Nothing to do with Leeds

ThaiSweetChilli

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but you lost me when you came up with the phrase "Trained Marxist."
I'm not trying to cause problems here Robin nor am I being stubborn about a viewpoint where you have to agree with me. Just trying to point out that we need to be careful with tribal vigilante attitudes and group identity.

The the leadership at BLM are Marxists. And for me it's a problem that a very powerful and socially-loved group is being led essentially by communists yet the majority don't see that this is an issue when Marxism and this radical left-wing ideology has resulted in so much horror historically.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if a movement/group led by extreme right-wing leaders came to fruition, no matter the cause, it would be a huge problem and would garner hate protests and disgust as opposed what BLM has received. It's bloody dangerous.

We need to be careful right and left with extreme ideologies as we've seen throughout history. BLM may be rooted in what could be seen as a noble cause but they that can quickly change into tribalism (as it has), and when you have extreme leadership rooted in extreme ideology, it's dangerous!!!

Look at all of the divide and destruction this is leading to. As many as there are who follow BLM and are part of their movement, there are also many who hate it, not because they don't believe in black lives being important but because it's as much to do with politics as it is with humanity. And that it's deep rooted in extremism which has hsitorically led to the deaths of millions.
 

pork pie fox

Well-Known Member
I’m not really wanting to be part of this debate, but to be honest I don’t see the organisation called BLM as the same thing as the movement BLM. I’ve no idea which came first and I don’t know enough about the organisation to comment, but I do support the movement and any comment I make is in respect to that side. If there is a difference, then it’s useful to know which element people are referring to. Not sure if that makes any difference to anyone else, but there you go.
 

ThaiSweetChilli

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but you lost me when you came up with the phrase "Trained Marxist."
It's also wise to point out that there's no evidence that suggests the officer who killed George Floyd was even racist. So this all started because of what, in my opinion, was police brutality. Race had nothing to do with it.

Subsequently other black people have been killed on the opposite side, such as retired police officer David Dorn, in his 70s who was just trying to help fend off looters from his friend's shop. The man charged with his death was Stephan Cannon - a black guy. BLM didn't comment on this, they couldn't care less - it's all political. They don't care about black lives.

Or another case of Secoriea Turner, a 8 year old girl shot in the back in her car because her mum accidentally went to a protestor occupied zone near to where Rayshard Brooks died and started firing at the car. No BLM protest. She did nothing. She was 8. No protests for her, no word from BLM, no one cares. Because this is politically driven. Her own mother said "They say Black Lives Matter. You killed your own, you killed your own this time" which says it all imo.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...t-dead-over-independence-day-weekend-12022188

Just becareful what you support and do your research as best you can. Some of my research is off but i try. I just felt something wasn't right when i looked into what blm stood for and this tribalism and the mass power they wield.
 

ThaiSweetChilli

Well-Known Member
I’m not really wanting to be part of this debate, but to be honest I don’t see the organisation called BLM as the same thing as the movement BLM. I’ve no idea which came first and I don’t know enough about the organisation to comment, but I do support the movement and any comment I make is in respect to that side. If there is a difference, then it’s useful to know which element people are referring to. Not sure if that makes any difference to anyone else, but there you go.
Totally valid points. And i know you don't want to get involved so I'll just give you some info:

- BLM was founded in 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman following the death of Trayvon Martin.

- the group and the movement started at the same time.

- the group has leaders and has hundreds of millions of dollars in donation

- they march and organise protests regularly supposedly in support of black lives.

The issue:

- they are led by people who believe in an extreme ideology that has historically led to the deaths of millions. This is hugely important as they are the figureheads for the group and the movement overall. They are also in charge of the money.

- also, being led by extreme lefties means that this is heavily ingrained in politics. And in the US this looks like a natural alignment with the Democrats. You'll probably find that very few protestors and supporters are Conservatives. This changes everything and immediately casts doubt over the sincerity of the group.

- it's essentially impossible go seperate the group and the followers of the movement. This is in part because of the tricky wording of the name of the group. Black lives matter - it's an obvious statement - and to say they don't means you're a disgusting human (which imo is true) and to say they do you automatically are aligned with the group. Another thing - donation links on social media, constantly hashtagging blm, blacking out an Instagram post, marching etc., means you are part of the group. They are one.

- the destruction being caused. So i can appreciate making a statement. But blm are destructive. What has looting your local newsagency got to do with black lives? Or setting fire to family-run businesses? What about murdering and absuing innocent people trying to live their lives and protect their businesses and homes?

My Difficulties:

- they only have an issue when a black person is killed by a white person.

- they don't care about the facts of the case, they cause riots irrespective of what actually happened.

- if you don't think like them, they get violent and forceful. It's literally communism or facism.

