Black Lives Matter assault man & argue with praying people

[Ostroeuropa]

Hyperbole?

Ehhhh…

https://old.reddit.com/r/offmychest/com ... thousands/

Dude, not the topic of this thread. Not even remotely close to relevant.

It's relevant to the point you made. The cultural revolution the idpol left has advanced over the last few decades has in fact murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

That is (one of) the consequence of what this toxic ideology did to men.

And now they've turned their sights on white people.

You know like....

First the came for the men, then they came for the whites.

There is *every reason* to be concerned and to stop them right in their tracks here and rout them out of society and its institutions. We have seen the consequences of their ideology played out and the tactics they use.

[Liriena]

Dude, not the topic of this thread. Not even remotely close to relevant.

It's relevant to the point you made. The cultural revolution the idpol left has advanced over the last few decades has in fact murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

That is the consequence of what this toxic ideology did to men.

And now they've turned their sights on white people.

You know like....

First the came for the men, then they came for the whites.

There is *every reason* to be concerned.

No, Ostro. This literally isn't relevant. We're discussing the use of "cultural revolution" to describe the BLM movement and the tearing down of certain monuments. That has fuck all to do with the UN. You're once again unilaterally trying to insert your personal pet issues into an unrelated discussion by pretending that everyone else is implicitly including them in the discussion.

Read the fucking room, dude. Not every thread is an invitation for you to single-handedly try to garble the language and categories others are using with your personal obsessions.

Not to mention this is yet another instance of you (wittingly or unwittingly) coming to the defense of right-wing bullshit by (naively or not) acting like right-wingers are always implicitly talking about the same stuff as you. Bienenhalde wasn't talking about men's rights. He wasn't talking about the UN as being part of some sort of neo-Maoist movement. This is entirely your own fabrication.

I'm not going to tell you to "fuck off" because I'd like to think you mean well, so instead I'm gonna ask you to read the fucking room.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's relevant to the point you made. The cultural revolution the idpol left has advanced over the last few decades has in fact murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

That is the consequence of what this toxic ideology did to men.

And now they've turned their sights on white people.

You know like....

First the came for the men, then they came for the whites.

There is *every reason* to be concerned.

No, Ostro. This literally isn't relevant. We're discussing the use of "cultural revolution" to describe the BLM movement and the tearing down of certain monuments. That has fuck all to do with the UN. You're once again unilaterally trying to insert your personal pet issues into an unrelated discussion by pretending that everyone else is implicitly including them in the discussion.

Read the fucking room, dude. Not every thread is an invitation for you to single-handedly try to garble the language and categories others are using with your personal obsessions.

Not to mention this is yet another instance of you (wittingly or unwittingly) coming to the defense of right-wing bullshit by (naively or not) acting like right-wingers are always implicitly talking about the same stuff as you. Bienenhalde wasn't talking about men's rights. He wasn't talking about the UN as being part of some sort of neo-Maoist movement. This is entirely your own fabrication.

I'm not going to tell you to "fuck off" because I'd like to think you mean well, so instead I'm gonna ask you to read the fucking room.

The tearing down of monuments and the hostility to symbolism of the target group is a step in the process. The UN is an example of the problem, it's not the only one. The consequences of allowing this "Privilege" ideology to take hold and to terrorize opposition in this manner is systemic epistemic injustice against the outgroup and their exclusion from institutional aims to solve their problems, ultimately leading to deaths.

Allowing the BLM ideology to mobilize and instill black supremacy will obviously have disastrous consequences and deaths is inevitably going to be one of them. We know this because of the comparative examples which are in the history of this movement and its predecessors.

We already have a thread here highlighting an instance of how white people defending themselves from racist violence inspired by this ideology get targeted by state violence because we're in the midst of this hysteria. Letting it become the new norm is obviously undesirable and yes, will lead to deaths.

I think the comparison to Maos cultural revolution is apt.


Let's suppose they've already come for the trade unionists and the socialists using the same means and their dead. And now they start doing the same shit to Jews, and you're acting like it's not relevant and it's just the smashing of some shop windows and nasty rhetoric.

That is denial mate.

We *know the consequences of the ideology BLM is using, because when it was used with Men as the outgroup, hundreds of thousands died in just one of their legislative actiosn*.

We know where this leads, and the reasons we know are obviously relevant.

[Galloism]

Ostro, I gotta go with Liriena on this one. BLM and the stupid statue stuff has nothing to do with the sexist actions of feminist political lobbyists at the UN (and elsewhere) causing men’s deaths. Let it go.

Make a thread, or add to the feminist thread.

[Liriena]

No, Ostro. This literally isn't relevant. We're discussing the use of "cultural revolution" to describe the BLM movement and the tearing down of certain monuments. That has fuck all to do with the UN. You're once again unilaterally trying to insert your personal pet issues into an unrelated discussion by pretending that everyone else is implicitly including them in the discussion.

Read the fucking room, dude. Not every thread is an invitation for you to single-handedly try to garble the language and categories others are using with your personal obsessions.

