Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bernie Sanders[edit]

What about them and Bernie Sanders?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The leaders have scolded the activists and told them to apologize, so I am not sure it's entirely relevant. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the controversy took place in the way that it did is most certainly notable. It's got enough sources, some good some bad, to look into. The incident certainly needs mention although there doesn't need to be an overt focus on Bernie. It may be useful to help clear the name of BLM, if that is indeed proper (we base everything on proper sources, obviously). Suggestion links from a quick googling, to use as parts of the puzzle or to point out as fallacious;
Etc. This list isn't comprehensive, but there's stuff out there. Lots of it Let's waddle through it (this and a lot more, Google) and see what it all amounts to. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, good point. Thanks! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. But this needs coverage. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The "official" facebook page for BLM said they did not call for any apologies from the Seattle activists:
There was an apology from a Seattle Facebook page for BLM but it was only run by one person who wasn't directly connected to BLM... but on the OTHER hand the protestors in Seattle are barely members of BLM themsleves, they're members of a fringe activist group called "Outside Agitators". This is getting confusing... ClothCoat (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
All the more reason for us to cover the topic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Considering a lot of the people are dismissing the movement based on that, I think it should be covered even if the leader's have condemned them, this should probably be pointed out in the article. --Akira (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, all the above sources multiplied by a separate googling on each and everyone of them should certainly be baked into the article. I mean, we're trying to actually source material on groups that's been picked up by mainstream media. This is such. We're just waiting for someone to add the meat to this article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Many black activists tweeted that critics of the set-to at the Sanders event should read the Letter from a Birmingham Jail before commenting further. As i recall, they called particular attention to what King has to say about white liberals, patience, illegal acts & etc.---Mona- (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Dr King was very clear on one point (among several, all of them good) in "Why We Can't Wait" (of which his letter is a part) - immoral means never justify moral ends, just as moral means never justify immoral ends. That's a quote from the man. Read the entirety of this talk page, including the new links from Krom. Dr King is spinning in his grave over BLM's shenanigans. This isn't justice, it's disgusting. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Calling bullshit on this. Rosa Parks was not the first black woman to refuse to sit in the back of the bus. She was not the first black woman in her home town. Hell, even Jackie Robinson refused to sit in the back of the bus more than a decade before Rosa Parks. The previous woman was a pregnant teenager, and the local civil rights leaders knew she would get pilloried in the press for her "lack of character". So, they threw her under the bus, so to speak. The civil rights movement waited, in spite of this stuff about "why we can't wait", because they weren't stupid. Immoral tactics? MLK and Malcolm X effectively ran a two man con. Alone, MLK would not have achieved racial equality as fast as he had. His policies were too much, too fast; he needed someone to make him look sane. Thus, Malcolm X. X was the crazy black separatist/nationalist, and in comparison, "why don't we all just get along" seemed like a nice, moderate stance to take. Whether or not this was planned or just how it came to be is not known, but in the end... In the end, the end is all that matters. The means are not separate from the end, they are part of the end; if you murder a baby to save a bus of orphans, the end is a world with those orphans but minus a baby. CorruptUser (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That whole set of text confused me and seemed a little conspiratorial? Or did I misinterpret it? Also, are you claiming that the means morally justify the ends? I'm literally wondering; I didn't really get what you were driving at here. I think. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
My thrust is that the ends can justify the means, the real world is complicated, and we turn complex figures that are on our side the side of justice into heroes and ignore absolutely anything wrong with them in order to maintain our illusion of black and white morality.
