to me as if it's "reality" is exactly what "whiteliberalsplaining" is.
I'll stick to listening to black voices directly. It makes more sense.
"1. Except that I have not been vague. I have always been quite clear that I am one that leans towards just peacemaking Or pacifism."
Which, in itself, is a vague response.
"@. That I and doctor king knowledge that continued denied Justice will likely lead to riots or push backup some sort is just acknowledging reality, not endorsing violence. See point one."
Then please, state clearly that you do not under any circumstances consider riots to ever be an appropriate avenue.
"3. Yes. Of course violence and riots should be avoided. After all the years of reading me, did you really think I was suggesting otherwise? The oppressors should not keep oppressing and denying Justice and thus, push people into rioting. Again, I've always been abundantly clear."
Please clarify "should be avoided" (what a pansy, milquetoast, vague, pile of shit), and when they become acceptable? Yes, given your attempts to defend and shift blame for the riots of 2020, I think it's clear that you are "suggesting otherwise". Or at least that you're to cowardly to acknowledge the left wing rioters, and that they bear responsibility for their actions. Are you suggesting that "push people into rioting" absolves the rioters from the legal and moral consequences of their actions?
Who specifically, are the people of institutions in MPLS that are "oppressing and denying justice" to people?
"4. I have also been quite clear that we should acknowledge that when oppressive people continually deny Justice and oppress, when oppressed people push back, it is the oppressors who are at fault for provoking it. Understand now?"
No I don't understand who (in the city of MPLS) the "oppressors" specifically are, and how one transfers responsibility for one's actions and choices to another. Please explain in detail.
"Why not BEGIN by acknowledging BLM for their efforts at peacemaking?"
Because those efforts have been either non existent, or incredibly ineffective. I rarely applaud people for those qualities.
"Why not criticize the police for their provocation of violence?"
Why assume I haven't/wouldn't?
"You DO know that this is the exact reality-denying language that racists have been using for decades/centuries?"
Nope, I'm not denying reality, I drive past the reality every stinking day.
Look at the preparations made for the Chauvin verdict. Are you really so stupid as to think that there were concerns about riots by "pro Chauvin" groups? Are you really so blind as to think that people weren't living in fear of HARM if the Pro Floyd/BLM/Leftists didn't get the results that wanted?
"No. The REALITY IS that I am not advocating violence."
No, just excusing and justifying violence as inevitable and appropriate.
"And especially when we're talking about the oppression of historically oppressed people."
In MPLS, who is/are "the oppressors"? Is it the lesbian police chief? Or the black/Hispanic police chief? The mayor? The city council? Come on, tell me WHO the "oppressors" are.
"What part of reality are you failing to understand?"
The part where "no justice" (or not immediate justice) let to fucking riots, arson, looting, and massive harm.
"Yeah, that's precisely what the racists said about King, too."
You should move up here, you've got the passive aggressive insinuating that I'm a racist thing down to a tee.
"Open your eyes. Why are you fighting so very hard against those fighting for justice? Get on the right side of decency and justice."
Who are you to say that I'm not?
Craig, earlier... "i acknowledge that "some" civil rights leaders have done so, and there might be some who still do. I guess I'd suggest that anyone who's trying to encourage, promote, excuse, or facilitate violence (especially when threatening violence to force preferences) isn't actually trying to achieve "social justice"."
When you say things like this coming makes it sound like your suggesting there's some large widespread effort to promote violence among Justice fighters. Yet, as the data shows, 93% of blm activities - and here were talking about millions of people, the largest effort providing Justice in our nation's history - Heaven peaceful period of the percentage that have not been peaceful, some percentage of violence began with police provocation. Something you have yet to acknowledge.
Blm has demonstrated that they are working for Justice and doing so peacefully... yet you keep phrasing things suggesting that they are violent. Can you acknowledg the reality that blm has demonstrated themselves to be a Peaceful organisation?
