Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Time To Stop The Destruction


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the defacing of monuments.

There definitely does come a point when destruction of property (and the taking of life) with the goal of furthering political aims comes under the definition of terrorism. 

Vandalizing statues does not reach that point, in my opinion.

I think desecrating a monument to Canada's first Prime Minister on Queen’s Park, Ontario's legislature, counts as more than vandalism. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yesterday BLM protesters vandalized statues of Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada's first Prime Minister, and Egerton Ryerson, the founder of public education in Ontario.  The basis of this destruction of

I'm all for dialogue, but if you're condoning destruction of property as protest, count me out.  I never said I was against all of the opinions expressed by the BLM protesters, and I strongly support

Because they got tired of the conspiracy-laden, science-denying, immigrant-bashing, victim-claiming of the majority of the right-wing on this forum.  

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think desecrating a monument to Canada's first Prime Minister on Queen’s Park, Ontario's legislature, counts as more than vandalism. 

Basic difference of opinion, then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Basic difference of opinion, then. 

I actually don't agree to disagree on this.  If we're willing to let this kind of destruction and imbalanced mischaracterization of important historic figures who set in motion the important institutions that make Canada what it is today and that the vast majority of Canadians value, we've abdicated our stewardship and shouldn't be surprised when we see more destruction of property and civilization in the future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I actually don't agree to disagree on this.  If we're willing to let this kind of destruction and imbalanced mischaracterization of important historic figures who set in motion the important institutions that make Canada what it is today and that the vast majority of Canadians value, we've abdicated our stewardship and shouldn't be surprised when we see more destruction of property and civilization in the future. 

You don't have a choice.  I disagree with you.  We can argue till the cows come home, it won't change my opinion of vandalism.  Nor yours of terrorism. 

There is no question of abdicating stewardship.  Vandalism is a crime and should be treated as such.

Edit> To head off any notion that my lack of enthusiasm for calling the defacing of Macdonald's statues terrorism is due to my being a Brit, I feel the same way about the vandalism of Churchill's statues.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Destroying private/public property is legitimate protest in your estimation?  Perhaps as a descendant of colonialists it's time to give up your property?  You don't seem concerned about protecting it.  

Why are you offering a false dilemma?  I didn't say anything like this.

Why are you arguing as would a mule?

I'm not interested in Fighting, but discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why are you offering a false dilemma?  I didn't say anything like this.

Why are you arguing as would a mule?

I'm not interested in Fighting, but discussion.

I'm merely illustrating where the line of logic leads that allows for destruction of property as a means of legitimate protest. Sometimes when people see how such destruction, if permitted, could impact them personally, the response gets more real.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. I'm merely illustrating where the line of logic leads that allows for destruction of property as a means of legitimate protest.
2. Sometimes when people see how such destruction, if permitted, could impact them personally, the response gets more real.  

1. Well, sometimes it does for sure.  People harass, burn and break things when they are trying to make a point and sometimes it's just accepted.  But at a certain point, everyone pretty much agrees that it should not happen.
2. Ok point accepted, but I fail to see the connection between your point and current events.  These are crises of 'identity', so nobody is starving here and nobody's way of life is threatened exactly.

This is the time for politics and not the grandstanding kind.  I'm hoping that many, like me, have had it with the culture wars.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

One person at a time.

I think first it's important to know what one is trying to achieve. If leaders of this "movement" are self-proclaimed Marxists who claim to wish to destroy America, and if destruction is acceptable to the leadership, is this about equality for black people or something else entirely that most people, black or white, would never support?

 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think first it's important...

Sorry - I don't accept Blaze TV.  

I submit that news organizations with decades of experience, credentials, and professional training and reputation should suffice.  If you think they are missing something, I am not surprised as large institutions frequently do.  I invite you to pick any one of them, and if you have a problem with them let's deep dive into what those are.

But a YouTube channel like that... no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry - I don't accept Blaze TV.  