Not to mention this is yet another instance of you (wittingly or unwittingly) coming to the defense of right-wing bullshit by (naively or not) acting like right-wingers are always implicitly talking about the same stuff as you. Bienenhalde wasn't talking about men's rights. He wasn't talking about the UN as being part of some sort of neo-Maoist movement. This is entirely your own fabrication.

I'm not going to tell you to "fuck off" because I'd like to think you mean well, so instead I'm gonna ask you to read the fucking room.

The tearing down of monuments and the hostility to symbolism of the target group is a step in the process.

Ostro, you're old enough to know that slippery slope fallacies are bullshit. Your fearmongering here is on the level of those fascists who actively want a second civil war.

The UN is an example of the problem

Not, it's not. You've given me no link between the actual topic of this thread and your MRA threadjacking other than your pinky promise that they're both part of the exact same apparently global, unified, singular left.

It feels like you just found an MRA Reddit post you liked and thought you could just hijack any active discussion to talk about it. And I'm not playing that game with you.

You want to talk about the UN's systemic misandry and its supposed link to some problematic global left wing thing? Make your own thread. You certainly have the skill to do it without clumsily inserting yourself into an unrelated discussion and trying to manipulate your way to making everything about your particular pet issues.

We already have a thread here highlighting an instance

Yeah, an instance. One. In the midst of a mostly peaceful and disorganized grassroots movement that is at odds with the state and most established power. The cultural revolution was a state-sponsored and systematic use of political violence.

You and Bienenhalde aren't making an "apt" comparison. You're engaging in historically idiotic hyperbole, and you trying to pretend that it's anything more than hyperbole is just disappointing.

[Hakons]

St. Louis IX isn't related much to American history and the concerns of BLM. This is the "But the Crusades" non-argument in real life. Thankfully, it seems the group of Catholics are handling this well. It's odd the St. Louis police don't step in to help, but the violence early on was minimal and seems to have stopped. Catholics have also organized groups to pray around statues of St. Junipero Serra in California, another tangentially-related figure that is for some reason targeted by BLM and not lawfully protected by police.

[Luminesa]

St. Louis IX isn't related much to American history and the concerns of BLM. This is the "But the Crusades" non-argument in real life. Thankfully, it seems the group of Catholics are handling this well. It's odd the St. Louis police don't step in to help, but the violence early on was minimal and seems to have stopped. Catholics have also organized groups to pray around statues of St. Junipero Serra in California, another tangentially-related figure that is for some reason targeted by BLM and not lawfully protected by police.

Some people have no idea what they’re attacking. I’m glad that the St. Louis IX statue is safe for now, though.

[James_xenoland]

I think that you're engaging in deliberate or unwitting misinformation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/attem ... get-field/

The factualness of this aside,.. (seriously have no idea here, first I heard) Snopes is NOT a bias free or trustworthy source, ESPECIALLY on this specific type of issue right now!
I mean even if it did happen just as claimed, snopes would end up with a 100k+ word article explaining the history of slavery, as well as niche _studies theories on alleged multi-generational effects on some people's ability to watch others pray in peace or some bullshit.. admitting somewhere in the middle that it did happen "but..." And then ending with a "mixed" or "partly true/mostly false" rating.

[Vassenor]

I think that you're engaging in deliberate or unwitting misinformation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/attem ... get-field/

The factualness of this aside,.. (seriously have no idea here, first I heard) Snopes is NOT a bias free or trustworthy source, ESPECIALLY on this specific type of issue right now!
I mean even if it did happen just as claimed, snopes would end up with a 100k+ word article explaining the history of slavery, as well as niche _studies theories on alleged multi-generational effects on some people's ability to watch others pray in peace or some bullshit.. admitting somewhere in the middle that it did happen "but..." And then ending with a "mixed" or "partly true/mostly false" rating.

OK.

[Liriena]

I think that you're engaging in deliberate or unwitting misinformation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/attem ... get-field/

The factualness of this aside,.. (seriously have no idea here, first I heard) Snopes is NOT a bias free or trustworthy source, ESPECIALLY on this specific type of issue right now!
I mean even if it did happen just as claimed, snopes would end up with a 100k+ word article explaining the history of slavery, as well as niche _studies theories on alleged multi-generational effects on some people's ability to watch others pray in peace or some bullshit.. admitting somewhere in the middle that it did happen "but..." And then ending with a "mixed" or "partly true/mostly false" rating.

k

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think that you're engaging in deliberate or unwitting misinformation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/attem ... get-field/

The factualness of this aside,.. (seriously have no idea here, first I heard) Snopes is NOT a bias free or trustworthy source, ESPECIALLY on this specific type of issue right now!
I mean even if it did happen just as claimed, snopes would end up with a 100k+ word article explaining the history of slavery, as well as niche _studies theories on alleged multi-generational effects on some people's ability to watch others pray in peace or some bullshit.. admitting somewhere in the middle that it did happen "but..." And then ending with a "mixed" or "partly true/mostly false" rating.

>dismiss the source I know nothing about
>complain that Snopes is too long and complicated
>admit that the big verdict logo isn't always False

You would uphold your reputation versus Snopes better, if you didn't post at all!