a most acceptable reply Sir!
2 Likes
This canāt be this hard for you!!! And sorry to just now reply, but I was at police swear-in ceremonies most of the evening.
You Ask: āWhat āTruthā are you claiming to use as your frame? What, specifically, are you wondering if people realize has happened?ā
That BLM never burned down entire neighborhoods as Old dude claimed to be the case. So there goes your inaccuracy, and I suggest you take that up with himā¦
You say: āI would say that the framing in this case is by the name of the organization, not by race. And arenāt you the one who seems to be saying that BLM is not strictly a racially based organization because there are white chapters? Isnāt it a sign of respect to call someone by the name they have chosen for themselves?ā
Actually race entered the picture at the point one again Oldman brings it up, but Iām guessing you have had nothing to say to himā¦lol!!
You Say:āThe summer of riots, in which the self-styled group āBLMā participated, maybe didnāt literally āburn down entire neighborhoodsā but it certainly resulted in the destruction of neighborhoods. I canāt accept any justification for the arson, looting, and wanton destruction that took place during those riots, not matter what the race/gender/ethnicity/politics of the perpetrators.ā
We actually agree here, in that it makes no sense to damage neighborhoods, but letās please remember that our country was founded on looting, burning,and violence. That doesnāt make either right but we seem to understand that there is a pass over that becomes decretional. As a result we condemn what we want, and make excuses when we feel the need. I have never been a supporter of BLM, but because some of you see my face you simply make that mistake. Then it appears you try to hem me up with nonsense about BLMā¦lol!!
Iāve played this game a time or two!!
Have a great night!
I really donāt know what your face looks like. I view this forum on a very small screen which makes all the avatar pics so tiny as to be unidentifiable. I also donāt pay much attention to avatars images as being a true representation of the writer since, in my experience, itās common practice to use metaphorical or whimsical images. Looking back over my posts, I donāt see where I made any assumptions about your race or appearance, or even your politics. I have been responding to you as an individual.
I agree with you that the statement concerning āBLM burning down entire neighborhoodsā is not accurate. I also agree that BLM was not the only group involved in those riots. I still donāt understand how mentioning BLM by name constitutes a racially charged reference, since the leadership of BLM chose that name for themselves.
I do disagree with your statement that " our country was founded on looting, burning, and violence.". None of those actions were fundamental principles or goals of the Founders. There was plenty of violence involved in the War of Independence but, it was a WAR; violence is a given in that circumstance and is a primary tool warfare everywhere. As to the looting and burning, while it may have been deplorable then (and certainly is nowadays), both were well within the internationally accepted practices of war at that time and those tactics were used by all sides. Burning was a method of depriving the enemy of shelter, support, and resources. Looting was an accepted way of enriching (an incentivizing) the rank and file soldiers, whose official pay was pitifully meager. By the way, Iām not defending the use of burning and looting as a tactic of war then or now. I am simply recognizing them within the historical context. As for violence, well, thatās practically the definition of war. (And self-defense.) I may decry that this is so but I donāt know how to change it.
What ānonsense about BLMā did I post in order to āhem you upā. Unless you werenāt referring to me specifically but used the term āyouā in its widely inclusive general sense without regard to any particular individual.
You and I may have our disagreements, but I believe we can have an honest, respectful conversation about those differences and maybe each of us can learn something from the other. That is my hope and goal, at any rate.
3 Likes
3 Likes
again good answer Sir!
by now you may have noticed he takes things and pushās em right out of context IMHOā¦
I keep seeing that statement about burning downā¦ they burnt the businessesā¦
in effect they destroyed the neighborhoodā¦ so to me they burnt it allā¦
and IMHO his claim that Iām blaming only black people for it is BOGUS!!!
said many times there were too many other color faces in the crowds doing the burningā¦
pretty much done with this personā¦ thinkin heās possibly a paid shill or some suchā¦
may even block him or her or whateverā¦ that will make 3 or is it 4 that I got tired of and blockedā¦
keeps twisting statements and adding stuff that was NOT saidā¦
IIRC there is a site on the net that describes shill and troll activitiesā¦ might be worth a lookā¦
might even be the cause of the other thread being constantly locked???
2 Likes
To be honest, I cant take you seriouslyā¦ You Ramble!!!
