Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Larssen
Member
+30|578

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm sure 93% of the SS never did anything bad, so what?

BLM is not all sweetness and light, they do have an underbelly of extremists and they are not looking for equality, which they already have.
BLM isn't some military WW2 unit Dilbert.

You know the protesters aren't some highly organised machine. Most of them are people in their teens and 20s responding to impromptu facebook & insta event invites. If you saw the EE chats video you'd also know how disorganised it all is. Some people are there for BLM. Some people are there because they're anti police. Some people are there because they're anarchist. The latter two groups most often fighting with police, throwing fireworks etc.

It means the protests and especially the violence are multi faceted and reflecting that tensions in the US are blowing up along multiple dividing lines. Moreover, nobody in the protesting crowd is under some contractual obligation to behave a certain way. There will be people who feel violence is necessary or useful.

Does all that detract from what BLM is about and originally intended to tackle, i.e. structural racism, violence & disadvantageous living conditions in black communities? Well no, it doesn't and shouldn't. The core BLM organisation does not support violent protest, so why do you hold them responsible?

It's insane what sort of twists and turns you take to justify... what exactly? That BLM is a stain that should be supressed? Isn't a minority allowed to voice and express discontent & ask for change? It's curious you reference the SS dilbert, because you're one of the most fascist inclined on this board. Do you understand why I'm saying that?
uziq
Member
+302|2143
the video was taken at the portland protests, a situation which is not representative of BLM or the nation (world) wide protest movement. the vast majority of BLM gatherings have not had active anarchists or rioters/looters. there has been no violence. that was rather the whole point of the study -- and to say that, where police/state forces were deployed, they were often the ones to deploy violent tactics, not vice versa.

there have been BLM gatherings across UK cities for the entirety of this summer, none of which were violent, involved police clashes, looting, burning, etc. it's just a total misrepresentation of the picture and of what is, for the most part, a totally peaceful movement whose very manifesto states its non-violence and non-aggression principles. to claim otherwise, against vast empirical evidence, is an idle smear.

BLM have decried and denounced violence and looting wherever it has occurred. you can even see in the portland video that the BLM, and pretty much only people of colour, speakers are totally not in support of the widespread drunkenness and street fracas.
Larssen
Member
+30|578
I meant to refer specifically to the instances where there is violence like in portland, that is where you find it's disorganised and multiple factions present.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find a handful of BLM protests that have escalated - protests (esp. over a long period of time) always have chaotic elements. It's not some neat rehearsed event.

We have had some BLM protests that were broken up by police.
uziq
Member
+302|2143
it would be the equivalent of dilbert denying climate change and dismissing eco-activists because he is disgusted by the city-stopping and disruptive tactics of XR.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4797|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm sure 93% of the SS never did anything bad, so what?

BLM is not all sweetness and light, they do have an underbelly of extremists and they are not looking for equality, which they already have.
BLM isn't some military WW2 unit Dilbert.

You know the protesters aren't some highly organised machine. Most of them are people in their teens and 20s responding to impromptu facebook & insta event invites. If you saw the EE chats video you'd also know how disorganised it all is. Some people are there for BLM. Some people are there because they're anti police. Some people are there because they're anarchist. The latter two groups most often fighting with police, throwing fireworks etc.

It means the protests and especially the violence are multi faceted and reflecting that tensions in the US are blowing up along multiple dividing lines. Moreover, nobody in the protesting crowd is under some contractual obligation to behave a certain way. There will be people who feel violence is necessary or useful.

Does all that detract from what BLM is about and originally intended to tackle, i.e. structural racism, violence & disadvantageous living conditions in black communities? Well no, it doesn't and shouldn't. The core BLM organisation does not support violent protest, so why do you hold them responsible?

It's insane what sort of twists and turns you take to justify... what exactly? That BLM is a stain that should be supressed? Isn't a minority allowed to voice and express discontent & ask for change? It's curious you reference the SS dilbert, because you're one of the most fascist inclined on this board. Do you understand why I'm saying that?
You do know the SS were volunteers who wanted peace and prosperity for their fellow citizens and an end to racist supremacists in their midst?
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+302|2143
read a fucking book.
Larssen
Member
+30|578

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm sure 93% of the SS never did anything bad, so what?

BLM is not all sweetness and light, they do have an underbelly of extremists and they are not looking for equality, which they already have.
BLM isn't some military WW2 unit Dilbert.

You know the protesters aren't some highly organised machine. Most of them are people in their teens and 20s responding to impromptu facebook & insta event invites. If you saw the EE chats video you'd also know how disorganised it all is. Some people are there for BLM. Some people are there because they're anti police. Some people are there because they're anarchist. The latter two groups most often fighting with police, throwing fireworks etc.