"So, Craig reports that he has allegedly anecdotally seen some number of people allegedly wearing blm logos or whatever, and engaging in rioting or some misdeeds, And that means that blm supports violence and rioting?"
1. I love it when you try this bullshit way to try to demean the lived experience of those who you don't agree with. But yes, I 100% have seen hundreds/ thousands of BLM supporters engaging in violence, threats of violence, and death threats. I think it's not beyond the realm of credibility to say that the "BLM rank and file" support "violence and rioting". What's delightful about this particular line of obfuscation is twofold.
A. Dan was quite proud in claiming that BLM was one of "the largest movements in the country's history.", yet is now trying to claim that the actions of the actual followers don't count.
B. BLM has very intentionally "organized" itself in such as was as to eschew a strong national leadership, and to put the power in the hands of the masses. Dan, wants to pretend like there is a strong, central leadership core that actually has control of what happens in the streets. Even though BLM is intentionally NOT "organized" like that.
"So, I've seen white conservatives in their trump hats endorsing terrorism and violence. By your reasoning then, all white conservatives endorse violence."
No, this would be false.
"Is that how you wanna go?"
No because I will rarely, intentionally choose to accept your false characterization of my position over my actual position.
"I am sure that there probably have been blm wearing people engage in violence. Often times in response to violence from the police."
Really, looting and burning down a Target with no police in sight is reacting to a provocation from police? You keep making this claim, without once citing anything specific. Maybe you do that on purpose.
"Nonetheless come up short happened."
This makes absolutely zero sense. Why not proofread your damn comments to avoid unintelligible idiocy like this?
"What I am saying is that this is not blm endorsed activity."
Just because you say something, doesn't mean it's true.
"We don't blame all white people for the large number of terrorist in white Trump conservatism."
Although, you sure do try.
"Likewise, rational people don't blame all BLM supporters for a vague number of alleged misdeeds by people wearing BLM. The reality is as I stated, BLM is not endorsing violence. If you are making that claim, you are a God damned liar."
Since I'm not making that claim, then I guess I'm OK.
Your lies, on the other hand...
"I guess I'd suggest that anyone who's trying to encourage, promote, excuse, or facilitate violence (especially when threatening violence to force preferences) isn't actually trying to achieve "social justice".""
"When you say things like this coming makes it sound like your suggesting there's some large widespread effort to promote violence among Justice fighters."
If you actually read what I actually wrote, it suggests absolutely nothing of the sort. It quite clearly suggests that those specific people and groups who are encouraging, promoting, excusing, or facilitating violence, are not actually trying to achieve "social justice".
Now if we average out your claims re the number of BLM followers engaged in "protests/riots/etc" we get 20.5 million. If "93%" of those were not engaged in violence that means that 7% were, and I'd suggest that 1.5 million people would constitute a reasonably "large" number.
But the reality is that you just simply made up some bullshit false crap and forced me to waste time dealing with this idiocy.
It's astounding to me the lengths Dan will go to justify the violent responses of those he supports and enables...those who "protest" a fiction and support that fiction by so routinely pointing to cases involving thugs coming to a violent end by resisting lawful detainment by law enforcement. Just once I'd like to see held up as an example of the fiction an actual law-abiding person, one with no criminal record whatsoever, one who did not engage in combative response to otherwise lawful police detainment, one who expressed nothing but courtesy and compliance, even enduring recorded provocation by cops doing the detaining. Every "victim" of alleged police brutality were the polar opposites of this hypothetical person.
It's further astounding to me how easily Dan dares to compare what he or those he enables are doing to Martin Luther King Jr. or worse, Jesus Christ (the money changer incident) in this rationalization of criminal violent behavior during "peaceful protests".