I donāt see where I need to address someone that is in a perpetual state of argument!! If person says Left youāre going to argue Right, Even though it is actually Left!!
So as I see it you seem to pretty much trigger just becauseā¦
Mine is, I identify as seagull footprints with a downy feather. If you saw me in real life, you would see the resemblance. 
4 Likes
YOU started all this not meā¦ calling inaccurateā¦ maybe it was but the neighborhoods still got destroyedā¦
and now you accuse me of ramblingā¦ yet all I have done is reply to yourā¦
claim against my statementā¦ Iām of the opinion that most reading all this get what I saidā¦
and IIRC one of the tactics used by trolls and shills is ridicule, then thereās insult,
then we have twist the words, oh then there is refuse to read and/or acknowledge what is said,
and finally there is the attack the sanity or mental competences of said targetā¦
lookin back I believe I see SOME of this stuff in your statements???
you sir IMHO are like a grammar nazi attacking one thing you see that may be inaccurate and claiming it makes the entire conversation null and void and you the only logical and intelligent person involvedā¦
enough with youā¦
3 Likes
I donāt see anything wrong with arguing. Once we make it personal it stops being about the facts. Whoever did what is not important. What is important is, is what was done moral or ethical. I think these are the points we should be arguing.
2 Likes
4 Likes
Iām having a hard time deciding which one is Foghorn and which one is the dawg. After all BLM turned out to be a get rich scam, IMO, and not so much about drawing attention to the person killed. IIRC, it turned into a burn and loot, antipha going crazy party. With the gubment sucking their thumbs because we donāt want to look like we are picking a side.
Yāall have now ya hear.
5 Likes
My avatar is a white R rampant on a circular field of brownā¦
4 Likes
I did say that and I was hoping to get a replyā¦sort of the whole point of asking a question.
However, it is possible that I did not make my meaning clear. Itās not uncommon for the ideas so fully formed in my head to loose something when translating them to the written page. That being the case, allow me to elaborate.
You were the one to first pose the question, to the effect of āDo you now that there are white chapters of BLM?ā Based on that question and the context in which it was asked, I inferred that you were accusing the person to whom you posed the question of viewing BLM in a racially biased way, to wit, that BLM is a āblackā or racially exclusive organization and therefore the actions and statements of BLM could be imputed to the black community at large. Again, I say that this is what I inferred and what shaped my response.
When I asked āWhat do white chapters of BLM have to do with anything?ā, I was meaning to say that I donāt view BLM as an exclusively āblackā organization, or representing the entirety of the black community. My question was meant to convey the idea that the demographic makeup of BLMās membership is irrelevant to a discussion concerning the objective actions and statements of the organization and itās members, members who individually may claim, rightly or wrongly, to be operating under the aegis of BLM. In other words, rather than imply what may be seen as a racial bias against BLM as an organization, I wanted to promote the idea that there could be a discussion of the real-world actions of BLM without regard to the race(s) of the individuals actually committing those actions in the name of BLM.
I would also like to add that I never understood the organizationās name, āBlack Lives Matterā, to indicate an organization made up of black people. I understood it to mean a group of like-minded people who joined together to promote the idea that Black Lives Matter. I donāt believe that using the self-chosen name of BLM represents an inappropriate mention of race when discussing issues involving BLM.
Hope this helps.
3 Likes
I thought they said trained marxists? I donāt know that for sure though. They usually call conservatives fascists donāt they? They certainly espouse marxist-maoist ideology normally.
3 Likes
Virgil my bad I donāt know why I wrote Fascistā¦ Been a l0ong day They certainly claim to be Marxist.
Good Lookin out!!!
TY!!
1 Like
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY ITā¦
I SAW WAY TOO MANY NON-BLACK FACES AMONG THE PEOPLE BURNING STUFF???
PERHAPS YOUā¦ have issues???
PERHAPS YOUā¦ think I was singling out one color of skinā¦ sure sounds like it to meā¦
both BLM and ANTIFA have MANY people with ALL COLORS OF SKINā¦
and again with the single issue???
and I later said they destroyed those neighborhoods with their burningā¦
1 Like
Roger that good sir! I figured that was what you meant.
7 Likes