Milwaukee Police killed armed suspect w/a criminal record, BLM RIOTS
A Milwaukee Police officer shot and killed an armed suspect fleeing from a car on Milwaukee’s North Side. Police said the victim, 23, was armed with a handgun and was shoot dead while fleeing, after a traffic stop.
* http://www.milwaukeepolicenews.com/?p=9083
The man had a “lengthy criminal record” and was carrying an illegal firearm that had been used in a burglary.
Black Lives Matter began riot, burned a gas station and a auto parts store. They destroyed property and cars, beat white people, an officer was injured by a brick...
A mam trying to justify the violence by claiming that rich people don’t give blacks enough money in the video below.
* https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status … 96/video/1
Last night’s chaos will do nothing to change the view that ‘Black Lives Matter’ is a violent, domestic hate group, but despite this recurring theme, the movement has received positive coverage from the mainstream media and has been supported by President Obama himself on numerous occasions.I'm sick of the BLM and their false causes.
In truth , that is truth without the benefit of p.c. media driven causation , Blacks in America will realize that they are the only ethnicity in a very diverse America to constantly whine about their suffrage while totally ignoring the familial self destructiveness that they can blame NO ONE else for .
Ask the Irish .
The Scots
The Asians .
The Hispanics .
The Italians .
The Greeks.
The Turks.
The coal miners , the railroad builders , the fishermen , the farmers , the ranchers , the loggers .
The war that these people are beginning will be their own Achilles heel.
So much for any positive dialog when civil war divides .
I'd need some evidence that BLM organized the riot. It's like the guy on this site blaming Christians for Adam Lanza. This isn't the first time riots have been sparked by justified police activity in the inner city. Just because there is a riot and they find an apparently uneducated person of lesser intelligence to make a bizarre statement; it is not logical to make the leap from that to 'BLM is a terrorist organization'.
Funny, when I looked at the thread and realized who was the initiator, your question was the first thought that entered my mind.
You are gifted with a rational mind and reflective soul.You're right, we don't have any information on whether or not BLM members actively participated in these riots, and even if some did, that might not be reflective on the movement as a whole.
However, the actions and attitudes of their leaders can be. This image is a capture of what DeRay Mckesson taught in a class at Yale, which was supported by Johnetta Elzie, titled "In Defense of Looting" https://twitter.com/CrashnDaPlane/statu … 6975618048
BLM might not be directly involved in the lootings and riots, but their leaders and their rhetoric are responsible for creating an atmosphere where lootings are justified, where racial tensions are inflamed, and where outward hatred towards cops is encouraged - all of which are founded on faulty evidence and reasoning. The fact that this isn't the first time unjustified riots have happened does not mean that BLM's actions have not increased their frequency and permissibility.
In that sense, your comparison to Adam Lanza would only be applicable if Christians were actively encouraging and making apologia for his actions.A in defense of looting class at Yale?
I watched some of the looters empty stores in a short hurry in Milwaukee on YouTube. It doesn't make any sense to me...except that there was misinformation to begin with that it was a white cop that shot a black man, when it was actually a black cop.
I haven't seen the body-cam footage from the officer, don't want to.
We need a law and order leader!What do you mean that looting doesn't make sense? They want something for nothing, and stealing is an easy answer - that there is a riot going on makes it even easier. That it makes them no different than any other common thief is immaterial to them - thieves already know they are thieves and it's unlikely that that was the first time for those particular ones.
I hope I can make it to the next riot because I want to go to WalMart.
Nah - they have cheap junk. I want a top store! When's the next scheduled riot in Manhattan?
This ex-con got his act together. (strong language)
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozXOQ48aFlE
Gotta know the difference between right and wrong.
That link you supplied was a Twitter comment. I'd like to read what the guy had to say on the subject. It is very difficult to condemn something because another person made a comment on Twitter.
The link within the Twitter comment is this one, which I'm assuming is the source material they used for Mckesson's Yale class: http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/in-defense-of-looting/
Given their past rhetoric, I'm inclined to think Mckesson and BLM as a whole agrees with that essay.
To me it's a foregone conclusion that looting is indefensible, so I skimmed through the piece to find any blatantly erroneous reasoning so I could dismiss the piece altogether. I found my heuristic warranted as I caught this part:
Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, “opportunistically,” and in excess. But why is it bad to grab an opportunity to improve well-being, to make life better, easier, or more comfortable? Or, as Hannah Black put it on Twitter: “Cops exist so people can’t loot ie have nice things for free so idk why it’s so confusing that people loot when they protest against cops” [sic]. Only if you believe that having nice things for free is amoral, if you believe, in short, that the current (white-supremacist, settler-colonialist) regime of property is just, can you believe that looting is amoral in itself.
Note how he equates looting with improving well-being and making life better. It's dressed up more eloquently and with sociological jargon, but it's essentially the same defense as the "Rich people aren't giving us free stuff" defense highlighted by the OP.
There might be a gem somewhere in the piece that manages to defend looting. I'll leave it to you to search for it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.(2015) DeRay McKesson was hired by Yale University to lecture for two days on "Transformational Leadership in the #BlackLivesMatter Movement.
In his lecture titled, “Transformational Leadership in the #BlackLivesMatter Movement,” Mr. McKesson asked students to read an essay called “In Defense of Looting,” written at the height of the riots that plagued Ferguson, Missouri.
"We believe it's important for students to examine a wide range of viewpoints and ideas." (Yale Divinity School response to critics)
“The relationship and tension between protest and property destruction is something that America has grappled with since the Revolutionary War & the Boston Tea Party. The reading ... allowed us to explore all sides of the American historical relationships and tensions present in protest.” - DeRay McKessonIf that is all there is to it I suppose I don't see much wrong with exploring other viewpoints.
Looting has deeper sociological underpinnings. People are not simply stealing sneakers, those shoes are a representation of centuries of trodding under foot of the innocent bystanders of villainous colonialism. Those mag wheels? Symbolic of being run over by the wheels of injustice. A box of cigars? Well who doesnt enjoy a fine cigar. Yale needs to refund some tuitions.