Personally I'm a moral nihilist; there is no source of morals in the universe other than what we decide is moral, and we decide what is moral by what provides the best outcome, so, consequentialism. CorruptUser (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Allright, I guess. To jump topic a little (or maybe I'm not - I'm still working the ol' ticker on your text), do you agree with my below points on the inherent problems of using comfortable, simplified racial disqualifiers? Their entire selling point is that they deny this complex reality you speak of (and which I agree exists). I don't ask in the sense of - "determine if I'm right or wrong" (I lol'd). I'm just curious as to what you think if you read through it all? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree. The name "black lives matter" isn't supposed to be "we only care about black people" but "black people are in the news lately being killed for things that a white guy wouldn't, someone needs to focus on this". If a group was dedicated to saving the humpback whale, called #HumpbackLivesMatter, would you criticize them for not being #WhaleLivesMatter? At the same time, I guess a point I should make with my previous screed, I don't think MLK would've rallied behind Michael Brown the way he has become the poster child for BLM. Brown robbed a store and punched a cop; he was pretty much the exact opposite of who you want as the poster child. You want someone all but the most hardcore racists would be upset that they can no longer have as a neighbor. CorruptUser (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, you should probably read what I actually write. The problem being, how do you disqualify into that group? My point isn't, nor has ever been, that "all lives matter" is the only acceptable statement. I'm entirely posing the qualification problem to you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Problems with this[edit]

They should have called it instead "African-American Lives Matter". Secondly the BLM is not just about "black lives matter", here are their goals:

(a) “an immediate end to police brutality”; (b) “full, living-wage employment for our people”; (c) “decent housing”; (d) “freedom from mass incarceration”; (e) “a public education system that teaches the rich history of Black people”; and (f) “the release of all U.S. political prisoners.”

Its seems to be a political movement with ties to black nationalism. Most of these points are also ridiculous i.e. give all black folks "decent housing" (what about everyone else that lives in poverty but is not 'black'? they don't mention those and don't seem to care about them). Also note they invite black supremacists such as Malik Zulu Shabazz to their meetings. [1] Krom (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Your second point is bullshit and a dishonest lie. Good shit. Malik Zulu Shabazz is one speaker speaking at one townhall and you argument reeks of ALLLIVESMATTER when people are talking about black issues. Go back to Stormfront. BlackProg (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't identify as "white" or any antiquated race label. "Black" is a completely redundant term with racialist (race typology) baggage. This site is against racial pseudo-science, so it just seems daft you're whole identity is based on this discredited concept of "blackness". Krom (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Saying "our people" is positive racism. Nice group of people, BLM. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why you say they should've used African-American in the name. Seems like an arbitrary choice. Your other points seem fair. (talk) 20:03, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I agree with 142․124․55․236 that the distinction between afro-american and black is pretty meaningless and uncontroversial. The wrapping isn't the message, the message is the message. My only beef right there is that they literally say "our people". It's rhetorically straight out of a Nazi proclamation regarding german nationals in bordering nations. Murphy'd. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Is "our people" really such a loaded term? I have heard Bill Maher using a similar phrase when referring to liberals who disagree with him on some points (and who he is embarrassed of) calling them "my tribe". Maybe you are reading something into it which isn't there? Also the short quotation you pulled out says "decent housing" not "decent housing for "our people"", not "decent housing for people browner than a paper bag" not "decent housing for any subset of the population". Just. "decent housing". If the context turns that into its opposite I'd love to see said context. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm generally not the person to kneejerk against specific terms of choice, but "these people" (with me not yet having combed through to see if everyone making statements in their name represent them, etc) appear fairly retarded to me. Naming their organisation Black Lives Matter is moronic even to begin with - they might as well have named the organisation "killing is bad". And furthermore, all lives matter. Separate equality is no equality, and that name just diminishes the cause. Calling your political peers your tribe like Maher did is one thing. But them literally identifying that much with race makes it dumbassed beyond belief to say "our people" - it is a term meant only to be used to allow a contrast narrative where some people are not your people, based on the color of their skin. The organisation is quite literally named [Nonscientific race criteria + value statement]. Racialist mythology from the late 1800's is dead and buried. And if their separatist point is that black lives matter, where do we draw the line for "black"? Is it a falling scale where the people with the most skin pigmentation matter most? Is there a break-off point of exclusion, and is the idea to present genetic data to see if you are eligible at some point? Do we go out and measure people's skulls? And since they've now pseudoscientifically chosen to make this about the lives of one essentialist race, shouldn't they preach towards "their people" that appear to be the ones taking about 90% of these lives that matter so to them based only on race? It's numbnutted racism. It's certainly not humanism. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
