- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BLM is a terrorist organization at this point
Posted on 7/9/16 at 8:41 am to CtotheVrzrbck
Posted on 7/9/16 at 8:41 am to CtotheVrzrbck
I would like to point out we have had little trouble here in Alabama... They remember.
0
Posted on 7/9/16 at 8:42 am to SabiDojo
quote:
Disagree, but the movement is dead. No reasonable person can take them seriously.
They have a propensity for violence because they have no leadership. It's a movement that excludes nonblack persons. Their core philosophy is flawed. It's just a bad movement from top to bottom.
Many, including our own POTUS, said something very similar about ISIS. And we've seen how that's been turning out.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 8:42 am to stout
Some take after MLK and protest peacefully, some take after Malcolm X and the Black Panthers and believe violence is the answer. So it is really 50/50 a terrorist depending on which side we are talking about.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 8:43 am to stout
Calling that discombobulated, aimless group "black lives matter" is/was one of the biggest blunders of the social media age.
They took a movement centered around the discussion of the militarization of the police and police brutality - a movement with broad, bipartisan and multi-racial support - and completely obliterated it by choosing "black lives matter" as the rallying cry.
At this point, no moderate, rational person who wants to have a discussion about police brutality is going to associate themselves with a group that can be characterized as a domestic terrorist, even if it is just on the fringes of that group. A movement against police brutality that was picking up steam is now as divisive as ever as people feel like they're forced to support their race more than justice and the truth.
For someone who had any hope for change, it is truly infuriating.
They took a movement centered around the discussion of the militarization of the police and police brutality - a movement with broad, bipartisan and multi-racial support - and completely obliterated it by choosing "black lives matter" as the rallying cry.
At this point, no moderate, rational person who wants to have a discussion about police brutality is going to associate themselves with a group that can be characterized as a domestic terrorist, even if it is just on the fringes of that group. A movement against police brutality that was picking up steam is now as divisive as ever as people feel like they're forced to support their race more than justice and the truth.
For someone who had any hope for change, it is truly infuriating.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 8:44 am to stout
I suppose it would depend on how specific it is.
If it's "white cops should die for this" then probably not.
If it's "At the protest tonight downtown we need to arm ourselves and revenge our brothers by shooting any white cops we see" then probably so.
Now. As far as the characterization of the "organization" itself. We'd have to look at the requirements for that. I don't know the specifics off top of my head. But there would I think need to be a clear leadership structure and that leadership would need to be actively inciting and capable of carrying out that violence pursuant to the precedent established by Brandenburg.
I mean if you have random individuals that are part of the movement inciting violence you'd have to prove that they are operatives of the organization and acting on behalf of it with approval from leadership. I'm unsure of this but that would be my guess.
If it's "white cops should die for this" then probably not.
If it's "At the protest tonight downtown we need to arm ourselves and revenge our brothers by shooting any white cops we see" then probably so.
Now. As far as the characterization of the "organization" itself. We'd have to look at the requirements for that. I don't know the specifics off top of my head. But there would I think need to be a clear leadership structure and that leadership would need to be actively inciting and capable of carrying out that violence pursuant to the precedent established by Brandenburg.
I mean if you have random individuals that are part of the movement inciting violence you'd have to prove that they are operatives of the organization and acting on behalf of it with approval from leadership. I'm unsure of this but that would be my guess.
This post was edited on 7/9/16 at 8:47 am
Posted on 7/9/16 at 8:44 am to stout
Agree.
The democrats created this monster by selling victim hood and identity politics. They thought they could control it and they were wrong.
The democrats created this monster by selling victim hood and identity politics. They thought they could control it and they were wrong.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 8:52 am to Festus
Fair enough.
The one thing I hate about the black lives matter movement is that it restricts the free flow of ideas. White people can never have an opinion on the movement, white people can't have an opinion on what is racist, and white people can't deny the concept of privilege. White people can either only accept the fact that they are privileged (which means you are racist, even if you don't mean to be), or if you deny you are privileged, then it just proves you are overtly racist and part of the problem.
I don't have a problem with black people mobilizing to make their lives better. I'm not saying black people aren't being unfairly targeted by police. But when you try to set immovable parameters for discussion, I'm out. I can't take your movement seriously.