It's also astounding to me how quickly and with established intellectual laziness Dan will quote "studies" based on their conclusions without the least effort to determine the study isn't just outright crap put forth by other moronic leftists to promote the narrative.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-myth-behind-blms-peaceful-protests/
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/myth-of-peaceful-black-lives-matter-protests-and-the-capitol-coup/
Both of these links appear to be from foreign sources, with the second identifying himself as a liberal, but one who, to his credit and unlike Dan, looks at things objectively. It's also notable for his calling out the lying leftist media. In the meantime, the first puts into perspective the claim that "93%" of BLM protests are peaceful.
There are most definitely BLM leaders calling for violence, and I'll get links to them later...or not, given Dan could find them easily himself if he was honest. But Dan isn't honest. He's too busy defending his defense of the indefensible that honesty would belie "93%" of what he says.
The irony...and Dan loves irony...is that as is common with Dan, he does nothing to verify, validate and confirm the claims regarding percentages...such as "98% of 'experts' affirm...whatever"...and he does so again here. Thus, we can dispense with every such claim on his part as we now know he's only concerned with pushing a narrative, not actually seeking truth so necessary to resolving whatever issue is on the table.
Be it Dan or Maxine Waters, it's reprehensible to pretend they're using expressions such as "no peace no justice" or "voice of the unheard" in the same way MLK did. They're exploiting the man as they exploit the deaths of thugs to perpetuate the fiction of an allegedly oppressed group. Dan will speak of what's happened in the past and pretend there's some parallel to those with an incredible amount of opportunities never available to those in the past, including living in a country that is very arguably the least racist in the world. How could one who believes otherwise not be at the forefront to blocking illegal border crossings...or even legal immigration...so as to protect those allegedly oppressed of foreign lands from the oppression that is allegedly so prevalent here. It's not even cognitive dissonance or some disconnect. It's just lying.
Craig... "f you actually read what I actually wrote, it suggests absolutely nothing of the sort. It quite clearly suggests that those specific people and groups who are encouraging, promoting, excusing, or facilitating violence, are not actually trying to achieve "social justice"."
So, just to clarify, you DON'T view BLM, as an organization to be anything but the fighters for justice that they appear to be? You're just angry at the small percentage of outliers who engage in violence (or alleged violence), but you are a big fan of BLM and their work for justice, as are most black folks?
Is that what you're saying?
Because I don't think you are saying that. I'm glad to have you clarify.
Re: the 93%.
The protests with BLM were 93% peaceful. OF THE REMAINING 7%, violence occurred sometimes due to BLM supporters AND sometimes due to outside/conservative instigators AND sometimes due to police hostility.
You understand that, right?
You also understand that we don't have a reliable figure for how much violence (if any) was instigated specifically and only by BLM supporters (but not the leadership)?
"You understand that, right? You also understand that we don't have a reliable figure for how much violence (if any) was instigated specifically and only by BLM supporters (but not the leadership)?"
I understand that the "10's of thousands" of alleged "agitators" predicted up here never actually showed up, and that this hiding behind ambiguity and positing a phantom "other" is only effective if you're not really looking for the Truth.
" So, just to clarify, you DON'T view BLM, as an organization to be anything but the fighters for justice that they appear to be?"
No, again you are wrong.
"You're just angry at the small percentage of outliers who engage in violence (or alleged violence), but you are a big fan of BLM and their work for justice, as are most black folks?"
Again, no.
"Is that what you're saying? Because I don't think you are saying that. I'm glad to have you clarify."
No, you're just making shit up and attributing it to me.
? I JUST CLEARLY SAID... You know what? Never mind.
Get reading comprehension help, Skippy.
As my links above argue with far more credibility and truth than Dan has the ability to muster and bring to the table, the "93%" meme is useless and not credible. Dan wishes to defend BLM leaders as not instigating the riots, but I've yet to see him present evidence showing any opposition to the rioting by whomever Dan views as being actual leaders. I would submit the likelihood that the various "chapters" are intentionally autonomous to shield the leadership from charges of responsibility and accountability for the damage, costs and murders related to the various riots experience throughout 2020. Indeed, we've seen nothing in the way of encouragement by any BLM leader to reject rioting, looting, destroying and murdering by protesters...nor from those in political leadership. We've only seen defense of it, cheap rationalizations and encouragement.