DeRay Mckesson was guest presenter for a class at Yale called "Transformational Leadership for Church and Society – Religion 3900". The syllabus (which you can find here) describes several goals for the course including:
"2. The challenge to think critically and responsibly about models of transformational leadership, and space to question the assumptions that you have had about such leadership.
3. The opportunity to read texts that address the broader issues of leadership closely related to the work of the presenter, and to gain acquaintance with leadership theory and practice within that field.
4. Consideration of the dynamics of race, class and gender within the leadership model being presented, and within your own opportunities for leadership. . ."(1)
As part of his exploration of these themes and goals, the guest speaker included a supplementary reading text called "In defense of looting" by Willie Osterweil(2).
Mckesson said his reason for including the text was: "The relationship and tension between protest and property destruction is something that America has grappled with since the Revolutionary War and the Boston Tea Party. The reading . . . allowed us to explore all sides of the American historical relationships and tensions present in protest."(3)
A first year student described what was said in the class: "We talked about the effects and history of looting, trying to really get down to the core of it and understand where it comes from . . . It wasn’t about why we should be looting and why we should glorify and romanticize it as if it’s this great thing. We intellectualized looting in a way that I’ve never done before."(4)
Associate Dean Goettler, the instructor for the course said: "DeRay McKesson prompted deeply thoughtful reflection on the work of social change and leadership in ministry". (5)
Part of Yale's mission statement is to educate aspiring leaders through "the free exchange of ideas in an ethical, interdependent, and diverse community of faculty, staff, students, and alumni."(6)
This information supports the following conclusions:
1. The discussion Mckesson engaged in was entirely appropriate to the themes and goals of the course syllabus.
2. The supplementary reading text Mckesson provided was entirely appropriate to the themes and goals of the course syllabus, and formed an important part of the discussion.
3. The content McKesson provided was well received by the course instructor and students.
4. There is no reliable evidence to suggest Mckesson condoned looting or rioting.
5. There is reliable evidence to suggest the discussion did not "romanticize" or "glorify" looting or rioting.
6. The discussion McKesson participated in constitutes a "free exchange of ideas", which forms an important part of Yale's overall mission statement.
DeRay Mckesson was invited to Yale to discuss the dynamics of race, class and gender. He did that. Exploring the dynamics of looting as a social phenomenon, within that discussion, is not the same as "teaching" looting, or advocating it.
To pick up on the analogy used, if the guest speaker were a Christian who chose to discuss the dynamics of mass shootings as a social phenomenon (including those committed by Christians) it would be misleading to suggest he had therefore "taught" mass shootings, or condoned them in some way.
(1) Transformational Leadership for Church and Society – Religion 3900 Sylabus (128kb Word document)
http://divinity.yale.edu/sites/default/ … labus.docx
(2) In defense of looting - Willie Osterweil
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/in-defense-of-looting/
(3) 'Black Lives' leader defends looting in Yale lecture
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/08/bl … cture.html
DeRay Mckesson’s Yale Students: Rand Paul Was Wrong About The Class
(4) https://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/de … mv48A4VXwd
(5) #BlackLivesMatter leader DeRay McKesson brings race justice conversation to YDS
http://divinity.yale.edu/news/blacklive … sation-yds
(6) Yale - Mission Statement
http://www.yale.edu/about-yale/mission-statementThough debatable, conclusions 1, 2, 3, and 6 are not being contested and are independent of conclusions 4 and 5. Conclusions 4 and 5 are relevant to my original point so I’ll be addressing those.
Did they romanticize, glorify or justify looting? Or was it an in-depth analysis of the dynamics of looting as a social phenomenon? Let’s see how the class "intellectualized" looting by taking a look at some of the comments highlighted by Johnetta Elzie (1-5):
"If you put me in a cage you're damn right I'm going to break some glass" - romanticized metaphor justifying violence, destruction and looting.
"Looting for me isn't violent, it's an expression of anger" - romanticized language justifying violence, destruction, and looting.
"The act of looting is political. another way to dissolve consent, pressing you to no longer keep me out of this space, by destroying it" - romanticized language justifying violence, destruction and looting.
"You made me destroy this property to be seen" – romanticized language justifying violence and destruction.
"To not give, is to steal from the poor" – romanticized nonsensical equivocation, justifying looting.
I hope I don’t need to explain how being angry about a perceived problem is not a valid justification for looting stores that have nothing to do with your anger.
Keep in mind that these individuals who are supposedly politically expressing anger whilst being in “cages” go to an Ivy League college with a yearly tuition rate of $23,000, $40,000+ when including accommodation. I guess money doesn’t buy self-awareness. Also noteworthy, some of the students’ motivations for taking this class include “I need to wake up more to my privilege” (6) and “I am black.” (7) For these students their satisfaction will not be dependent on the actual merits of the course. But I digress.
You might be thinking that Elzie is just highlighting the comments stated in the course as a neutral observer, but here we can see her critically attacking a comment that she did not agree with, while making sure to mention his race and gender as if they’re relevant (8-9):
“So a white male student just bought up that looting has no victory. Pushed to answer was the American Revolution a "mistake" w/no victory.. The student then said "You got me"”
At that point the class agreed upon a glorified ideal of looting by comparing it to the American Revolution (as if it were some sort of mass looting, or as if lootings are some sort of national revolution) and described looting as having a victory condition. Again, more romanticized justification of looting.
According to journalist Michael Moynihan, both DeRay Mckesson and the second guest in the interview, Thaddeus Russell, broadly defended the position of looting. In that Twitter exchange, Mckesson comments “We had a good discussion.” He does not deny that he defended the position of looting. (10)
Looking at Mckesson’s defense of his lecture you’ll find that he doesn’t mention looting; he mentions protests and property destruction. Why would he mention protests and property destruction if the topic of the inquiry was his lecture on looting? He is perfectly capable of distinguishing between looting and property destruction. (11)
The piece by Willie Osterweil equates looting to protesting, which, combined with the above, suggests Mckesson is doing the same. Either they think looting is a valid form of protest, or they think the majority of protesters are also looters, neither of which are reasoned perspectives.
