White Supremacist Demonstration Outside Houston NAACP HQ

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

I can provide sources, but the fact of the matter is that we both know you'll rationalize it by saying it's not the entire organization of BLM, which while certainly true, will likely be held up as a double standard when for example White Organizations are painted by the same brush when their members use violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiLqvtqarOA
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07 ... ng-police/
http://www.infowars.com/video-black-liv ... eat-downs/
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... -reporter/
https://news.vice.com/article/videos-mi ... le-k-smith
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... tes-video/

1) http://www.snopes.com/black-lives-matte ... ton-rouge/
2) Blatantly edited to provide no context.
3) No evidence shown that they were affiliated with Black Lives Matter
4) The woman was not actually threatening him, and there's no indication that she was with Black Lives Matter.
5) No indication that they were with Black Lives Matter..
6) No indication that this had anything to do with Black Lives Matter.

1) I take back that as a source.
2) Violent Rhetoric remains violent rhetoric and remain calls to encourage violence.
3) BLM remains a popular movement, direct membership or affiliation isn't necessary, so long as the behaviors of the movement aren't codified and membership isn't necessary.
4) Except she was threatening him, and the protest in question was a BLM protest.
5) Again BLM remains a popular movement, until it organizes itself properly. Violence done under the beliefs that the BLM movement espouses are a direct reflection of the BLM. Or to explain it more simply, Dylan Roof wasn't a member of any white nationalist, supremacist, or separatist organization, but people hold those organizations as being responsible for the violence. People committing acts of violence because BLM is telling them they're being targeted by Cops and that the response to that behavior is rioting is why BLM is being held responsible.
6) Again the rising racial tension of BLM rhetoric is the direct cause of this.

Basically, you're playing the game that I just outlined as being the double standard that the Left generally plays here.

When a popular movement rises, acts of violence caused by those that sympathize with that popular movement, are directly related to that popular movement.

Or putting it more simply: If we all agree that acts of violence perpetrated by those sympathetic to White Supremacist causes are perceived to be the responsibility of the movement of white supremacy and reflected as being caused by the ideas of white supremacy than the same has to hold true for any other popular movement, unless you entertain the idea that violence is merited for only causes that you personally agree with; which removes the objectivity of why white supremacy is a disgusting ideology, because it is violent.

[Dakini]

Source that.

I smell bullshit.

Source

Okay, fine. I'll get the sources and even explain the math behind it, for those of you who need that. It will just take a few hours.

This sounds less like a source and more like "Oh shit, I expected them to just believe me. Now I gotta pull something out of my ass or make them wait in the hopes that they'll forget about it. But first, I'm going to be condescending and act like everyone else is stupid." to me.

[Ashkera]

It's a bit vulnerable to special pleading that way, and people luuuuurve to special plead. Lefties love it, righties love, everyone loves it.

The basic idea is about there being cultural/news cycle environmental factors that modify the behavior of both hooligans and lone nuts, making them think that they have more support and that it's okay to go commit a crime, or that they should do so. There's no reason to think that would only go in one direction.

Now, it's true that one could be true and the other false, but shouldn't we treat that with a great deal of suspicion due to how much people love to make excuses for their own ideologies while attacking others?

Sure. Here's the thing, though: We can infer a cause and effect, though not prove one, if there is a noticeable uptick in the frequency of one type of action following another one. There's no serious evidence that police officers are at greater danger due to BLM. There is some evidence that racist attacks increased following Brexit.

I'll leave that argument to the people that actually dislike BLM, since I'm neutral on them. (Although that lone nut shooter was rather dangerous.) I'm also mostly neutral on the Brexit. (Though I am not neutral on immigration, which is part of why I'm neutral on Brexit since it's not indicated to change that path much.)

My concern about "this could lead to vague cultural shifts that might result in violence against group X" is that it's a method to shut down criticism without actually addressing it because some hooligans might do something, when there are always some number of hooligans in circulation. It's not like it's limited to culture, either.

Multiculturalism needs criticism. US police practices need criticism. "But it could lead to hooligans doing violence" is a method to avoid that criticism.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1) http://www.snopes.com/black-lives-matte ... ton-rouge/
2) Blatantly edited to provide no context.
3) No evidence shown that they were affiliated with Black Lives Matter
4) The woman was not actually threatening him, and there's no indication that she was with Black Lives Matter.
5) No indication that they were with Black Lives Matter..
6) No indication that this had anything to do with Black Lives Matter.

1) I take back that as a source.
2) Violent Rhetoric remains violent rhetoric and remain calls to encourage violence.
3) BLM remains a popular movement, direct membership or affiliation isn't necessary, so long as the behaviors of the movement aren't codified and membership isn't necessary.
4) Except she was threatening him, and the protest in question was a BLM protest.
5) Again BLM remains a popular movement, until it organizes itself properly. Violence done under the beliefs that the BLM movement espouses are a direct reflection of the BLM. Or to explain it more simply, Dylan Roof wasn't a member of any white nationalist, supremacist, or separatist organization, but people hold those organizations as being responsible for the violence. People committing acts of violence because BLM is telling them they're being targeted by Cops and that the response to that behavior is rioting is why BLM is being held responsible.
6) Again the rising racial tension of BLM rhetoric is the direct cause of this.