I submit that news organizations with decades of experience, credentials, and professional training and reputation should suffice.  If you think they are missing something, I am not surprised as large institutions frequently do.  I invite you to pick any one of them, and if you have a problem with them let's deep dive into what those are.

But a YouTube channel like that... no.

Most news looks like this today.  I don't have an issue with mainstream news and I don't seek to watch news that reinforces my opinions or leans left or right.  Fox and CNN can both report facts in the traditional journalistic sense that I associate with responsible journalism, but both also run astray when they get heavily into editorializing and opinion pieces that clearly have an ideological bent.  You can find the facts in multiple sources.  What I shared isn't mysterious or agenda-driven.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Most news looks like this today.  
2. I don't have an issue with mainstream news and I don't seek to watch news that reinforces my opinions or leans left or right.  
3. Fox and CNN can both report facts in the traditional journalistic sense that I associate with responsible journalism, but both also run astray when they get heavily into editorializing and opinion pieces that clearly have an ideological bent.  
4. You can find the facts in multiple sources.  What I shared isn't mysterious or agenda-driven.  

1. Yes, and to my mind the commons did better at issue discussion in the 20th century when this kind of news died off.
2. Ok great - let's get some newspaper accounts of the numbers and the situation to look at then.
3.  Hmm.  Sort of.  Remember that Cable News was a degraded copy of TV Network news as it existed in the 1970s before Cable News, and TV News was a degraded copy of Radio News, which was a degraded copy of the press.
4. I think Blaze is probably agenda-driven.

I just went to BLM's web page.  Here's the page where they state their beliefs:

"We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another."

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, and to my mind the commons did better at issue discussion in the 20th century when this kind of news died off.
2. Ok great - let's get some newspaper accounts of the numbers and the situation to look at then.
3.  Hmm.  Sort of.  Remember that Cable News was a degraded copy of TV Network news as it existed in the 1970s before Cable News, and TV News was a degraded copy of Radio News, which was a degraded copy of the press.
4. I think Blaze is probably agenda-driven.

I just went to BLM's web page.  Here's the page where they state their beliefs:

"We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another."

That's very quaint, but it's important to know facts about the beliefs of the leaders behind movements in order to avoid being victim to false narratives, as police Chief Saunders said with regard to those who vandalized monuments:

"Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders said in a statement Sunday evening that the lack of access to counsel was a “false narrative,” and that the detainees were given access to counsel by mid-afternoon but “chose to remain in custody” into the early morning." (Globe and Mail)

See this on BLM leaders' views and decide for yourself: https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/editorial-black-lives-matter-is-rooted-in-a-soulle/

Most Americans and Canadians, black and white, liberal and conservative, are not Marxists.   

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

That's very quaint, but it's important to know facts about the beliefs of the leaders behind movements in order to avoid being victim to false narratives, as police Chief Saunders said with regard to those who vandalized monuments:

"Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders said in a statement Sunday evening that the lack of access to counsel was a “false narrative,” and that the detainees were given access to counsel by mid-afternoon but “chose to remain in custody” into the early morning." (Globe and Mail)

I don't accept the Washington Times either. 

So what if the leaders are leftist ?  Does that mean there's a secret agenda ?  There doesn't have to be - clearly their stance is known.  I don't think we need a purity test here.  Lots of mainstream people can get behind the general idea of BLM and have - for example President Obama.

Anyway the debacle at Toronto 52 Division was well covered and I don't know what came of it - but the G&M didn't seem to have much on that so it was likely just noise-making.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't accept the Washington Times either. 

So what if the leaders are leftist ?  Does that mean there's a secret agenda ?  There doesn't have to be - clearly their stance is known.  I don't think we need a purity test here.  Lots of mainstream people can get behind the general idea of BLM and have - for example President Obama.

Anyway the debacle at Toronto 52 Division was well covered and I don't know what came of it - but the G&M didn't seem to have much on that so it was likely just noise-making.