And regarding that random cherrypicked FBI table, I found it in a blog comment and really just wanted to include it to let you guys tell me if it is correct, or if it was posted by someone who thinks aryan lives matter - if you get my drift. I've barely read the thing, I'm awaiting comment on if it's useful at all or just cherrypicked confederacy garbage. But the point remains regarding black on black violence as a concept. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So much stupidity. Where are you even getting this stuff about skin pigmentation & measuring people's skulls? Is it actually from anything that anyone representing Black Lives Matter has said? Or are you, you know, sort of just pulling it out of your ass? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the stupidity in questioning the implications in inventing types of people. The whole concept of essentialist race does not exist without the mismeasurement of man. How do you then suggest we apply these - according to you, not stupid - pseudoscientific race criteria of theirs to humans in society, in order to determine who is a member of X, since X lives matter (as opposed to, say, lives matter - period)? These goons don't even realise that inclusive criteria and exclusive criteria are logically equivalent. Attempting to whip up community based on creationist-quality biology produces separation as the context given is community relative to proper or improper color of skin. I most certainly hope that you're not seriously attempting to defend racial division as an essential means of social justice? You make it sound like this is the first time you're considering even the basics of racism, since I hold you on good faith despite uncanny vibes from you right now of actually holding race theories to be anything but garbled nonsense. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
What "pseudoscientific race criteria of theirs"? You haven't demonstrated that they have any; you just made up some stuff about pigments & skulls based on white supremacist racial theories from a hundred years ago. Maybe you think anyone with an opinion on race relations is a Nazi. As for BLM "inventing" black people, WTF? As for "the basics of racism", let's start with this one: the existence of race under the microscope and the existence of race within society aren't the same issue. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with Rev. "Black people" is from 18th-19th century race typology, its obsolete. If you want to identify by ethnic group, that is fine, but "black" is not an ethnic group, nor is "white". An ethnic group would be Sami, Ossetians, Serbs, Croats, English etc. Furthermore in tropical Africa, most peoples there do not identify as "black", they identify by ethnic group. So "black" is completely meaningless. Krom (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
All ethnic qualifiers are inherently meaningless. Humans share more of their genes across ethnic boundaries than within them. However, many Americans self-identify as black (and they don't care whether their ancestors were from West Africa or Central Africa or some place else entirely) and they are attacked not on account of being descendant from one ethnicity or other but for being black. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Weaseloid Instead of letting hypoglycemia get the better of you, I suggest you actually take the time to evaluate what has been said by me, and others, up to this point. I must say I have absolutely no idea what position you seem to think that you are arguing against. Your apparent willingness to fruitlessly undertake wild guesswork and to frame my questions as statements come off as both dishonest and a little vexing. While my personal convictions on the matter constitute a digression from the logic at hand, I will entertain this tangent by simply pointing out that - to me, in short - the struggle for equality in society (as very broad as that statement is) is far from over (if ever), nor is the struggle itself a problem, but conversely an absolute necessity if we hope to develop society in a direction that is in line with atleast my own secular humanist ideals, in my opinion a worthy goal and to the benfit of all mankind. Back on topic - this is now the third time in a row I propose to ask - if the "B"LM definition is unproblematic, then simply explain this (clearly very progressive) method that you yourself endorse, whereby you sort human beings into and out of the group "black"? A person's political affiliation (e.g. Maher likening other liberals to his "tribe") regards an aquired stance, and doesn't center om the actual physical person holding that belief (per se), and further isn't outwards visible on the naked body of the person in question. The concept of tribalizing race, however, differs from political affiliation on atleast these two major points, whereby your inclusion or exclusion into these racial categories is not based on anything aquired or transient, but determined - by others, for you - simply by who your parents were. This also makes the makeup of differentiating theories regarding this trait discuss just precisely the people involved, and while science has conclusively shown that the visible differences