It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BLM protest turns into a violent racist mob.

page: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

I made it quite clear earlier in this thread that I do not support the crop of SJWs who run BLM. I point out your over-generalizations of a group, use of logical fallacies and I'm called a sympathizer for the movement...

How about you answer the questions I asked ManBehindTheMask, enlighten me to your reasoning.


1. I never claimed you supported anything.
2. I never claimed you are a sympathizer
3. What question do you want me to answer
4. What did you mean when you brought up storm front if it wasn't racist innuendo?
edit on 17-11-2015 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2015 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

Well than I apologize for the presumption on my part.

why should what you deem to be reprehensible actions of individuals(regardless of the amount of people) effect the underlying message of the cause that BLM is trying to represent? Why should everyone involved in BLM be directly responsible for the actions of the members who commit those reprehensible acts?

edit on 17-11-2015 by NateTheAnimator because: Grammatical errors



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator




Why is everyone involved in BLM directly responsible for their actions?

Is that a trick question?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nope.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

Well than I apologize for the presumption on my part.

why should what you deem to be reprehensible actions of any amount of individuals effect the underlying message of the cause that BLM is trying to represent? Why is everyone involved in BLM directly responsible for their actions?


I'm not saying every member should be directly responsible for other members actions, what I'm saying is members of the groups actions/words especially since it keeps happening time and time again should be taken into account when looking at the group/movement.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

So, then.
Every member is not directly responsible for their actions? Or did you just word that badly? Did you mean the members are not responsible for the actions of other members?

edit on 11/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

I somewhat agree with you it should be taken into account like any other group, although I don't think the reputation they gain from those acts whether it has a positive or negative connotation should not reflect on what they have to say overall. Even if you disagree with what their espousing.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah I worded badly. I'm asking if the actions of a few or a majority should reflect on the overall cause and what they(any given group or organization) represent.
edit on 17-11-2015 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator




I'm asking if the actions of a few or a majority should reflect on the overall cause and what they(any given group or organization) represent.

I fully agree that a minority within a group cannot be taken to represent that group but why wouldn't the majority opinion do so? Unless the "cause" is not well defined, that is, and that group can accept dissenting interpretations of it.

edit on 11/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

I somewhat agree with you it should be taken into account like any other group, although I don't think the reputation they gain from those acts whether it has a positive or negative connotation should not reflect on what they have to say overall. Even if you disagree with what their espousing.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah I worded badly. I'm asking if the actions of a few or a majority should reflect on the overall cause and what they(any given group or organization) represent.

Just to make this clear I have no problem with people separating the actions/words of the group from their message (I also don't think you believe that's what I was advocating for). I do have to say that I believe people should be skeptical at some of the claims and stats BLM members will make since they have been caught using shady studies and speaking out with out all the facts to further their agenda (now I'm not saying all members do this). Examples of them using shady studies was in the case of when quite a few BLM supporters/sympathizers claim an unarmed black person is shot 'every 28 hours which comes from a very flawed study and then you have some of their members making claims without all the facts in the case of Michael Brown/Sandra Bland.
www.politifact.com...



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Unless the "cause" is not well defined, that is, and that group can accept dissenting interpretations of it.


I think you got it about right, it's what happened to #OccupyWall-Street movement. They lost their direction and focus, allowing the majority of the movement to be replaced with SJWs. Not like they had much choice. I think that's what's happened to the BLM they have a growing radical element amongst their organization that's rapidly tarnishing their public image.

Glad we could agree somewhat for once



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

I'm well aware of their shady tactics which is one of the many reasons I don't support them.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

People should always be skeptical of any generalizations. No matter who makes them, or why.

edit on 11/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111


Yes, this is why we dislike these unruly negroes in the first place.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: atlscribe

oh you said a dirty word, expect to have it deleted or post removed.


edit on 17-11-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

This is how they all behave and why we are willing to paint all of them with a broad brush to validate our preconceived notions about them. It doesn't matter if a few bad eggs are responsible for the agitation, and it doesn't matter if nondescript websites are reporting such information to suit their agenda, we already know how they act. Now excuse me while I go back to watching FOX News.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Did you say "turns into a violent racist mob"? What did they start as?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: dreamlotus1111
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


One is due to drunken idiots after a sporting event.

The other are the fruits of certain social movements.

I cant even make out the race(s) on the right side. Your "info-graphic's" power is biased based on expected opinions about comparing america subcultures
edit on 11172015 by Butterfinger because: Embedded quotes

edit on 11172015 by Butterfinger because: 'Youre' 'your' whatever

edit on Tue Nov 17 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   
if these blm people are soooo right in what they do, where are all the famous black people backing them up?? if the blm were something to be proud of i would think jesse jackson and al sharpton or any other problack celebrity would be all over it



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: tripp2068




if the blm were something to be proud of i would think jesse jackson and al sharpton or any other problack celebrity would be all over it


there's no money in it, that's why you don't see al or jesse there.


edit on 18-11-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

no, you dont see Jesse and Sharpton because they are now very old, and it seems to be the only two names of Civil rights attorneys the general public can know or remember. Most of these people and movements are utilizing counsel, of various nationalities and ethnicity, so you know. Two guys who were only popular in a particular decade are not necessarily needed to jet all over America for every civil rights litigation involving those of a darker complexion.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join