You're very selective.  I think you have been co-opted.  I have been too.  I don't know how Obama comes into this. The slogan that black lives matter is apple pie that most people support.  Of course black lives matter.  Are we stupid?  The BLM organization, however, has a Marxist agenda that most Americans and Canadians would never dream of supporting.  It's important to know what you're supporting, because the apple pie slogan and people's yearning for fairness and justice are being co-opted and used to push a very different agenda.

The definition of co-opt from Harvard Business Review (1979):

"Co-opting a group involves giving one of its leaders, or someone it respects, a key role in the design or implementation of a change. This is not a form of participation, however, because the initiators do not want the advice of the co-opted, merely his or her endorsement.[2]"

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. You're very selective.  I think you have been co-opted. 
2. I don't know how Obama comes into this. The slogan that black lives matter is apple pie that most people support.  Of course black lives matter.  Are we stupid?  
3. The BLM organization, however, has a Marxist agenda that most Americans and Canadians would never dream of supporting.  
4. It's important to know what you're supporting, because the apple pie slogan and people's yearning for fairness and justice are being co-opted and used to push a very different agenda.

1. Not at all, the Washington Times is not respectable.  Just bring the National Post and G&M if you want right-of centre.
2. Just an example of a mainstream guy who supports BLM.  ANd it sounds like you do too.
3. Really ?  You mean actually nationalizing industry ?  You have to be careful because the term 'Marxist' is so bastardized these days.  Please provide a cite that shows their plan to implement Marxism via protests of black people being murdered by police.
4. How ?  The organization has a stated goal and aim.  If somebody I disagree with on some things signs a declaration, it doesn't void the value of the declaration if they are different than me.  This is the 'purity test' problem in politics today.  People didn't believe the Harper's Letter from leftist luminaries like Noam Chomsky because... the lady who wrote Harry Potter signed it.  That is insane to me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So what if the leaders are leftist ?  Does that mean there's a secret agenda ?  There doesn't have to be - clearly their stance is known.  I don't think we need a purity test here.  Lots of mainstream people can get behind the general idea of BLM and have - for example President Obama.

Most people are driven by a media narrative which is outright false. Black people are not disproportionately killed by police. CRIMINALS are disproportionately killed by police.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Most people are driven by a media narrative which is outright false.
2. Black people are not disproportionately killed by police.
3. CRIMINALS are disproportionately killed by police.

1. The narrative is about individual cases, so it's not faulty but the premise certainly is.
2. It's hard to measure that in a vacuum of values, but I see why you say it.  I have no opinion on it.
3. Yes, and black people - black taxpayers, sorry - do not trust the police.  So... there is that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Yes, and black people - black taxpayers, sorry - do not trust the police.  So... there is that.

That again is the media narrative. But where does the media get that from? Black activists. How well do activists represent the black community? As Coleman Hughes said in a recent interview the black activists wanted anyone but Biden to win the Democratic nomination. The black community thought otherwise and voted for him in droves. The black community, according to Hughes, is much more conservative than white democrats on almost all social value issues. And they're smart enough to know that when policing pulls back from their communities the gangs take over. Which is why violence, shootings, robberies and murders are rising so fast, primarily in black communities.

That article I posted on the media topic suggested a lot of black people were pleased to see the national guard posted in Minneapolis to end the looting and arson. You wouldn't see that on the mainstream news. It doesn't suit the narrative.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/07/18/black_woman_defaces_black_lives_matter_mural_outside_trump_tower_re-fund_the_police.html

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. But where does the media get that from? Black activists. How well do activists represent the black community?

2. The black community, according to Hughes, is much more conservative than white democrats on almost all social value issues. And they're smart enough to know that when policing pulls back from their communities the gangs take over.