are practically skin deep, your body displays these features, making you ripe for the wild categorizing of others. This, you suggest, is not descriptive of a problem, but on the contrary the essential sorting information that we need, if we are to be able to both reward and punish only the "right people". Rallying people around literally racial concepts is inherently pseudoscientific and problematic, to say the least. Besides, your impulse move towards lazily equivocating the term "race" still doesn't help you out, as you are now literally arguing for some manner of unverifiable "social race". It is then in the context of this social race we are to understand the previous sufferings attributed to an ethnic race? Come now, Weaseloid. Are you merely rehearsing fallacies, or could you source actual statements from BLM whereby they designate "black" as a "social construct", e.g. as opposed to an ethnic term? I'm genuinely shocked that you subscribe to racial justice theories. And, broadly speaking, like all proponents of these theories, I'm guessing that - to you - your chosen group(s) is an obvious underdog, against whom people(s) of different genetic (or "social" makeup) conspire against, through what is naturally easily shown by you as a long series of events you've strung together to fit your context, and lastly - both the final insult in and final proof of all of this conjectural racial deceit actually taking place against your group(s) of choice is the obvious censorship and historical revisionism that maintains willful ignorance in the wider populace, preventing your most certainly not racist or cranky perspective from becoming the new mainstream paradigm (which would've finally set the masses in action and brought justice!). This guess of mine unsurprisingly fits the general narrative of most nutjobs looking to whip up various collectives to, in one way or another, go out into the streets and get their due payback, with interest and all. This includes (as a random top-off-my-head uncomprehensive list) e.g. zionists, jihadists, nazis, black panthers, even Rwanda's hutus. Disregarding the implications of groups pushing simplified thinking stirring the members of a society, however unjust, against each other in the most primitively monkey brained way concievable - even in theoretical support of that scenario - the question still persists regarding "B"LM - how do you invite and barr "the right people" into this group? Define the criteria here and now of your racial qualifier, and in such a way that the vagueness which concerns me so is eliminated - the criteria of vagueness being a property of definitional logic and not where you decide the goalposts stand comfortably. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Black civil rights groups are reverse Nazis? Facepalm Do you guys also think feminism is misandry and LGBT rights groups don't do enough for straight people? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well there also was a hashtag "all lives matter" which was basically just people whining about black people daring to focus on black people. (That white people usually don't give a rat's ass for non white people is so universally assumed it is usually not even mentioned). Of course this whole charade broke down when an unarmed white teenager was shot and killed by police and "all lives matter" was dead silent on the issue whereas black lives matter did raise his case to prominence. The fact of the matter is that while race is just as invented a concept as nation, it is very real to those persecuted for it. Police do have assumptions about young black men that they don't have about young white men. And no, they are not justified. Drugs are consumed at statistically identical rates by black and white youth. As a matter of fact, wealthy middle aged white people (you know, the guys never controlled by police) are more likely to be white collar criminals, more likely to take Cocaine, more likely to frequent high-class prostitutes (no moral judgment, it is just illegal according to the law in 49 states). If you have to feel that police is an occupying army, your outlook on police and race relations gets a whole lot different. And as for black on black crime... Despite what you've been told by media most crime and in fact especially murder and manslaughter happen among people who know each other. Friends, neighbors, (ex)spouses and the likes. Now you tell me: given the getthoisation of both blacks (in usually urban usually run down neighborhoods) and whites (usually in McMansion suburbs that look so "individualistic" they are all the same), how likely is it that black on white or white on black crime happens in significant numbers outside of police or neighborhood watches? But maybe this will add some perspective to the debate... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Weaseloid Besides this blatant straw man, your eagerness to forcibly categorize people only serves to underscore your black-and-white world view (no pun intended!). You couldn't be less aware of the rather wide scope of the spectrum of thought that exists on this topic (as it does with most things) if you so tried. Thus, it quickly becomes a farce when you attempt to gauge what position is held by others - you, who don't even know your own coordinates. You must quite seriously belong to a cult or have spent about five minutes "picking a position" in the whole discussion of "race" if you suggest opposition this meek and well formulated to be tantamount to anything like what you just suggested. On the assumption that you don't consider yourself racist - I genuinely wonder if you've ever, once asked yourself things like;
  • maybe there are other positions than my own, yet which are not racist, and thus maybe the proper context for the entire discussion isn't a false dilemma?
