White Lives Matter banner flew over football game

It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.

But political activists lecturing criminals on the value of black lives is not going to cause black-on-black crime to decrease, encouraging better policing and a more accountable criminal justice system on the other hand might actually work to heal the current rift between police and the black community. Which in turn could serve as a basis for a community based policing model that is actually effective in reducing violent crime in these neighbourhoods.

What does the 'White Lives Matter' movement do to further any of this? Other than providing a smoke-screen for racists trolls to downplay the issue? There are a lot people in this thread who seem very concerned about issue black-on-black crime, and yet only seem to be proferring excuses for why the BLM movement is flawed and should be disregarded. Why?

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.

But political activists lecturing criminals on the value of black lives is not going to cause black-on-black crime to decrease, encouraging better policing and a more accountable criminal justice system on the other hand might actually work to heal the current rift between police and the black community. Which in turn could serve as a basis for a community based policing model that is actually effective in reducing violent crime in these neighbourhoods.

What does the 'White Lives Matter' movement do to further any of this? Other than providing a smoke-screen for racists trolls to downplay the issue? There are a lot people in this thread who seem very concerned about issue black-on-black crime, and yet only seem to be proferring excuses for why the BLM movement is flawed and should be disregarded. Why?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Perfect post 👆

Don't post under a secondary account and I would respond, bingo/bang on 😉

Originally posted by snowdragon
Don't post under a secondary account and I would respond, bingo/bang on 😉

Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201

Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.

How much does it cost to buy a banner?

If its a troll, its an expensive troll.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
nothing to do with me mate. I guarantee it.

Originally posted by snowdragon
😉

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.

But political activists lecturing criminals on the value of black lives is not going to cause black-on-black crime to decrease, encouraging better policing and a more accountable criminal justice system on the other hand might actually work to heal the current rift between police and the black community. Which in turn could serve as a basis for a community based policing model that is actually effective in reducing violent crime in these neighbourhoods.

What does the 'White Lives Matter' movement do to further any of this? Other than providing a smoke-screen for racists trolls to downplay the issue? There are a lot people in this thread who seem very concerned about issue black-on-black crime, and yet only seem to be proferring excuses for why the BLM movement is flawed and should be disregarded. Why?

^This response is neither fair nor honest. Hilarious.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.

But political activists lecturing criminals on the value of black lives is not going to cause black-on-black crime to decrease, encouraging better policing and a more accountable criminal justice system on the other hand might actually work to heal the current rift between police and the black community. Which in turn could serve as a basis for a community based policing model that is actually effective in reducing violent crime in these neighbourhoods.

What does the 'White Lives Matter' movement do to further any of this? Other than providing a smoke-screen for racists trolls to downplay the issue? There are a lot people in this thread who seem very concerned about issue black-on-black crime, and yet only seem to be proferring excuses for why the BLM movement is flawed and should be disregarded. Why?

Impossible.

You know how bad the CIA and homeland security is? How many rules they break, with the Guantanamo Bays and shit?

I am against that. I also understand why they do it.

Because the "bad guys" have no depths they won't sink to. They know how to "game the system", and so we get underhanded tactics and black ops shit to cut through their BS.

And innocent people get caught in the middle.

My point, is clean up the police, and you've still got the Crips. If the cleaned up, not racist new law enforcement can't handle gang violence, then people stop complaining about police brutality, and start complaining about an inability to addesss crime.

This either leads to increasing pressure to produce, leading to more "racist" police, or it leads to demands for the "state" to take more drastic action, and we end up with a Gestapo...

Bottom line, bad law enforcement don't exist in a vacuum. We have to ask how they got so bad, and what can be done about the conditions that corrupted them, if anything can be done about it.

Originally posted by Surtur
^This response is neither fair nor honest. Hilarious.

And it's clearly a secondary account....but you know bang on/bingo.

Originally posted by snowdragon
And it's clearly a secondary account....but you know bang on/bingo.

Hilarious part is the guy who is socking and responding to himself also busts out the "woah chill out guys, we're under a ban hammer" spiel. Too funny.

Originally posted by Surtur
Hilarious part is the guy who is socking and responding to himself also busts out the "woah chill out guys, we're under a ban hammer" spiel. Too funny.

The only times black lives matter is during elections since induction, talk about being redactive but concise:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=black%20lives%20matter

Google trends and listening to their mssg is garbage without all the word salad presented because, hey lets be honest or not bingo/bang on.

Well yeah, about every 4 years democrats act like they give a shit about minorities.

Of course defunding the cops in crime infested areas with high minority populations sure will teach white people a lesson, I guess?

Originally posted by Surtur
Well yeah, about every 4 years democrats act like they give a shit about minorities.

Of course defunding the cops in crime infested areas with high minority populations sure will teach white people a lesson, I guess?

It lets them redirect funds away from ghetto's.

It's a form of gentrification for the police.

Mark my words, this is all smoke and mirrors to screw minorities even worse then they have been.

I am not a Whirly sock, but believe what you like. For a website undergoing a slow heat death you guys seem unusually hostile to new membership.

Originally posted by cdtm
Impossible.

You know how bad the CIA and homeland security is? How many rules they break, with the Guantanamo Bays and shit?

I am against that. I also understand why they do it.

Because the "bad guys" have no depths they won't sink to. They know how to "game the system", and so we get underhanded tactics and black ops shit to cut through their BS.

And innocent people get caught in the middle.

My point, is clean up the police, and you've still got the Crips. If the cleaned up, not racist new law enforcement can't handle gang violence, then people stop complaining about police brutality, and start complaining about an inability to addesss crime.

This either leads to increasing pressure to produce, leading to more "racist" police, or it leads to demands for the "state" to take more drastic action, and we end up with a Gestapo...

Bottom line, bad law enforcement don't exist in a vacuum. We have to ask how they got so bad, and what can be done about the conditions that corrupted them, if anything can be done about it.

A county in oregon legit tried to say blacks should be exempt from mask rules

I can't even keep up with this shit anymore. I thought they were more heavily impacted by the virus but...I don't even know.

After people pointed out "that's racist" they changed their mind.

Originally posted by Surtur
Hilarious part is the guy who is socking and responding to himself also busts out the "woah chill out guys, we're under a ban hammer" spiel. Too funny.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I am not a Whirly sock, but believe what you like. For a website undergoing a slow heat death you guys seem unusually hostile to new membership.
That's why it's not enough to just "clean up law enforcement", you need a new model of policing. There a proven strategies for dealing with gang violence, and none of them involve more heavy-handed policing, but rather providing community support and exit strategies for those involved. Starve them of membership and street gangs will dissappear. But that can't happen without state funding, and a reappriasal of how the state views and treats black people.

In a lot of cases I would start from scratch, dissolve existing police organisations and rebuild them from the ground up.

Okay champ, you're not new. You're a sock, probably Whirly's, but you are someones sock. No need to hide behind another user name kiddo

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Darth whatever his name is, is assuredly not me. I wouldn't want anyone banned, words here aren't that important to me. But crack on.

Problem is you've lied before about socking.

The little boy who cried "i'm not a sock"

Originally posted by Surtur
Problem is you've lied before about socking.

The little boy who cried "i'm not a sock"