this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
134 points (100.0% liked)
196
18181 readers
37 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That may not have been your point, but you made it badly. You cannot compare Black lives and blue lives as a meaningful comparison because, as the other user pointed out, membership in one is compulsory and optional in the other.
You may as well have said:
...for all the relevance it would have to the point you're trying to make.
Your point is that calling for violence on any one group is bad. That's a fine point to argue, but using Black lives as an "equally bad" comparison point is nonsense.
It seems to me that you dont know the actual intention of "black lives matter", as well as the phrase "blue lives matter".
"Black lives matter" is in reference of the ongoing injustice of systemic violence and heavy (violent) policing targetting black people.
"Blue lives matter" came up after the horrible violence of cops against black people protesting in wake or George Floyd's murder. It is usually uttered by "law-and-order" fascists.
Therefore:
Why do you think calling for violence against the police is a bad thing? Is it bad, in your opinion, to call for violence against any group, regardless of what that group is?
Say for the sake of example that we were living in Nazi Germany. Would you say that calling for violence against the SS is as bad as calling for violence against Jews? I don't think you would.
Granted, we are not in Nazi Germany. The police in America are not the SS. But there are plenty of legitimate problems with the police, including the murder of unarmed minorities going unpunished.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect you don't believe that the police are bad enough to warrant calls for violence, and maybe that's true. However, there are people who don't think that's true -- they think the police, as an institution, are corrupt enough that they should see violent consequences.
Bit a side note, but I don't know that I agree with calling for violence against the police. I don't think it's going to accomplish anything at this point because of the very real risk of extreme backlash. But I do understand why people want to.
I've made an effort to engage with you, to tell you why a person would disagree with your opinion without belittling you. I even outright said at the end of my last comment that I don't agree that calling for violence against the police is the right course of action.
You clearly haven't even read my comments, much less tried to explain your own position.
If you're being ridiculed, it's because you're making a fool of yourself -- not because anyone else is wrong. Honestly, dude.
What about the ongoing systemic violence? Violence which the system enacts on the poor? The systemic violence, which cops enact, by locking/beating people up?
Are you against self-defense?