  • maybe the reasoning behind my position is flawed, despite my best intentions?
  • maybe I'm not the first one in history to get lured in by emotional arguments, thinking I'm fighting for good while I'm actually infecting an issue to the benefit of attitudes I wouldn't actually support?
  • maybe I'm capable of misunderstanding things, and maybe my I shouldn't work myself up into a froth before I've even comprehended what others argue?
  • maybe I should assume good faith in other writers as they do for me?
  • maybe I should have a banana or take a walk or do something, anything before I reply to these people or my reply might get stained by my growing desire to flip my desk?

— Unsigned, by: Reverend Black Percy / talk / contribs

Please sign your entries on all talk pages. Kind regards. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
My bad - simply a good, old slip of the mind. I suspect you just caught the one criticism that could be made against that post. *thumbs suspenders enthusiastically* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Well no, but right now I haven't got the nerve of writing a whole lot to refute your points. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to see a good refutation. Again, aside from the large portions of text dedicated to bringing Weaseloid back down to earth, the question is fairly simple, and has been put above several times. I've merely not found any good method method that has a shadow of a hope in hell, logically or morally, to sort people with. Never mind the next step in that case - do you suggest forcible inclusion into said group even if people openly plead not to be included, or conversely allow the inclusion of people who self-identify with arguable incorrectness? And so on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If somebody throws a rock at you and says "You fucking cyclist" Do you argue that "cyclist" is a stupid word to identify a huge heterogeneous and ill-defined group of people by, or do you complain about being attacked? And imagine if you don't get a stone thrown at you with an accompanying "you fucking cyclist" once or twice, but too often to count. Further imagine that police looks the other way or even hates on you as well because you are just "a fucking cyclist". Wouldn't you be inclined to mutter, no say, no yell at the top of your lungs "Cyclists matter!"? Would you not wish to draw attention to the problem of cyclists being thrown at with stones? Would you not be outraged if somebody dismisses you and says "well sure, but look, yesterday somebody hit my car"? That in essence is the impetus of Black Lives Matter. And as a matter of fact, I do think cyclists matter Stop de kindermoord! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, Avenger - what the hell did I just read? This has to be the oddest attempt at refuting me I've ever read. First of all, you don't define in your little thought experiment if I'm supposed to be riding a bicycle or not. You just say somebody throws a rock at me and also accuses me of being a cyclist, which is a complete non sequitur, and a morally obvious situation - "somebody threw something at me unprovoked". The issue of right and wrong here has thus already been settled in this example of yours, one sentence into it no less. What's more, I don't even own a bicycle in real life, nor do I -- for the record - ride one more than once in a few years (I'm a walkin' man). Since you don't provide any guidance in your convoluted attempt at an analogy that proves your point, I'm going to assume that that man was insane and the moral of the story is missing (or maybe something along the lines of "don't try to use analogies if you don't know how"). Were I attacked by somebody, and that same person used a dumbassed grouping term towards me as well, then I'd just have two separate points of litigation against the man (one legal and one intellectual). Now, the priority would have to be the attack - obviously. But these two wrongs don't affect each other. He could've just as well have won a Nobel prize instead of thrown a rock, walked up to me and then used a dumbass grouping term on me. The right and the wrong don't affect eachother. In fact, these variables are completely separate, and any attempt at mixing in violence or non-violence into the logic of using a disqualifier to sort people is a - to say the least, confused - red herring attempt. This is a question of logic and ethics, not a question of adding and taking away weight onto some kind of "scales of butthurtness". Racial disqualifiers are impossible pseudoscience, period. Anyone who uses them is using an indefensible means to achieve whatever end they're trying to achieve, moral or immoral alike. And regarding your rather farcical analogy - I personally don't think I'd be yelling off the top of my lungs, and I've no idea where you are going with this. I certainly wouldn't "organize around being a cyclist", even if I did own a bicycle that I even rode daily. And if you'd read what I already wrote above, there's a difference between organizing around a property of your choice and a property you're "assigned" - which nullifies that point entirely. And what I'd be "inclined to do" has absolutely nothing