It means the protests and especially the violence are multi faceted and reflecting that tensions in the US are blowing up along multiple dividing lines. Moreover, nobody in the protesting crowd is under some contractual obligation to behave a certain way. There will be people who feel violence is necessary or useful.

Does all that detract from what BLM is about and originally intended to tackle, i.e. structural racism, violence & disadvantageous living conditions in black communities? Well no, it doesn't and shouldn't. The core BLM organisation does not support violent protest, so why do you hold them responsible?

It's insane what sort of twists and turns you take to justify... what exactly? That BLM is a stain that should be supressed? Isn't a minority allowed to voice and express discontent & ask for change? It's curious you reference the SS dilbert, because you're one of the most fascist inclined on this board. Do you understand why I'm saying that?
You do know the SS were volunteers who wanted peace and prosperity for their fellow citizens and an end to racist supremacists in their midst?
Might be hard to grasp but the SS wasn't quite a force for peace or racial equality. You're going to argue history with me now? How about you check your stance on BLM first.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,812|5462|USA

It's like some troll-veiled argumentation. Where does the troll and and the true-believer begin? I can barely tell sometimes. It's like without vocal inflection, gesture, or facial expression, the humor(?) is utterly lost in translation.

Loves science, frequently engages in belief-over-fact psuedoscience. Thinks history is worthless, backs up opinion with historical fallacy. Pretty run-of-the-mill STEM snob.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4797|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

Might be hard to grasp but the SS wasn't quite a force for peace or racial equality.
Well they were if you were German.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+302|2143
the SS were an instrument of terror for ordinary germans. many ordinary german citizens feared for their lives because of them. 'racial equality'? stop perverting history. do you know how many german jews, german academics, german artists, german homosexuals, etc, feared for their lives because of the SS? what 'peace and equality'?

you are way too old to be indulging in this asinine and immature whimsy. 'tee hee let's compare BLM to the SS. maybe the SS were the good guys?' grow the fuck up, seriously. do you talk to your parents or peers like this? you're FIFTY YEARS old.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4797|eXtreme to the maX
Just remember, the SS thought they were doing good, cancelling the racist supremacists in their community.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Larssen
Member
+30|578
I often wonder if you're just a genuinely stupid man or if you're a mastertroll.
uziq
Member
+302|2143

Dilbert_X wrote:

Just remember, the SS thought they were doing good, cancelling the racist supremacists in their community.
errr what ?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+362|2410
Speaker's Corner in a U.K. park.

Didn't see a single ethnic English there. Looks like a park on the border between Sudan and Egypt.
uziq
Member
+302|2143
speaker's corner is in hyde park, lol, the only people who can afford to live in that area are multi-millionaires.

you sound like donald trump talking about the central park five.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,812|5462|USA

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Just remember, the SS thought they were doing good, cancelling the racist supremacists in their community.
errr what ?
Looks like some sort of mid-life crisis to me.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,865|5323|949

uziq wrote:

speaker's corner is in hyde park, lol, the only people who can afford to live in that area are multi-millionaires.

you sound like donald trump talking about the central park five.
some rando who was acting erratically (guessing either drugs or mental health issues) lunged at me when I was walking through Hyde Park. Nice park though, the Summer Fest or whatever it was called was pretty cool. Definitely get old gentry vibes there. I want to say they had a horse and carriage on display somewhere?

I find it kind of fascinating, this weird fixation on the "radical muslims". Highly anecdotal and a story i've shared before, but my only significant interaction with British Muslims was asking a few of them if they could get me weed. They were drinking on the steps of a church, celebrating Eid by drinking Jack Daniels. Truly radicals trying to create alcohol-free zones to enforce Sharia Law. In Kensington.
uziq
Member
+302|2143
you can still see fine ass gentry women riding horses around hyde park. it’s not far from kensington park and the palaces. ironically for macbeth’s ‘border between syria and egypt’ comment, the streets lining the park are mostly foreign embassies, including a high concentration of middle eastern states.

nobody in that video is a radical muslim. there are just normal muslims who populate broad parts of west london (outer suburbs mostly not hyde park the aristo part). it looks like a very minor disagreement between two groups being solved in public. a public order problem, to be sure, and an assault took place. but it looks like a slap more than widespread lawlessness on the streets.

if you think ‘native britons’ aren’t engaging in that sort of everyday bickering and violence, i’ve got a very nice bridge to sell you. it’s basically a national stereotype that we like to get drunk and rough one another up on a saturday evening. it’s our way of blowing off steam.