As noted by your source, no other course material provided by Mckesson deals with looting significantly. I find it laughable to suggest that examining one pseudointellectual pro-looting stance from a guy whose prime reputability comes from being in a band called “Vulture Sh*t” is equivalent to exploring the dynamics of looting as a social phenomenon.
Contrary to your suggestion, "In Defense of Looting" does not explore the causal dynamics of looting or the reasons for these conditions in any sort of criminological model or otherwise analytical perspective of the social phenomenon; the essay outlines the justifications for why looting should happen as an ethical and moral act. That difference is the difference between examining the dynamics/reasons behind lootings/mass shootings/crime x, and favourably proposing the moral and ethical reasons for lootings/mass shootings/crime x. The former is warranted, the latter ought to be dismissed at a glance.
As noted, the essay is the only material on the subject of looting provided by Mckesson, not just in his lecture but in his Twitter feed, where he has positively advocated for the essay 10 times between 2014-2016, calling it a “must read” and a “critical analysis” that “pushed his thinking.” (12-14) No other perspectives were provided in this supposed examination of “looting dynamics.”
If Mckesson was so keen on exploring the causal dynamics of looting, why has he for two years limited himself to a single gibberish source which only paints looting as a moral act? Is that truly exploring all sides of the issue? Imagine a speaker who chooses to examine the 'dynamics' of mass shootings by using the singular source titled “In Defense of Mass Shootings” (perhaps something that would be written by Dylann Roof or Elliot Rodgers) and repeatedly endorses it as a “critical analysis… a must read… it pushed my thinking.” Would such actions not be seen as encouragement of mass shootings? Apologia? Tacit approval? All of the above?
In my search Mckesson has stated he does not condone looting in an evenhanded fashion only once, where he says the following (15):
“Do I condone violence/looting/etc? No. Many have remained peaceful. I understand their anger but do not condone their actions.”
However, given the romanticized rhetoric that looting is a path to victory, that it’s political, that it’s a reaction to being put in a cage; given his continued promotion of an essay which approves looting as a moral act; given how his essay is the only material related to looting that he has chosen to divulge publicly; and given that his non-condoning of looting has only happened once in these last two years while his regular endorsement of the essay is in double digits - I’m inclined to say that his non-condoning is only lip service to criticism.
His only other attempt at not condoning looters is this one (16):
“I don't condone looting, but I respect your anger. I respect your pain. And I respect how long you've waited to be seen”
Continuing with the analogy, imagine a renowned speaker stating “I don’t condone mass shootings, but I respect your anger. I respect your pain. And I respect how long you’ve waited to be seen.” Respecting criminal behaviour is outside the realm of understanding criminal behaviour as a social phenomenon, and equating it as a mechanism to be "seen" is ludicrous.
Interestingly, four days after that Tweet is the first time Mckesson references the “In Defense of Looting” essay, only two days after it was written. Again, it is the only source he has used in his Tweets and his lecture when discussing looting. Is it the only source he can find that even attempts to hold this ridiculous position?
I have not found a single statement that shows Mckesson to unequivocally condemn looting.
What can be reasonably concluded from the above:
1. There is reliable evidence that the lecture, students and instructors romanticized, glorified, respected and justified the ethics of looting.
2. There is no evidence that the lecture, students and Mckesson ever examined the causal dynamics of looting, neither in the lecture nor outside of it.
3. There is no evidence that the singular lecture material “In Defense of Looting” is in any way conducive to understanding the causal dynamics of looting.
4. There is no evidence that Mckesson, Elzie or any participating student unequivocally condemned looting.
5. Mckesson’s few attempts at not-condoning looting are sporadic, not convincing and contradict his actions and behaviour.
6. Mckesson found “In Defense of Looting” shortly after it was written, has spoken favourably of it on numerous occasions and is the only source on the subject that he chooses to divulge on Twitter and in his lectures.
(1-5) https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 5248110592
https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 3084676096
https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 6646013952
https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 6071964672
https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 1838752768
(6-7)
https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 9761042432
https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 3721191424
(8-9)
https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 2713580544
https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 7394721792
(10)
https://twitter.com/mcmoynihan/status/6 … 5478174720
(11)
https://twitter.com/deray/status/514625629623697408
(12-14)
https://twitter.com/deray/status/516219139544080385
https://twitter.com/deray/status/514608748338618368
https://twitter.com/deray/status/503355976573931520
(15)
https://twitter.com/deray/status/537179469035761664
(16)
https://twitter.com/deray/status/501777688512589824You could've saved a lot of space and wasted breath by saying Obama and all his leftists follow the teachings of Sal Alinsky , interestingly also Hillary's cultural hero .
"Burn it down " , but all for the good of the cause .
In other words , transferred to BLM causes , "Jungle Mentality ".
The only reason the people riot , steal , pillage , murder ,,and otherwise ignore all social construct - Is for purely personal gain . "Hey look $400 ..sneakers with lights on them , I want them "I'm not overly familiar with Saul Alinsky but at a glance some of his protesting strategies are far more sophisticated than anything BLM has produced, whether you agree with them or not. Arguably BLM is doing the exact opposite of what he proposes here:
[t]he job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a 'dangerous enemy.' [According to Alinsky], the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment [will] not only validate [the organizer's] credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation.
Even if they are following his teachings, their execution leaves a lot to be desired.
Either way I like to be thorough. I think it's relevant to know that these BLM leaders have regularly promoted and spoken favourably of "In Defense of Looting" and that it has been their primary perspective of looting for the past two years.
I'm reminded of the past threads where Trump was accused of instigating violence against his own supporters for joking about paying legal fees, or accused of treason for joking about Russia finding the Hillary emails. If jokes are enough to be instigators, what would a regular promotion of pro-looting material be?HipHop rap music promotes looting, shooting, bad boy stuff.