to do with logic, and I'd deserve a wet willy if I tried to bring that into a discussion on the logic of disqualifiers. They're impossible to utilize (unless you're an illogical dipshit who embraces the practicality of having color-coded the good guys and the bad guys), that's the open-and-shut case here. And besides, "somebody hit my car"? What? You've completely lost your train of thought, Avenger. I haven't the slightest what you just tried to prove with that rambling, and the only intention I could seem to comb out of it was that you were trying to construct a case based on "outrage" or "impetus" or "emotional waaah" in reply to a problem of logic? All of those things are logically null, and to make matters worse - they even take fallacious steps in your argument, besides being individually irrelevant. Now, I'm going to write this down as having been a deliberate joke - and I'm laughing. Really, a joke or not (even in the outlandish scenario that this wasn't just fun writing) - I've got nothing against you personally. In short, my entire "response" can be summed up as: I congratulate you on making me "WAT" out loud. Good job! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is stubby[edit]

What are they about? What do they do? What about their confrontations with various Democratic Presidential candidates? Why have they not yet targeted a major GOP event I am aware of? This here page needs some work. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Why target the GOP? BLM wouldn't waste time on the party of obvious racism. Besides, they did target Jeb Bush but his campaign blacked them.BlackProg (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, the top of this talk page contains just one set of sources to be used by us. Pictures, internally linkable mentions of Sarah Palin, Bernie Sanders, Martin Luther King (whom Sanders marched with), etc. So several relevant sources are certainly just a Google search away. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not target the GOP? Making potential allies look bad accomplishes nothing. Hitting racism in the heart at least gives you sympathy (and maybe an open ear) in the left on MSNBC and in different online sources. You have to attack your enemy and not the people who sit on the fence. MLK saw this; he did not attack those he could maybe turn into allies, he did not say "you white guys don't understand" he did not say "all politicians are racist segregationists" He did not go to a Kennedy event to disrupt it. Of course BLM is entitled to decide for themselves what they want to do and how to do it. But unless they go after the GOP soon and hard it will just fizzle out; which is a shame given that almost all their issues are legitimate and neglected. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Human rights? You got to be joking[edit]

Black Lives Matter is a racist movement filled with black supremacists.Krom (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Read my above exchange with Weaseloid. In short - yep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Some BLM activists are head up their asses stupid. But thaen again some activists in almost any movement on this fine earth are head up their asses stupid. Daring to say that black lives matter just as much as white lives is not "black supremacist". It is the definition of equality. However, we can argue tactics to no end, and attacking Sanders is not a good idea imho. Nor is the attempt by some of the Mona ilk to connect BLM to the BDS issue, as any stance on Zionism is bound to divide your movement, your cause and turn away supporters.Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
My particular cricisms are really summed up above at length - which is why I said "in short" to Krom (whom I've agreed with above). I think Mona's edits looked good here, as in, they seem to be having a stance on Palestine so that should go in the article. I also liked your edits where it was formatted in a way that seemed more coherent. So far, we're all doing good on this article. I'm still wondering about my initial swab of sources at the very top of this talk page and how nobody's taken the time to integrate that stuff. Me included, but I amaze myself all the time with being sloth-like. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

BLM movement chant "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!"? and other kill policeman chants Krom (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that is some disgusting shit. Let's grab all unused sources off of the talk page and make an article on them that's actually inclusive of their views and behaviours. I'm at loss for words. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well just to say it before other people say it: Youtube videos and Fox News are both rather frowned upon around here. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I did say "disgusting shit". That can go both for the Fox News clip and for the statements of BLM. Furthermore, my call was upon the inclusion of all worthwhile sources in this thread - hinting towards the very top of the page where I've listed several hopefuls. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