- they are run by Marxists

- the movement is politcally motivated

- the media supports them. Almost all media is biased in their reporting. The BBC being some of the worst. They glorfy blm, they'll miss out important facts, paint a very different-to-the-truth picture and make those who don't support the movement to look like racist idiot thugs which is simply not true.

- and the biggest one is they make no attempt to change black communities for the better. Imo they make it worse. They teach youngsters that social justice is the way forward as opposed to being responsible young adults and making real change. They don't encourage people to shoulder some weight and make a difference by education, community programmes, going against gang violence etc. The issues in the black community for me, are solved by making positive changes within the community itself.

- I've been vilified here for wanting positive change. I just ask everyone to do their research before the blindly support this group. For example this is a group who wants to destroy the classic family nucleas of a two-parent household because they think it's created by white people. They are powerful and can make real change, good and bad.

I'm not particularly bias with any of this. I just want positive change and not destruction. I'm liberaly myself, just classicaly liberal, be who you wanna be, power to everyone etc. I believe in the idea that black lives matter but i will never support such a hateful group like BLM. And by blacking out your Instagram or putting donation links, or protesting in the streets or making signs, then you are part of Black Lives Matter.

Sorry for the long post. Hope everyone is having a good day!
 

pork pie fox

Well-Known Member
So, without spending much time analysing your post, do you also see them as separate entities? Also, your ire seems to be mostly directed at the organisation, but you seem to be also then be lumping that in with the whole movement, or have a read that wrongly?
 

Blue Maniac

Alzheimers sufferer
You can bet your bottom dollar that if a movement/group led by extreme right-wing leaders came to fruition, no matter the cause, it would be a huge problem and would garner hate protests and disgust as opposed what BLM has received. It's bloody dangerous.
Oof yeah imagine that

imagine if a significant portion of the white male population of, say, the US or the UK were empty-headed fascist scum deepthroating the boots of a shit-brained fake president / prime minister and consciously voting against their own interests in order to satisfy their racism and oWn tEh LiBs

Fortunately that’s not the...

Oh
 

ThaiSweetChilli

Well-Known Member
Oof yeah imagine that

imagine if a significant portion of the white male population of, say, the US or the UK were empty-headed fascist scum deepthroating the boots of a shit-brained fake president / prime minister and consciously voting against their own interests in order to satisfy their racism and oWn tEh LiBs

Fortunately that’s not the...

Oh
What do you define as "significant?"
 

ThaiSweetChilli

Well-Known Member
So significant that accurate terms like “white supremacist” are replaced in the everyday lexicon with ambiguous nonsense like “alt-right”
As in a percentage. What is the percentage of white males in the US who you deem to be racist? And in the UK? Also do you have any data? It's important to be specific. Yet no doubt you'll go around the question and give some crap as usual.
 

Blue Maniac

Alzheimers sufferer
As in a percentage. What is the percentage of white males in the US who you deem to be racist? And in the UK? Also do you have any data? It's important to be specific. Yet no doubt you'll go around the question and give some crap as usual.
Absurd as this request for exact numbers is, I’m going to answer it.

After a campaign in which he demonstrated that he was a misogynistic, ableist, racist piece of shit, 62% of white men voted for Trump in 2016. That’s 26.4 million white men who were happy to vote for a man who openly attacked women for their looks, as well as Muslims and Mexicans for existing, and who previously made a good chunk of his fortune ripping off low income black people.

A few months earlier across the Atlantic, 53% of white voters put their cross in the Leave box. If you recall, the Leave campaign was mostly racist scaremongering and really bad maths. The below is a pretty good picture of the Leave vote. As you can see, people who dislike equality are extremely likely to have voted this way.

1600287984465.jpeg

So yeah, white men in both countries pretty ****in racist.
 

Brown Nose

Well-Known Member
This is another thread that makes me shake my head in despair. The distance between people who are all clearly decent and well meaning is extraordinary.

I get it that in America you are subsumed by all this. But you are ripping your country apart by being so entrenched in your side of a debate that is impossible to win without discussion, compromise and the ability to understand and accept other peoples opinion. And I'm not talking about racists here. I'm talking about non-racists with a different way of interpreting events.

It is like you looking at what happened in Northern Ireland and shaking your heads at it all. Over here, we saw the effects of the bombs and the terror so we cannot be objective. The rest of the world looked on and saw a mad mess.

I'm not going to bother setting out my opinions on some of the points made here. Suffice it to say that Thai has tried really hard to educate himself about these issues and he has a right to his opinion. Or is that no longer allowed either? His views are far from fully formed so he appears to be working through them here.

Just because you think that you're better educated or better informed or better people doesn't make it so. In fact your certainty is quite disturbing.
 

Blue Maniac

Alzheimers sufferer
This is another thread that makes me shake my head in despair. The distance between people who are all clearly decent and well meaning is extraordinary.

I get it that in America you are subsumed by all this. But you are ripping your country apart by being so entrenched in your side of a debate that is impossible to win without discussion, compromise and the ability to understand and accept other peoples opinion. And I'm not talking about racists here. I'm talking about non-racists with a different way of interpreting events.

It is like you looking at what happened in Northern Ireland and shaking your heads at it all. Over here, we saw the effects of the bombs and the terror so we cannot be objective. The rest of the world looked on and saw a mad mess.

I'm not going to bother setting out my opinions on some of the points made here. Suffice it to say that Thai has tried really hard to educate himself about these issues and he has a right to his opinion. Or is that no longer allowed either? His views are far from fully formed so he appears to be working through them here.

Just because you think that you're better educated or better informed or better people doesn't make it so. In fact your certainty is quite disturbing.
No offence intended BN, but this is highly likely the biggest load of shit you’ve ever posted on this site.

In the US, and a slightly lesser extent here too, those who identify themselves as being on “the right” have pulled further and further right to the point where an

A C T U A L

F A S C I S T


sits in the White House pretending to be a legitimate president.

As “the right” goose step further and further from sanity, why is it the responsibility of normal people to meet them in the middle if the middle has moved?

Bad, bad take, BN. Really shit.
 

Brown Nose

Well-Known Member
No offence intended BN, but this is highly likely the biggest load of shit you’ve ever posted on this site.

In the US, and a slightly lesser extent here too, those who identify themselves as being on “the right” have pulled further and further right to the point where an

A C T U A L

F A S C I S T


sits in the White House pretending to be a legitimate president.

As “the right” goose step further and further from sanity, why is it the responsibility of normal people to meet them in the middle if the middle has moved?

Bad, bad take, BN. Really shit.
Well, you've just rolled up several issues into one here to try to make your point.

It's apparent that you cannot see why taking this stance is so dangerous and damaging. You think that your view is normal. It isn't.

The overwhelming majority of people do not support racism or fascism or communism. Throwing around those labels is deliberately provocative and divisive. Why do you want to divide people so much?

Your view is entrenched and there is no point trying to persuade you. However, that way of being is hugely destructive. It is not going to improve any lives.
 

Miles Away

Well-Known Member
I think there is some underestimating of the threat Trump and his Republican enablers pose. Fascism is an appropriate word, though what we are seeing unfold here has an end result that looks more similar to the fall of the Soviet Union in which the whole was dismantled and handed out to cronies and oligarchs. So a Theocratic Oligarchy is probably the more apropos assessment.

Anyone under any illusion that we aren't sliding into one of the darkest periods in human history is more optimistic than I am. We have not begun to reach bottom.

I'm too exhausted to engage too heavily on a message board with relative strangers, but I can assure you I trust that I see things with clear and informed eyes. I can only hope I and others are wrong.
 
Last edited:

Blue Maniac

Alzheimers sufferer
The overwhelming majority of people do not support racism or fascism or communism. Throwing around those labels is deliberately provocative and divisive. Why do you want to divide people so much?
I wouldn’t say overwhelming majority. If the actual numbers of 2016 are anything to go by, those voting against fascists in the US are a pretty slender majority. You highlight three key words here, and it’s important to know when to use them and when to not use them. And here’s the irony: you include communism, which, along with “socialism” and “MOVE TO VUVUZELA”, have become part of the pre-programmed response of the far right clones when confronted with any ideology more than half an inch left of Hitler.
Your view is entrenched and there is no point trying to persuade you. However, that way of being is hugely destructive. It is not going to improve any lives.
My values are entrenched, that’s not the same thing. But as it happens, excising formerly covert white supremacists from my wider friendship circle has improved my life immensely. Any bigots really, homophobes, transphobes, red-pillers etc. There is no place for these people in my world. **** ‘em.
 

Robin127

Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t say overwhelming majority. If the actual numbers of 2016 are anything to go by, those voting against fascists in the US are a pretty slender majority...
I don't necessarily agree that all those who voted for Trump are/were Fascists. I think there were a lot who voted against Clinton rather than for the current President. I've read a couple of times and I think Trump himself once said that if the DNC had gone for Bernie Sanders Trump wouldn't have won.

What we have now is a perfect example of divide and rule.
 

homer

Well-Known Member
Bit like the Brexit vote, really

Not all people who voted for Trump are fascists
But all fascists would have voted for Trump
 
Log in to stop seeing adverts

Premier League

P Pld Pts
Leicester  9
Everton  9
Arsenal  6
Liverpool  6
Palace  6
Leeds Utd  6
Tottenham   4
Chelsea  4
Newcastle Utd  4
10 West Ham Utd  3
11 Aston Villa  3
12 Brighton  3
13 Manchester City  3
14 Manchester Utd  3
15 Southampton  3
16 Wolves  3
17 West Brom  1
18 Burnley  0
19 Fulham  0
20 Sheffield Utd  0

Latest posts

Top