Gimme the loot, gimme the loot
("I'm a bad, bad, boy..")
Gimme the loot, gimme the loot
("I'm a bad, bad, boy..")
Gimme the loot, gimme the loot
("I'm a bad, bad, boy..")
Added:
Russia’s Middle East breakthrough… no wonder Washington’s grouchy
* https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356454-russi … s-airbase/
Johnetta Elzie is quoting what was said in the class (see quotation marks). The quotes included those critical of looting, such as: "Looting brings MSM attention. I do not see that end justifying the means" (1). Her quotes were not attributed to any identifiable individuals. It is unknown whether they represent an accurate or objective record of the discussions.
Elzie recounted what a white male student said over 3 tweets. There was no personal comment, positive or negative, in response to his comments. The three tweets consisted of:
"So a white male student just bought up that looting has no victory. Pushed to answer was the American Revolution a "mistake" w/no victory...The student then said 'You got me'. He did say that he thought the American Revolution was a mistake...which was awkward when he got stuck on answering the challenge."(2)(3)(4)
Comparisons and comments made by "the class" cannot be directly attributed to Johnetta Elzie and Deray Mckesson.
Mckesson has publicly stated that he does not condone looting(5)(6). Stating that he respects the emotions that lead some people to rioting/ looting, is not the same as condoning those activities. This is not a new sentiment. Several historical figures have expressed understanding of the dynamics of violence within the domain of politics:
John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"(7).
Martin Luther King: "I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years."(8)
“It may well be that shouts of Black Power and riots in Watts and the Harlems and the other areas, are the consequences of the white backlash rather than the cause of them”(9)
It is widely accepted that, in their remarks, Kennedy and King were not condoning violent revolution and riots respectively. Nevertheless they expressed some understanding of the dynamics of those activities.
Discussing the dynamics of a social phenomenon is not restricted to only examining its causes. Whether the discussions in the class were wide enough in scope relative to the goals stated on the syllabus, is for the instructor of record, the students and the guest presenter to determine. I'm not aware of any comments from anyone who participated in the course, that suggests the scope was too narrow.
DeRay Mckesson and Johnetta Elzie are members of BLM, not it's leaders in the traditional sense, and certainly not its spokespersons. In BLM everyone is deemed to be a leader, as stated on their website:
"Many Americans of all races are enamored with Martin Luther King as a symbol of leadership and what real movements look like. But the Movement for Black Lives, another name for the BLM movement, recognizes many flaws with this model . . . a movement with a singular leader or a few visible leaders is vulnerable, because those leaders can be easily identified, harassed, and killed, as was the case with Dr. King. By having a leaderfull movement, BLM addresses many of these concerns. BLM is composed of many local leaders and many local organizations . . . We demonstrate through this model that the movement is bigger than any one person. And there is room for the talents, expertise, and work ethic of anyone who is committed to freedom."(10).
I'm not interested in your opinions about the tuition fees and motivations of the students attending the class, what you think about the author of "In defense of Looting" (and the name of his band), or what you believe Mckesson should have included in his class, as they are purely your opinions and have no bearing on the issue at hand.
Conclusions:
1. None of the comments referenced as examples of looting being "romanticized" have been directly attributed to Johnetta Elzie or DeRay Mckesson.
2. There is no reliable evidence to suggest Johnetta Elzie or DeRay Mckesson "romanticized" or "glorified" looting during the class.
3. It is a matter of fact that Mckesson has publicly stated (at least twice) that he does not condone looting.
4. Historical figures have expressed understanding of the dynamics of rioting, and violence in general, without condoning those activities. Currently available evidence indicates that Mckesson shares the same sentiment.
5. The people who attended the course and heard the discussion, are in the best position to determine whether or not the reading material and subsequent discussion were too narrow in scope relative to the course goals.
6. There is no reliable evidence to suggest anyone participating or present in the class felt the reading material or discussion were too narrow in scope relative to the class goals.
7. It cannot reasonably be concluded, based on the reading material and discussion in this class, that Johnetta Elzie or DeRay Mckesson condone looting.
8. Johnetta Elzie and DeRay Mckesson are not spokespersons for BLM, and they cannot (and have not) claimed to be its leaders. The positions they hold are theirs, and cannot be said to be the positions of BLM.
(1) https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 68?lang=en
(2) https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 2713580544
(3) https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 7394721792
(4) https://twitter.com/Nettaaaaaaaa/status … 08?lang=en
(5) https://twitter.com/deray/status/537179469035761664
(6) https://twitter.com/deray/status/501777688512589824
(7) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
(8) http://time.com/3838515/baltimore-riots … ard-quote/
(9) ibid
(10) http://blacklivesmatter.com/11-major-mi … -movement/Just explain one thing to me: for the past two years when discussing looting, why has DeRay Mckesson routinely promoted a fringe essay justifying looting as a morally justifiable act, to the exclusion of all other sources and perspectives?
I imagine if a leader of the Blue Lives Matter group routinely promoted an essay titled "In Defense of Shooting Unarmed Black Suspects" you would not be singing the same tune.If you haven't already read their White Paper of 1939, I think you might find it interested reading material. Wikipedia has a generous in-depth article that I have been studying for a couple years off and on.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939Hello Colorfulone, one of us must be confused. You reference the White Paper of 1939 as being "their," (Milwaukee Police? BLM? Black folks? Looters?), White Paper, when it is actually a 1939 Paper relative to a British agreement with Arab leaders concerning Palestine and Israel.
You linked it to a fake Saul Alinsky meme comment that was intended to be relevant to a discussion about rioting and looting, (a failed effort?), so what is your link's connection to this topic?
GAWhen did we get a forum moderator for insignificance? Petty!
There are gravely important issues but if you like paltry, go for it.
(Besides, I wasn't talking to you, I'm tired of it.)
Thugfather Obama, has done nothing to help black communities, he once gave them hope, but after almost 8 years as president the black inner city communities are worse off than when he began. I listen to videos on YouTube to learn and hear what people are saying, because MSM won't report that truth. But, maybe you don't care? shrug
ADDED: If Obama helped the black communities as much as he does some foreign nations, our inner cites would be progressing, instead they are digressing. He hasn't done sh*t!
ADDED: I thought another Hubber would be interested in the reading material, as I said in the post, GA. Why does that need to be explained to you?
"If you haven't already read their White Paper of 1939, I think you might find it interested reading material. Wikipedia has a generous in-depth article that I have been studying for a couple years off and on.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939"
I think its self explanatory. But, go ahead with "petty bickering", GA. (shrug)
This is one of my threads.
I was saying if you like "paltry" go for it, but don't twist what I said.A "forum moderator for insignificance?" You are asked to clarify a response that does not appear to be relative to the discussion and you think that is a challenge of insignificance?
I only asked how you felt a 77 yr. old British agreement with Arab leaders concerning Israel and Palestine was relative to a discussion about the BLM and Milwaukee police. For all I could guess, you may have felt it was pertinent. I have previously participated in numerous threads about the Israeli Palestine topic, so I too think it is an important issue. At least important enough to warrant its own thread - rather than tossed in willy-nilly to any thread you happen to land on.
Now, rather than offer an explanation, you further muddy the waters by appearing to say you think the BLM/Milwaukee police discussion is "paltry."
Perhaps there is a need for a "forum moderator for insignificance," and maybe there is a reason you are "tired of it." Couldn't you have simply answered the question rather than try to belittle me?
ps. If you don't wish your comments to be addressed by other thread participants there are always private message options. I have used them in the past to address comments I did not want to be public, and you can too.
GA
Ahorseback, surely you know that the meme you posted is not true, Saul Alinsky was not the author of those eight made-up rules, so what is your point? How does your post relate to the topic being discussed?
ps. Here are Alinsky's original twelve rules if you would like to make a comparison.
GA
Why don't you go on Twitter and ask him? Seriously, there's no reason you can't.
I assume it's because he wants to point people to an aspect of the subject that's less often explored, and feels that article does a particularly good job of summarizing the key points. I can't be sure though because I'm not in his mind.
I can be sure that, as well as publicly stating he does not condone looting, he has also tweeted comments by Donald Rumsfeld about looting in Iraq in 2003. Evidently he sees similarities between his own position and that of Rumsfeld's: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime"(1)(2).
So based on the information available, the suggestion Mckesson condones looting is factually incorrect. His position could have changed since he made those statements (that's something else you could ask him) but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, any suggestion he now condones looting is no more than an unfounded allegation (and a potentially libellous one at that).
But this is all academic. Mckesson is not a spokesperson for BLM, which does not have leaders in the traditional sense, as stated on the movement's official website.
P.S. Be sure to post any discussion you have with Mckesson here. I'd be interested to know the outcome.
(1) https://twitter.com/deray/status/593889976334548992
(2) http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi … 050097983/It's pretty simple really and a hashtag says it all: #pantsupdontloot
I don’t need to ask him or read his mind. It’s obvious based on his previous statements and regular promotion of the essay that he agrees with the majority of the essay’s points. Regular promotion of such pro-criminal material as critical, fascinating, must-read foundational perspectives by BLM leaders will be reasonably seen as BLM’s tacit acceptance and permissibility of such criminalities, no matter how few times "I don't condone crime, but…" squeaks from their dialogue.
Your assumption is faulty. He is not pointing to a fringe aspect of the subject as an exercise in exploring viewpoints. On the contrary; he is using this article as the foundation for the discussion of looting, which is why he’s promoted this piece numerous times as a must-read piece for thinking critically about looting. Such behaviour also goes against your claims that he is discussing the dynamics of a social phenomenon. He is not. He is flaunting the supposed merit of a gibberish article which just so happens to be pro-looting, within days of looting events occurring in Ferguson and Baltimore. Any neutral party ought to find this suspicious.
The concern is not that discussing the dynamics of a social phenomenon should be restricted to only examining its causes - a notion that was never suggested. The concern is that discussing the dynamics of a social phenomenon, especially crimes, should not be restricted to only promoting its supposed ethical boons from all of one radical and uncritical source, especially on a regular basis following the occurrence of such crimes.
In any case, it is impossible to explore the "dynamics of a social phenomenon" (your first claim) by looking exclusively at the "less explored aspects of said phenomenon" (your second claim).
Furthermore, whether or not this particular aspect of looting is “less explored” is meaningless. What matters is whether or not the aspect (fringe or otherwise) is worthy of continued promotion. Exploring fringe viewpoints is good. Continued promotion of fringe viewpoints that lack merit is not:
- discussions on speciation should not be repeatedly primed with work advocating creationism
- discussion on vaccines should not be repeatedly primed with discredited papers connecting vaccines and autism
- discussions on convulsions should not be repeatedly primed with works about demonic possession
- discussions on the position of celestial bodies should not be repeatedly primed with essays of geocentrism
And so on. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously on these subjects would do well to distance themselves from such unfounded viewpoints by clarifying the intent behind their exploration, to avoid any potential conflation between exploring an idea for the sake of exploring ideas, and advocacy of an idea based on ideology. At least, if they care about having any sort of reputable public opinion on these matters.
Even if Mckesson were attempting to explore a variety of viewpoints (loosely said, given that he's ‘explored’ and divulged all of one radical viewpoint, repeatedly), the arguments spouted in the Osterweil piece are laughable and a cursory examination should be enough to dismiss it altogether. While most people are aware that looting is morally prohibited outside of survival situations, the piece argues otherwise; not only does it state that looting is morally permissible, it states that looting is morally encouraged as a righteous act, all within the questionable framework that looting combats white supremacy supposedly propagated by historic notions of police and property. Mckesson finds most of the piece agreeable, saying “it’s a fascinating read, even if you don’t agree with all of his points.” (1)
It is fitting that Mckesson shares Rumsfeld’s position on looting. I'm not sure what’s worse; comparing the looting in a war-torn Iraq under a dictatorial regime to anywhere in the United States during Obama’s administration, or quoting Rumsfeld’s strained rationale for the neglected protection of priceless historical artifacts, which included such gems as “stuff happens.” (2)
Though it’s beside the point, this is not academic - this is political. Of the 10 instances of Mckesson sharing the essay, 8 of them were within days of looting events in Baltimore and Ferguson during civil unrest. As I said, permissibility and minimization of criminal behaviour can be seen as accepting of such behaviour; moral justification can be seen as encouraging. Even the mere addressing of such fringe viewpoints can be seen as legitimizing. Within academia scientists have long avoided any direct statements on creationism because it would be seen as legitimizing the ‘theory’ (3). Whether or not you disagree with that strategy (I do) it should be obvious why people will see active promotion of pro-looting sources as legitimizing looting.
I’m not sure why you keep tooting the semantic horn that BLM doesn’t have traditional leaders. Did I say they did? It’s irrelevant whether they have one leader or many. The point is that Mckesson is a prominent figure and a prominent leader of BLM. It's why he taught the “Transformational Leadership in the Black Lives Matter Movement” lecture in Yale. As BLM's most prominent leader (traditional or otherwise), his words and actions will be amplified and are more reflective of BLM relative to BLM members who don’t take an active leadership role.
The statement “the suggestion that Mckesson now condones looting is factually incorrect” is no more provable than the statement “the suggestion that Mckesson now condones looting is factually correct” unless you are a mind reader, which you are not. Better stated is “the suggestion that Mckesson says he condones looting is factually incorrect.” Which was never said or suggested to begin with; in fact, I made it a point to show his statements of non-condenation to present all of the facts. I then stated my inclination that such statements were unconvincing lip service in response to criticism. My statement is within the realm of opinion, not a false accusation contingent of libels. It ought to be considered that throwing around false accusations of potentially libelous statements is also potentially libelous. Food for thought.
If a few instances of non-condonation are enough to satisfy your concerns about the regular promotion of pro-criminal material by BLM leaders, that’s on you. For me, I find the pattern of posting “here is a fascinating, must-read piece that morally justifies looting” every time a looting event happens, combined with almost exclusively positively discussing such material in a lecture that exemplifies BLM leadership, to be suspicious enough to overshadow one or two stated non-condonations.
(1) https://twitter.com/deray/status/514772 … 52?lang=en
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/arts/ … wanted=all
(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227/You have alleged that Mckesson's statements that he does not condone looting, are insincere. In your opinion you have proven that to be the case. In my opinion you have not. I have suggested you ask the man straight out because I think there is a reasonable possibility he would reply, and it could settle the matter if he said he does condone looting. But you choose not to give Mckesson the option of replying to your allegations himself. I see nowhere else to go from here.
Your attempt to equate someone who has recommended an article titled "in defense of looting" with creationists, anti-vaxxers, people who believe in demons and geocentrists, is false equivalence, but that's another discussion.
Your implication that if Mckesson wants his views to be "taken seriously", he should explore the subject of looting differently, is demonstrably false. Mckesson's views are taken seriously. That's one of the reasons he was invited to be a guest presenter for a class at Yale. That he is not (I gather) taken seriously by you, does not mean his views are not taken seriously.
I reject your attempt to redefine BLM's leadership model to suit your argument. No one member (irrespective of how prominent they are) is more representative of BLM than another, and the movement has clearly stated the reasons for that leadership model: "[A] movement with a singular leader or a few visible leaders is vulnerable, because those leaders can be easily identified, harassed, and killed, as was the case with Dr. King . . . We demonstrate through this model that the movement is bigger than any one person. And there is room for the talents, expertise, and work ethic of anyone who is committed to freedom"(1). If you are looking for their position on leadership, looting, or anything else, the closest thing I have seen to official statements are on the BLM website(2). I have not found any reference to looting on the site.
You have alleged that Mckesson was insincere when he said he does not condone looting. One of the conditions of libel is that a explicitly state or imply something to be factual. Would it be found that you have implied your allegation to be true? Potentially. "Potentially libelous" was therefore a factual statement.
I'm not interested in your opinions about the value of the content in the article "in defense of looting". Neither am I interested in your opinions about the value of Donald Rumsfeld's position in relation to looting. This discussion was never about the dynamics of looting as a social phenomenon. That is a different discussion entirely.
(1) http://blacklivesmatter.com/11-major-mi … -movement/
(2) http://blacklivesmatter.com/
Protesters burned several stores:
BP gas station at Sherman and Burleigh
Jet Beauty at 35th and Fond du Lac
BMO Harris Bank at 36th and Fond du Lac
O’Reilly Auto Parts at Fond du Lac
Burleigh and MJM Liquor at Fond du Lac and North
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said protesters had been using social media to draw more demonstrators.
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has requested the mobilization of the National Guard in the wake of violence that erupted.
* http://fox6now.com/2016/08/14/milwaukee … nal-guard/
I don't like the idea of a Police State, but that's where we are going.
Do they want a CURFEW? They will get it and ruin it for everyone.Sheriff David Clarke held a press conference on the Milwaukee Mayhem and broke down the under lying problems. The video is only about 10 minutes long but well worth listening to for clarity for those who are interested. I listened to it a couple of times.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywoVEQ8KQcU
BTW, Clarke is a Democrat.- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0Maybe its just time to let these cities burn themselves out ! Let these idiots find themselves standing staring into the charred unrecognizable street corners wondering where their Fatherless homes were . Wondering why the spark that began these riots wasn't snuffed out by their own people ! Here's a wake up call -- clean up your own house ! What ever happened to the neighborhood where people cared about one another ?
Its no ones fault but their own !I stand with Sheriff Clarke in condemning BLM for what it is, an organized "hate group" of the progressive left, and the head of the government refuses to label as such.
"guerrilla urban warfare against the police"
Well, the kiddos got their curfew in Milwaukee. Hope they enjoy all the stuff they looted from stores during the rioting safe and sound at home.
Syville Smith's sister urges rioters to burn down the suburbs instead of their own neighborhood. Such hatred.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyfowaIcUngI saw that ........... At this point in history - Anyone still trying to be living peacefully in these dark places of the slum ridden inner city area's like Ferguson , Detroit , Baltimore ,Chicago , in the jungle slums of the worse area's of the city - will have left or should leave anyway , get out of those cities ! Just WHO is responsible for , in the real world , for a populace that cares noting about the guy next door to them ? You ,..... me ? What about a people who are willing to clean up their OWN neighborhoods , what is it that separates us , you and me , from the likes of the people we have watched in later years in the country of Sudan , child rape , pillaging , sex slavery and How far removed are these rioting soldiers who are willing to steal another mans transportation or burn down his home , murder a store -keeper to steal his goods , ............
The rioter in Detroit say ---from those "soldiers" in Sudan ?The social engineering has been going on for a very long time to dumb down people and hijack their minds, so they can be easily triggered by pushing the right buttons. Best to get them while they are young to fill their minds with false narratives about themselves and others.
If I had to, I would put a face on the 'devil' in Goldman Sachs', secret Bilderberg group member Peter Sutherland. JP Morgan, Wall Street in general. George Soros, of course Henry Kissinger, the Federal Reserve. They are the Globalists pulling the political establishment's strings. Big Money! Highest bidders!
I believe BLM was designed to hurt black people who are uneducated because of misinformation taught, and are too young to remember historical events for themselves to know any better. Just my opinions.Yes, just your opinion, but as a Black Male, Imay just know a little bit more about these things than you would. Who are YOU to say all those poor black folks are misinformed? I think we know a lot more than you give us credit for.... I don't trust the political right to furnish nothing outside of mayhem, in regards to BLM or any other issue of concern to us.
The only mayhem the right-winger sees is the mayhem in burning down your own neighbors , neighborhoods, looting for the cause and all the while screaming " Pigs in a blanket !"
Nice !'Who are YOU to say all those poor black folks are misinformed?'
I didn't say that. I said.
"I believe BLM was designed to hurt black people who are uneducated because of misinformation taught, and are too young to remember historical events for themselves to know any better. "
Every time you get to the bottom of who is funding dis-arming populations around the world its Goldman Sachs.
Who is also funding open borders and destroying sovereignty.
Anti-family, anti-fatherhood propaganda is funded by Goldman Sachs.
Followed by JP Morgan and others.
The head of the UN migrant program is Peter Sutherland the chairman of Goldman Sachs globally, who said publicly he wants to use third world populations to undermine national homogeneity. And, that's not the end of it!
Goldman Sachs is one of Hillary Clinton's biggest donors, she is bought and paid for.
Look it up!
ADDED: Goldman Sachs has funded BLM.
Goldman Sachs has funded the rap gun-culture! hip-hop
(see where its going?)
The head of the Greek debt office was replaced by a former Goldman Sachs banker.
Bankers have seized Europe, a Goldman Sachs take over!
Goldman Sachs is the top, and is the devil, like the Nazis we fought in WWII!
Syville Smith, thug gun member photo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYxr5PFi9Gs
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
George Soros has allocated one hundred million dollars for BLM .
100,000,000
Any comments ?
While Milwaukee burns Obama plays golf .
Can Any body spell hypocrites ?The African-American community is ready to leave the Democratic plantation?
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CmQ4JQW6ec
This Milwaukee man has woke -up, and realizes that all the promises made are nothing but a way to get the black votes. I hope he talks to the "uneducted", as he said and gets them to wake-up! Sounds like a good man.Sad part is , a lot of "minorities ", at many times even more than "whites " , are really good people . Blinded by the liberal entitlement promise !
I see an Obama spokesman today says when asked ,"No , Obama will not be cutting short his vacation to visit the Louisiana Floods "!.......... Enjoy that golfing Barack ?Obama's "Golf Counter" is now 270 times.
Funny audio clips of him saying "I will not rest until ... lies, lies, lies.
* http://obamagolfcounter.com/
Since Trump's speech in West Bend, Milwaukee on Tuesday, his African American support has increased by 6X's, bringing it to 14.6%.
This is likely the part of the speech that made the difference.
"We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton which panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes, not as individual human beings worthy of a better future. She doesn’t care at all about the hurting people of this country, or the suffering she has caused them. The African-American community has been taken for granted for decades by the Democratic Party. It’s time to break with the failures of the past – I want to offer Americans a new future."
"The main victims of these riots are law-abiding African-American citizens living in these neighborhoods. It is their jobs, their homes, their schools and communities which will suffer as a result. There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration."
Apparently, after a generation of failure in America’s inner cities, the events in Milwaukee have caused a huge crack in the traditional Democrat coalition that has included blacks since the Great Depression — and Trump is exploiting it by promising to restore law and order. He blamed Democrat one-party rule in the cities on the problems facing blacks today.
And it resonated.
* http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president … ee-appeal/Don dude. Mr Mopo putting on a clinic, itsa intellectual woodshed. Position isa lost cause from the gitgo. Can't rationalize, intellectualize looting and rioting. Nothing more cerebral than geting a brick in the head in milwaukee. First mistake was it was a black cop. Second was cnn editing his family saying burn the burbs. The third was doing any of it all, ever. Some white dude whispers something aint pc he loses his job or business, and they on tv calling to target neighborhoods..thats messed up.
Shouldve all manned up and owned it. But gonna rationalize it?
(1) http://oldredbrickco.com.au/wp-content/ … pplier.jpg
(2) http://www.forestryforum.com/gallery/al … c08_04.JPG"Nothing more cerebral than geting a brick in the head in milwaukee"
I like your rather dry sense of humor, that would be as cerebral as it gets.
CNN is the most dishonest news site, then MSNBC. Its no wonder only 6% of Americans say they trust MSM. It would be nice if they quite the misinformation tactics and started educating instead. But, that's the Matrix we're living in!Probably not best to encourage me lol....but whether it is school children at yale, groups that loot and riot, cnn and people that allegedly do not condone it, regardless how often they push their maifesto..it looks like we will all just have to lower our expectations, even lower than usual. Low expectations...
Support the good and be a burr under the saddle elsewhere. Best we can.Black Panther leader, Quanell X, spoke out to ask the black community to listen to what Trump is saying very carefully. He said for 45 years the black have been voting for Democrats, who have done nothing for them. He called out Obama, the black Democrat president for two term who has done nothing either for the black communities.
http://conservativevideos.com/new-black … ump-video/
Why this news story isn't on every network is telling.
I saw another video last week with a Black Panther leader saying pretty much the same thing, but I cannot remember his name right now. Good to see the leaders of the organization waking up!
Every African American Should Vote for Donald Trump After Watching This #BlacksForTrump
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYfHBz6 … ture=share
Trump is the guy! He promises to make America safe again.
Obama could have done that, but he didn't, he made it more unsafe.It appears that Quanell X feels that he has been misquoted or misunderstood.
"Dear brothers and sisters, regardless if it's Drumpf or Hillary Clinton that becomes presdient, neither one of them is going to do anything significant or real relevant to change the condition of the black community," he said. "We've got to come up with a better option to both, or just stay home."
He sounds like a pretty savvy guy.
http://cw39.com/2016/08/26/quanell-x-sh … -that-man/That's interesting. When I went to that site my screen disappeared and then came back, weird. Did you have a problem going to that site?
I just listened to his statements on this video, again, he was not talking bad about Trump at all. He did slam Obama though, and the Democratic party for prostituting the black voters.
He sounds like a pretty savvy guy. I agree!
Quanell X, sounds sincere and humble.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1D8kPXguE
I'll stick with what he said publicly, if he actually comes out and reverses what he meant publicly, I'll have a completely different opinion of him then.
Hillary is trying to tie Trump to white supremacists, when she has a history of ties...she lies.
Thank you for sharing that.I'm sorry if there was some confusion. I wasn't implying he was bashing Trump. It appears he was simply making it clear he wasn't endorsing him. But he was making it clear he wasn't endorsing anyone.
That says a lot since many times the leaders in the black community appear to rubber stamp democratic candidates. Good to see a few, at least, are opening their eyes to the worthlessness of Washington.Quanell X, is outspoken. I've watched some FoXFaceOff debts with him and whoever the reporter is. I picked up that they have been doing this for about 6 years. I like what the guy has to say, to me he seems to know some and speaks hard truth that a lot of people might not have the ears to hear because they aren't ready to hear. But, I have to disagree with him on several thing he says. We all know in part.
I kind of agree with Quanell, saying that 1% of police officers are corrupt, but that 99% of the police officers should be saluted. Maybe its worse then that, I won't know. I think when there is corruption in a cities police force that the whole is corrupt, if they don't get rid of the bad apples... (I know that's simplistic), but I have read books about the Blue Wall of Silence and am convinced it exists.
But why would that be? Don't they really give them money as the story read?
I grew up in SE Wisconsin in a good-sized city & was a policeman there for over five years. The entire problem with crime in Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Madison & Beloit is caused by WELFARE. These people were prompted to move to Wisconsin & Minnesota in the 1980s for a $150 a month increase in welfare & AFDC benefits. They brought their gang-member children with them and destroyed our public schools and urban neighborhoods. MOST of these people came from Illinois especially the greater-Chicago area including CABRINI GREEN.
Interesting life being a cop, I'm sure you would have more stories to share about that.
I read an article earlier today "Message to Colin Kaepernick: the real disaster of inner cities" and I think it puts a face on what racism looks like in the inner cities.
* https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016 … er-cities/
Its not a pretty picture, but I do agree with the writer of the article.
There are solutions, but we have to get the right people in power.
The political elites are all corrupt and manufacturing the racism.
Drug cartels and bankers make big money in the inner cities.
Related Discussions
- 35
Goldman Sachs Makes $3.4 Billion Profit in 2nd Quarter
by pgrundy 14 years ago
Here's the news link:http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ … n-quarter/BTW today is Bastille Day. Anyone up for dropping by Goldman Sachs just to say hey?Happy Bastille Day Goldman Sachs!
- 15
Goldman Sachs free of charge?
by Deforest 11 years ago
Friday, the 10th 2012, Goldman Sachs was pronounced free of charge! What does that mean? That they were not responsible of their actions during the 2008 crash? Why would the U.S drop the investigations? What does that mean for the future? That they are untouchable? Why aren't the Americans angry?...
- 8
Is the 5 Billion dollars fine imposed on Goldman Sachs fits the crime?
by Jack Lee 8 years ago
Is the 5 Billion dollars fine imposed on Goldman Sachs fits the crime?The government reached a settlement with Goldman Sachs of 5 Billion dollars for deceiving investors about the mortgage derivatives that caused the recession of 2008. As of today, not one person have been charged or gone to jail...
- 4
Do We Hate the Players or the Game after Goldman Sachs Posting of Richest Profit
by ngureco 14 years ago
Do We Hate the Players or the Game after Goldman Sachs Posting of Richest Profit in 140-Yrs history?
- 27
BLM Documentary by Candace Owens. “The Greatest Lie Ever Sold“
by Readmikenow 5 months ago
"The documentary named “The Greatest Lie Ever Sold“ depicts that the media created a narrative that explained a summer of global riots and helped the rise of Black Lives Matter and how they used the turmoil to raise a whooping amount of 90 million dollars after the death of George Floyd.George...
- 50
Goldman Sachs Hearing - What an Eye Opener! Our Senators are Dummies!
by JWestCattle 13 years ago
Geez, Sen. McCaskell is an utter blond dunderhead, and almost all of them have shown their clear ignorance and clear need to use this whole farce for political posturings. Disgusting.What are the qualifications for committee assignments? Apparently none! And we trust these people to...