The one thing I hate about the black lives matter movement is that it restricts the free flow of ideas. White people can never have an opinion on the movement, white people can't have an opinion on what is racist, and white people can't deny the concept of privilege. White people can either only accept the fact that they are privileged (which means you are racist, even if you don't mean to be), or if you deny you are privileged, then it just proves you are overtly racist and part of the problem.
I don't have a problem with black people mobilizing to make their lives better. I'm not saying black people aren't being unfairly targeted by police. But when you try to set immovable parameters for discussion, I'm out. I can't take your movement seriously.
This post was edited on 7/9/16 at 8:54 am
Posted on 7/9/16 at 8:57 am to drexyl
Part of the movement gaining momentum is based around "Hands up don't shoot!". Everyone here may have severe distrust of Obama and Holder but the DOJ report on Ferguson eviscerated that notion.
What they and other Democrats didn't do, or the media outlets in general is to disabuse everyone of this once the report was released. BLM should've been called to the carpet for the false narrative.
What they and other Democrats didn't do, or the media outlets in general is to disabuse everyone of this once the report was released. BLM should've been called to the carpet for the false narrative.
This post was edited on 7/9/16 at 9:00 am
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:07 am to SabiDojo
quote:
ip. It's a movement that excludes nonblack persons
That is actually false, to support BLM you do not have to be black at all. There have been plenty of people who are not of color, to support in all of the different protests and marches around the nation.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:09 am to brgfather129
I will have you know I have plans for a very lucrative bbq chicken and rib bidness with all these protests popping up.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:13 am to QJenk
quote:
That is actually false, to support BLM you do not have to be black at all. There have been plenty of people who are not of color, to support in all of the different protests and marches around the nation.
That's not what I meant. It doesn't exclude you from marching and pushing their idea, BUT it excludes white people from discussing the movement if your opinion doesn't conform to their tenets.
This post was edited on 7/9/16 at 9:14 am
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:13 am to stout
Agree
But but this group will not be handled as such for fear of hurting their feelings from a racial stand point
But but this group will not be handled as such for fear of hurting their feelings from a racial stand point
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:16 am to stout
I disagree. BLM is not about inciting violence or anything like that. At its core it is about standing up for your fellow brother, being united and wanting to see equal treatment for black people as everyone else. If you were to look, by far, the protest, except for Dallas has been very successful, and nonviolent.
The Dallas was a result of a deranged man. If you would look, by far anybody that actually matters has actually condemned that ahole for that shooting.
Fact of the matter. The actions of the few should not outweigh the actions of all the good.
The Dallas was a result of a deranged man. If you would look, by far anybody that actually matters has actually condemned that ahole for that shooting.
Fact of the matter. The actions of the few should not outweigh the actions of all the good.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:24 am to stout
Disagree.
A small percentage of the BLM incites violence and riots. You can fault an entire group for isolated incidents.
Saying BLM is terrorist group based on a few acts is like saying all Muslims are terrorists too...
A small percentage of the BLM incites violence and riots. You can fault an entire group for isolated incidents.
Saying BLM is terrorist group based on a few acts is like saying all Muslims are terrorists too...
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:27 am to QJenk
quote:
The Dallas was a result of a deranged man. If you would look, by far anybody that actually matters has actually condemned that ahole for that shooting.
What's the excuse for the riots in Ferguson?
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:28 am to stout
They are not even organized enough to be that. What do they have- like 100 self-professed leaders on Facebook?
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:30 am to Hoyt
The march for Les couple years ago was absolutley racist.
Even saw a few white pointy hats in the crowd.
Even saw a few white pointy hats in the crowd.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:30 am to stout
It's today's version of the KKK.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:31 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
They are not even organized enough to be that.
Said everyone about the Nazis and the KkK
Posted on 7/9/16 at 9:31 am to TheDeathValley
quote:
A small percentage of the BLM incites violence and riots. You can fault an entire group for isolated incidents.
Saying BLM is terrorist group based on a few acts is like saying all Muslims are terrorists too...
Said everyone about the Nazis and thr KKK
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News