Basically, you're playing the game that I just outlined as being the double standard that the Left generally plays here.

When a popular movement rises, acts of violence caused by those that sympathize with that popular movement, are directly related to that popular movement.

Or putting it more simply: If we all agree that acts of violence perpetrated by those sympathetic to White Supremacist causes are perceived to be the responsibility of the movement of white supremacy and reflected as being caused by the ideas of white supremacy than the same has to hold true for any other popular movement, unless you entertain the idea that violence is merited for only causes that you personally agree with; which removes the objectivity of why white supremacy is a disgusting ideology, because it is violent.

2) Without context, I don't know what they're saying this in relation to. I don't accept deceptive editing from left-wingers like Michael Moore, so I'm certainly not going to accept it from the other side.
3) Actually, since we're talking about whether or not BLM is responsible for violence, I'd say that membership or proof of influence is necessary.
4) Telling someone to get the fuck out of here is not a threat.
5) Dylan Roof was shown to have been influenced by white separatist and supremacist organizations through comments made in his manifesto. You haven't shown similar influence on the part of BLM.
6) Restating your premise is not proof.

There's no double standard here, just sources that don't prove what you seem to think that they prove.

[Vassenor]

Maybe we need to investigate the possible correlation between people saying we should hold BLM responsible for all violence and people saying we should hold all Muslims responsible for all acts of terrorism.

[Neutraligon]

Maybe we need to investigate the possible correlation between people saying we should hold BLM responsible for all violence and people saying we should hold all Muslims responsible for all acts of terrorism.

Can we also investigate the correlation between those people who are saying we should hold BLM for all violence and those who claim that Christians should not be held responsible for all acts of terrorism or pedophilia within the church?

[USS Monitor]

Maybe we need to investigate the possible correlation between people saying we should hold BLM responsible for all violence and people saying we should hold all Muslims responsible for all acts of terrorism.

Probably mostly the same people.

[Ashkera]

Maybe we need to investigate the possible correlation between people saying we should hold BLM responsible for all violence and people saying we should hold all Muslims responsible for all acts of terrorism.

Throw in another factor - people that want to hold all Brexit voters responsible for any post-Brexit violence, and I'm sure you'll find a correlation. You'll find it breaks down almost perfectly on left/right lines, I expect.

[The Liberated Territories]

Antifa assemble!

Molotovs vs assault rifles...hmm yeah that would go down well.

And no one would shed a tear..

[Geilinor]

Source.

So armed demonstrators wielding weapons, confederate flags and white supremacist placards demonstrated outside of Houston's NAACP headquarters... for equal rights or something. Who knows? Personally I think this is as ridiculous as so-called Straight Pride demonstrators, but I'm curious to see your opinions.

Is this the futile railings of a white supremacist group against progress? Or do they have a point despite their use of white supremacist slogans? Has the NAACP caused this by not opposing or condemning the BLM movement?

From what you quoted nothing about this sounds white supremacist.

White supremacist placards don't sound white supremacist to you?

[The balkens]

Antifa assemble!

Molotovs vs assault rifles...hmm yeah that would go down well.

And no one would shed a tear..

maybe tears from laughter.

[The Serbian Empire]

Source.

So armed demonstrators wielding weapons, confederate flags and white supremacist placards demonstrated outside of Houston's NAACP headquarters... for equal rights or something. Who knows? Personally I think this is as ridiculous as so-called Straight Pride demonstrators, but I'm curious to see your opinions.

Is this the futile railings of a white supremacist group against progress? Or do they have a point despite their use of white supremacist slogans? Has the NAACP caused this by not opposing or condemning the BLM movement?

From what you quoted nothing about this sounds white supremacist.

Flag that supports slavery of blacks isn't white supremacist?

[Big Jim P]

White Lives Matter staged a rally outside the NAACP’s Houston headquarters on Sunday, sparking controversy and counter-protests in a city where racial tensions remain high after a string of recent incidents.

Clutching Confederate flags, white supremacist signs and, in several cases, assault rifles, roughly 20 White Lives Matter members stood on the sidewalk of a historically black neighborhood to denounce the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

“We came out here specifically today to protest against the NAACP and their failure in speaking out against the atrocities that organizations like Black Lives Matter and other pro-black organizations have caused the attack and killing of white police officers, the burning down of cities and things of that nature,” organizer Ken Reed told the Houston Chronicle. “If they’re going to be a civil rights organization and defend their people, they also need to hold their people accountable.”

Source.

So armed demonstrators wielding weapons, confederate flags and white supremacist placards demonstrated outside of Houston's NAACP headquarters... for equal rights or something. Who knows? Personally I think this is as ridiculous as so-called Straight Pride demonstrators, but I'm curious to see your opinions.