it’s weird because the video isn’t even playing into the usual tropes of knife crime or whatever it is non-whites are supposed to be so notorious for. it’s two middle-aged men having a feud. speakers corner often gets very heated. it’s kind of the point. not that i condone violence of any kind but, come on, the video is not a very good example of ‘omg muslims ruining the west’.

there’s actually two distinct groups in the video, but macbeth, having never left the continental united states, can’t read the situation. there’s the muslim middle-aged groups having some sort of dispute, and coming in and out of the frame there’s lots of (unrelated) black british kids who are making light of the situation. it’s funny. there’s also plenty of ‘native britons’ onlooking and a few who evidently know the men involved. nobody is paying it much moment. macbeth just sees a bunch of people with ethnic identities. i see a very mixed bunch of londoners.

Last edited by uziq (2020-09-09 00:41:00)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4797|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I find it kind of fascinating, this weird fixation on the "radical muslims".
They have a habit of exploding.
https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2017_21/2009256/170523-manchester-attack-cr-0410_01_9606df32096b043b32998ce8535f6ee0.jpg
Highly anecdotal and a story i've shared before, but my only significant interaction with British Muslims was asking a few of them if they could get me weed. They were drinking on the steps of a church, celebrating Eid by drinking Jack Daniels. Truly radicals trying to create alcohol-free zones to enforce Sharia Law. In Kensington.
Thanks Ken

But I mean yeah why does anyone get worked up about radical muslims?

https://cdn.britannica.com/25/74225-004-884D2BF5/second-jetliners-terrorists-al-Qaeda-smoke-billows-crash-Sept-11-2001.jpg

Like 0.00003% of the population died that day. More people probably died sneezing. Who cares?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-09-09 06:42:54)

Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+302|2143
i think his point was that referring to ordinary muslims as 'radical muslims' is a right-wing rhetorical ploy.

nobody in that clip posted by macbeth is a 'radical muslim'. it's not AQ or ISIS, mate. it's a few british people having a disagreement in a park. a man takes a light sissy slap and the altercation is broken up.

thanks for the sensational photos though. nobody has ever seen a 9/11 photo before. we should really do something about these muslims!!!

Last edited by uziq (2020-09-09 07:16:12)

Larssen
Member
+30|578
Stuff is history now. It's interesting to see how the threat landscape has changed in recent years, counter terrorism increasingly fading into the background.

Of course it'll still be with us but ISIS was more or less the final evolution of that strain of religious radicalism and it failed miserably for all to see. Regrettably we may still experience a terror attack at some point, but the level of organisation is unlikely to be more than that of absolute fringe groups, remnants of ISIS/AQ or lone wolves. The type of warfare/state building attempted in Afghanistan and Iraq will also not make a return.

Major threats these days are in migration resulting from regional instability & climate change, state level threats notably from Russia/China/Iran (proxy wars, hybrid warfare, election interference) & generally in cybersecurity as more and more crucial systems and processes depend on IT/OT and countries & criminals increasingly abuse vulnerabilities in these. Terrorism is still there and remains very relevant mostly in tactical terms, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that 9/11 and its consequences are turning into echoes of history rather than reminders or indicators of acute threats. Notwithstanding that OBL/AQ/ISIS were all in a sense also reactionary movements against globalisation, which is an aspect we'll definitely see returning.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-09-09 08:44:12)

uziq
Member
+302|2143
counter-terrorism hasn't fallen into the background, it's just that the FBI are increasingly focussed on domestic terrorism ... of which the biggest threat is posed by white nationalists. people like dilbert don't like to talk about that. no, two middle-aged men fighting in a park is a sign of the imminent mass bombing threat posed by muslims.

FBI raises threat level posed by white nationalists to same level as ISIS.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 23786.html

https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/conf … -supremacy

Last edited by uziq (2020-09-09 08:44:17)

Larssen
Member
+30|578
It has/it is. Cybersecurity and state threats are much more prominently on the agenda of politicians & policymakers and funding there is increasing rapidly. To an extent border security / 'counter migration' as well. CT not so much, but yes they're refocusing to more standard domestic threats.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-09-09 08:47:04)

uziq
Member
+302|2143
yes, i agree with you that it's less on the agenda of national-level politics now. but if we're scaremongering about threats to the west by islamism, it's worth pointing out that the greater number of recent attacks, and loss of life, have been by whites motivated by white supremacy.

why is dilbert linking pictures of a terrorist attack from 20 years ago in response to a filmed slap between two muslim brits?

does he link the charlottesville car incident every time a white person raises their voice?
Larssen
Member
+30|578
Because mentally Dilbert didn't progress beyond his undergrad, it's still 2001 in his mind.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard