Originally posted by Bardock42
Just that the pro-life rhetoric is designed to incite violence and does so repeatedly. Im sorry, but public figures shouldn't be able to hide behind the "oh, no, I didn't realize that if I demonize these people and compare them to Hitler and claim they perpetrate genocide someone might feel justified in targetting them, oops."
Originally posted by Robtard
[B]Don't listen to socks, he's just trying to get a reaction and derail the thread.Three white men have been arrested. The one Hispanic man that was arrested, was later released.
Originally posted by Robtard
Don't listen to socks, he's just trying to get a reaction and derail the thread.Three Caucasian men have been arrested. The one Hispanic man that was arrested, was later released.
Pick your flavor.
I see, was the part about the men being attacked and chased also wrong?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just that the pro-life rhetoric is designed to incite violence and does so repeatedly. Im sorry, but public figures shouldn't be able to hide behind the "oh, no, I didn't realize that if I demonize these people and compare them to Hitler and claim they perpetrate genocide someone might feel justified in targetting them, oops."
And BLM rehtoric does not? Even tho it HAS incited more violence than PL rhetoric ever will? You cannot blame one movement for their rhetoric and excuse another for theirs. Especially when "level" of incitement is subjective to the person listening. You have to apply an equal criteria to blame.
No, policiticans should not be blameless, I agree. That is why we have elections.
Originally posted by Peace Keeper
Prove the pro life movement is meant to incite violence.
There's no tape where any of these political leaders say "Oh yeah, the movement is about inciting violence", I don't even think that they even believe that themselves, but their rhetoric nonetheless does just that. It channels aggression to a specific target, using extremely emotional, and largely made up, arguments
Originally posted by Surtur
I see, was the part about the men being attacked and chased also wrong?
The racist BLM group committed a hate crime and were legally and rightfully shot for it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
There's no tape where any of these political leaders say "Oh yeah, the movement is about inciting violence", I don't even think that they even believe that themselves, but their rhetoric nonetheless does just that. It channels aggression to a specific target, using extremely emotional, and largely made up, arguments
Originally posted by Nibedicus
And BLM rehtoric does not? Even tho it HAS incited more violence than PL rhetoric ever will? You cannot blame one movement for their rhetoric and excuse another for theirs. Especially when "level" of incitement is subjective to the person listening. You have to apply an equal criteria to blame.No, policiticans should not be blameless, I agree. That is why we have elections.
No, BLM's rhetoric does not incite violence, if it wanted to it could be much more aggressive and emotional (like "pro-life" rhetoric), really it is the opposite, it asks for less violence. There is of course a large level of anger and aggression in many minority communities over the (factual) racially discriminating actions of the police force and that can lead to violence.
Violence perpetrated in line with the views of the majority is still wrong.
Originally posted by Peace Keeper
They also weren't white supremacists.
But just because one of the guys was Mexican doesn't necessarily mean they weren't white supremacists. Who knows maybe they bonded over their hatred of black people.
But in what way did they attack? Punching and kicking? Throwing stuff at these guys?
Originally posted by SurturUnknown so far, police are still investigating.
I see, was the part about the men being attacked and chased also wrong?
But someone shows up in a mask, body-armor and armed to a peaceful protest while allegedly shouting racial slurs, do you think they're there to behave or incite trouble? What's more plausible to you?
Anyhow, this is off topic, there's a thread for the attacks on the BLM protest.
It seems that Robert Dear at some point was registered as a "female", which means someone probably made a typo and he's not actually "transgender", guess we'll see though.
Cruz took it on himself to deflect with "transgender leftist activist", because he's a silly coward with an infantile level of accountability.
Originally posted by Surtur
But just because one of the guys was Mexican doesn't necessarily mean they weren't white supremacists. Who knows maybe they bonded over their hatred of black people.But in what way did they attack? Punching and kicking? Throwing stuff at these guys?
Originally posted by RobtardBLM isn't peaceful. Unless attacking people and trying to steal their camera is peaceful. There's no proof of them calling the BLM idiots racist names, but there is proof of BLM calling them racist names.
Unknown so far, police are still investigating.But someone shows up in a mask, body-armor and armed to a peaceful protest while allegedly shouting racial slurs, do you think they're there to behave or incite trouble? What's more plausible to you?
Anyhow, this is off topic, there's a thread for the attacks on the BLM protest.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, BLM's rhetoric does not incite violence, if it wanted to it could be much more aggressive and emotional (like "pro-life" rhetoric), really it is the opposite, it asks for less violence. There is of course a large level of anger and aggression in many minority communities over the (factual) racially discriminating actions of the police force and that can lead to violence.Violence perpetrated in line with the views of the majority is still wrong.
I think we are in direct disagreement on the level of "incitement to violence" either rhetoric from either movement can generate.
Which is understandable as rhetoric, as I said, is subjective to the person listening.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, BLM's rhetoric does not incite violence, if it wanted to it could be much more aggressive and emotional (like "pro-life" rhetoric), really it is the opposite, it asks for less violence. There is of course a large level of anger and aggression in many minority communities over the (factual) racially discriminating actions of the police force and that can lead to violence.Violence perpetrated in line with the views of the majority is still wrong.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I think we are in direct disagreement on the level of "incitement to violence" either rhetoric from either movement can generate.Which is understandable as rhetoric, as I said, is subjective to the person listening.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I think we are in direct disagreement on the level of "incitement to violence" either rhetoric from either movement can generate.Which is understandable as rhetoric, as I said, is subjective to the person listening.
Fair enough on the "subjective to who is listening", but what do you feel about Robert Dear specifically mentioning "no more baby parts", do you see this as just coincidence in relation to the PP videos and comments made by public figures whose voices reaches millions like Fiorina?
Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough on the "subjective to who is listening", but what do you feel about Robert Dear specifically mentioning "no more baby parts", do you see this as just coincidence in relation to the PP videos and comments made by public figures whose voices reaches millions like Fiorina?
You mean the "witness testimony" about his rantings? Guy sounds like he's mentally deranged. Hey, it may have well beeen his motivation to shoot ppl. Crazy ppl attach to anything to do crazy things all the time. The same way one cannot blame a movie for a crazy guy who thinks he's the Joker for ppl getting shot in a cinema or video games for when kids decide to shoot up a school. As with anything, insane actions such as these tend to have a deeper cause than simple percieved "influencers" such as this.