I have also seen no proof of police engaging in violent behavior against protestors without first being attacked/assaulted by protestors...as well as no proof or evidence of outside agitation...except by those on the side of the movement. All I've seen are allegations by various dregs of society...Dan included.
Given how all of these protests are provoked by false narratives, I'm not surprised at how they end up being violent and criminal. Yet even with the reason for protesting being false or colored with false narratives, police presence is meant to maintain peace during protests and there is no profit in them choosing to act violently against actual peaceful protesting.
"I JUST CLEARLY SAID"
Since this "quote/paraphrase/invention" isn't in context, it literally makes no sense.
But please, I appreciate your advice in light of the fact that you're simply inventing things to attribute to me.
Art,
Apparently if the police engage in proactive measure to protect themselves (wear protective gear), that is enough provocation to justify a violent response. At least that's what I gather from folx up here.
What I HAVE seen, multiple times, is the police failing to follow through and allowing the rioters free reign to do what they want.
I'm beginning to think that anything the police do that limits that protesters/rioters in any way is now considered provocation and justification for a violent response.
As I have pointed out, reporters out doing their job have been fired upon (rubber bullets) by cops. My Mennonite friends have been gassed by cops while in a crowd of peaceful protesters.
It's documented.
Just because you two live in a privileged world largely safe from police abuse doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Join blm on the front lines fighting for Justice and you'll see and hear about it first hand.
Get out of your ivory towers, boys.
OK, as long as you've "pointed it out", then it must be true.
Clearly you have ironclad proof that the police singled out these "reporters" and "Mennonites" and targeted them with these brutal attacks.
But, since you've "pointed it out", we should just blindly accept your word. Especially we should accept your characterization of the police intentions and motives in these anecdotal incidents.
I'm frequently out of my ivory tower and driving the streets where the BLM protests were last summer. When I do I see the holes in the ground, the burned twisted structural steel, and the OSB that's still in place. I also see and hear the black voices at 38th and Chicago who want their streets and businesses back, and who want the crime rates to drop.
Re: the reporters...
It was on the news. The idiot cop smiled at the reporter with the camera obviously filming! - said nothing and just started firing. With impunity.
Again, if you'd just get out on the streets WHERE these attacks are happening, and watch the coverage of it, you'd know.
Here's one such story, not the one we saw in Louisville, though...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/us/minneapolis-protests-press.amp.html
And another...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52880970.amp
And another...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/louisville-police-shoot-reporter-with-pepper-bullets-during-protest-on-live-tv/
Oh? You "drive the streets..."? WOW. Well, you must fully understand the Black experience in the US.
More...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/5/31/21276044/police-violence-protest-george-floyd
More...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/06/police-violence-protests-us-george-floyd
Is that enough? Sadly, I could do this all day.
"Oh? You "drive the streets..."? WOW. Well, you must fully understand the Black experience in the US."
Drive the streets, eat in the remaining restaurants, shop in the stores covered with OSB, get treated in the medical clinic that has to load up their entire pharmacy every night, and worship at a neighborhood church.
Of course, I never claimed to "fully understand the Black experience in the US", that's just one more bit of bullshit you made up.
The point is that I regularly spend time in the aftermath of BLM's handiwork, I'm confronted with it on a regular basis. I'm sorry if my lived experience doesn't line up with your narrative.
"Again, if you'd just get out on the streets WHERE these attacks are happening, and watch the coverage of it, you'd know."
Been on the streets, watched hours of local coverage. I live here you moron.
I applaud the fact that you've learned to use Google and actually found some articles that are appropriate. It's so unusual when you actually back up your claims, that I'm surprised.
What I didn't see in any of them was the context of the incident, nor the outcomes for the cops.
FYI, "private security" officers aren't police.
Post a Comment