Is this the futile railings of a white supremacist group against progress? Or do they have a point despite their use of white supremacist slogans? Has the NAACP caused this by not opposing or condemning the BLM movement?

*Yawn* When they start rioting, looting, burning down their communities and actually attacking people for being black, then you will have some news.

[Big Jim P]

From what you quoted nothing about this sounds white supremacist.

Flag that supports slavery of blacks isn't white supremacist?

Indeed. It is 2016, not 1860. Time marches on.

[Geilinor]

Flag that supports slavery of blacks isn't white supremacist?

Indeed. It is 2016, not 1860. Time marches on.

Time marches on but we haven't solved racial issues yet.

[Tananat]

Flag that supports slavery of blacks isn't white supremacist?

Indeed. It is 2016, not 1860. Time marches on.

How about use of the 14 Words? Does that qualify as white supremacist?

[Big Jim P]

BLM , Black Panthers , The Nation Of Islam

None of those except Nation of Islam are dangerous. Blank Panthers were freedom fighters, BLM are just liberals who want to be like Black Panthers. Nation of Islam has devolved into anti-semetic hate group unfortunately, so I give you that.

If BLM, Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam aren't dangerous then I guess your statement that racists are fucking dangerous isn't quite true then, is it?

[Big Jim P]

Indeed. It is 2016, not 1860. Time marches on.

How about use of the 14 Words? Does that qualify as white supremacist?

I've never even heard of the 14 words.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

So white people are out in public openly displaying weapons and no-one has been shot.

Wonder why.

Gee, it's like conservative white people can typically be trusted with guns, and aren't going to be brandishing them sideways an killing cops.

Because all black people are gun toting gang bangers who deserve to be shot.

[Saiwania]

How about use of the 14 Words? Does that qualify as white supremacist?

The 14 words are true though. Nothing particularly supremacist about wanting at least one corner of the globe to remain majority White. What we're seeing is majority White countries disappear across the entire world. I see where the trend is going or the proverbial writing on the wall that many people are quite simply blind to.

I'm not in favor of this event for the record. This is a time to be hiding and planning for life moving forward and not needlessly attracting further scrutiny and interference from outside.

[Thermodolia]

None of those except Nation of Islam are dangerous. Blank Panthers were freedom fighters, BLM are just liberals who want to be like Black Panthers. Nation of Islam has devolved into anti-semetic hate group unfortunately, so I give you that.

If BLM, Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam aren't dangerous then I guess your statement that racists are fucking dangerous isn't quite true then, is it?

BLM is too decentralized to be that much of a threat, NOI is a terrorist group, and the Black Panthers and the New Black Panthers are to different organizations.
The Black Panthers did some good things such as defending neighborhoods, setting up school for black kids, teaching self defense classes, and providing general aid, the New Black Panthers are entirely different group and is pretty dangerous.

[Big Jim P]

If BLM, Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam aren't dangerous then I guess your statement that racists are fucking dangerous isn't quite true then, is it?

BLM is too decentralized to be that much of a threat, NOI is a terrorist group, and the Black Panthers and the New Black Panthers are to different organizations.
The Black Panthers did some good things such as defending neighborhoods, setting up school for black kids, teaching self defense classes, and providing general aid, the New Black Panthers are entirely different group and is pretty dangerous.

Do the old Black Panthers still exist? If so, I will be sure to differentiate the two.

[MERIZoC]

BLM is too decentralized to be that much of a threat, NOI is a terrorist group, and the Black Panthers and the New Black Panthers are to different organizations.
The Black Panthers did some good things such as defending neighborhoods, setting up school for black kids, teaching self defense classes, and providing general aid, the New Black Panthers are entirely different group and is pretty dangerous.

Do the old Black Panthers still exist? If so, I will be sure to differentiate the two.

No, they're defunct, have been for a while. NBPP is still quite different and has been denounced by old Black Panthers leaders.

[Sjovenia]

BLM is too decentralized to be that much of a threat, NOI is a terrorist group, and the Black Panthers and the New Black Panthers are to different organizations.
The Black Panthers did some good things such as defending neighborhoods, setting up school for black kids, teaching self defense classes, and providing general aid, the New Black Panthers are entirely different group and is pretty dangerous.

Do the old Black Panthers still exist? If so, I will be sure to differentiate the two.

Yes Michael stipes, yes they do

[The Alexanderians]

If BLM, Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam aren't dangerous then I guess your statement that racists are fucking dangerous isn't quite true then, is it?

BLM is too decentralized to be that much of a threat, NOI is a terrorist group, and the Black Panthers and the New Black Panthers are to different organizations.
The Black Panthers did some good things such as defending neighborhoods, setting up school for black kids, teaching self defense classes, and providing general aid, the New Black Panthers are entirely different group and is pretty dangerous.

Decentralization is one of those things that can make one a very real threat.