3. Which is why violence, shootings, robberies and murders are rising so fast, primarily in black communities.

 

1. I think it's real: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/09/29/the-racial-confidence-gap-in-police-performance/ I have few black American friends, but I have some.  One of them told me about a robbery he experienced.  I asked him if he reported it and he looked at me like I was crazy.
2. I  haven't seen polls about disbanding the police but I can't believe that idea would be popular in any community.
3. They have defunded the police ?  I think violence in black and poor areas of the US is a long standing issue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think it's real: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/09/29/the-racial-confidence-gap-in-police-performance/ I have few black American friends, but I have some.  One of them told me about a robbery he experienced.  I asked him if he reported it and he looked at me like I was crazy.
2. I  haven't seen polls about disbanding the police but I can't believe that idea would be popular in any community.
3. They have defunded the police ?  I think violence in black and poor areas of the US is a long standing issue.

 

Lacking confidence does not suggest they don't want police there to control the violent criminals. Hell, most of the police in black communities ARE black. Less than half the NYPD are white. In other cities it's even lower. Personally I might not report a robbery to police either. It's not like they're going to do anything. They don't have the money or the people. The only reason I'd report a robbery would be for insurance purposes - unless it's something like a gun stuck in my face, of course.

The murder rate in Baltimore doubled after the Freddy Guy incident. Police, attacked on all sides, pulled back from proactive policing amid fears that any confrontation with black people could get them in trouble. The same is happening now across the US in major cities where very left wing mayors and city councils have sided with demonstrators over police. For that matter, the same thing is happening in London England according to a uk police forum I follow. The interesting thing is the UK police are everything BLM and activists over here dream about; far less confrontational, largely unarmed, into de-escalation, etc. They're also a lot more left/centre than in the US and Canada. Doesn't make any difference. They've been attacked relentlessly since this started, with cries for defunding, and new rules to limit how they interact with people.

Post reprinted here. It had wide agreement among the people on the forum.

Times have changed.

Throwing under a bus by SLT has reached new levels. Trial by media is rampant. I’ve always tried to go above and beyond whilst being proactive because that’s what I enjoy and am good at. But no more, my job, pension, mortgage and security isn’t worth losing. London will be getting the service they deserve from me now, no more no less, I hate even saying that but I’ll still take home the same 50k per year whether I get stops or not.

I also sincerely think you need to re-evaluate your priorities if you think your livelihood is worth good arrest / stop figures.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2020 at 7:15 PM, Zeitgeist said:

I'm merely illustrating where the line of logic leads that allows for destruction of property as a means of legitimate protest. 

I thought of a few examples where this applied:

The American Revolution, and South Africa.

Also the American Militia Movement and armed insurrection and protest seems to be viewed as legitimate protest.  Once again, it comes down to an unprincipled decision of whose team are we talking about ?

A bunch of armed Muslims marching on a legislature for religious freedom for Muslims ?  What could be more American than that right ?

Or not ?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I thought of a few examples where this applied:

The American Revolution, and South Africa.

Also the American Militia Movement and armed insurrection and protest seems to be viewed as legitimate protest.  Once again, it comes down to an unprincipled decision of whose team are we talking about ?

A bunch of armed Muslims marching on a legislature for religious freedom for Muslims ?  What could be more American than that right ?

Or not ?  

No I don't think those are fair analogies.  We don't tar and feather people or seize property out of revolutionary fervour anymore.  I hope.  South Africa was about clear systemic racism: apartheid. Even then Mandela discouraged violence.  Anyway, I can already tell that people won't get it until they're personally impacted.  It's too abstract right now.  When people's property, jobs, finances, and safety are impacted, the winds may change, though all bets are off during the pandemic.  We may not be able to contain the chaos and destruction.  Death by ignorance and complacency.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. We don't tar and feather people or seize property out of revolutionary fervour anymore.  I hope.  
2. South Africa was about clear systemic racism: apartheid.
3. Even then Mandela discouraged violence.  
4. We may not be able to contain the chaos and destruction.  
5. Death by ignorance and complacency.  

1. That wasn't the question " destruction of property as a means of legitimate protest. "
2. So now you are modifying the reasoning to a very blurry rationale: "clear" systemic racism.  Ok.
3. He was a convicted terrorist and was on terror watch lists until 2008, I think.
4. Increasing the punishments for defacing statues probably won't help, IMO.
5. This is meaningless without context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...