If you don't know who Patrisse Cullors is try reading the whole article! And please keep the undocumented assertions and speculation out of the piece.---Mona- (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
To which article are you referring? Also - on the assumption that that chant actually belonged to a BLM protest - for the record, any organization that chants "death to X" is a hate group per any definition. I'm contesting the "human rights" definition in the opening summary. More like "rights for us, death for our enemies". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
must resist urge to mention Hamas Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
"To which article are you referring?" This one, the RW one. Partrisse Cullors is listed as one of the founding mothers. She is the noteable BLM signatory I quote in the BDS section. Someone asked who in the hell she is and added the WP entry on her. I took it off b/c she was already mentioned above as a founder. That is now where the WP link is.---Mona- (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter as black separatists too[edit]

"Brandon Blackwell, a crime reporter for the Northeast Ohio Media Group who frequently covers police and demonstrations, saw the pepper spray video and rushed to the scene.

When he arrived, the police were gone but the crowds remained. Blackwell then did what he always does. He started recording with his cell phone and asking questions. On Sunday, he used Twitter's Periscope app to broadcast the scene live.

But the crowd turned on Blackwell as he filmed a large group gathered in a circle on a sidewalk outside of a CSU building. A man announced the circle was only for people of "African descent." Krom (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Was he or was he not excluding East African Plains apes? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
All I can say is: what did I just say above about the problem of disqualifiers? This is what always happens when people split people into groups and mobilize around that. What a tragic farce. It's pretty comical to me to see these people on RW trying to beat around the bush and still present this and similar organisations (with the intent of boosting any given "skin color", by the way) as part of the solution and not the problem. This exact kind of bullshit is what feeds racist fervor in the first place. Where's Weaseloid to construe this into being the clear path to social justice? And people wonder how race wars get inflamed in the first place. /facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I get your point, but please explain further with examples if possible. Sounds moderately right. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
"One said Blackwell could be a federal agent." That's not paranoid, and they have good reason to be skeptical of some unknown white due showing a lot of interest in them. Indeed, I will get around to adding a section on this whole issue.---Mona- (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a good collection of sources. Anything properly sourced belongs in the article, obviously. Neat. And while there's a good documented history of strange inflitration by the feds into all kinds of organisations (peaceful and not), it's also way easier to claim infiltration than to prove it conclusively. Anyone who's ever been to Infowars knows that every riot that's ever taken place has been directed by actors on both sides. And feds or no feds - that still doesn't change the fact that the BLM racial disqualifier is illogical and morally questionable. I lol'd out loud at the phrasing "some unknown white" (I'm like, "explain again how that's not racist"). Not only didn't they know him, but he was WHITE! This has got to be some manner of diabolically cunning aryan scheme poised against them! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it a large part of the group that is actually like this? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
'I lol'd out loud at the phrasing "some unknown white"' That's who and what he was. (I'm white and would be careful about establishing my bona fides in a crowd of BLM protesters. They have reason to be suspicious, altho it likely that a few of the spies are also black.) And I REALLY like this that you said: Anything properly sourced belongs in the article. Amen and glory be! And that applies to every RW article. It's my constant mantra. (With the caveat that the properly sourced thing would be deemed by reasonable people to be relevant the topic.)---Mona- (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
So, you identify as white Mona? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, he was an unknown human being who happened to be "white". And since they're inventing a narrative where there's some kind of race war going on, that was a deciding factor to them (or to you, as you presented their reaction). Which made me laugh and massage my forehead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously dude, I doubt that much of the movement is like this. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's hope. I haven't made any broad statements on individuals representing an entire movement. My entire point has been that individuals cannot be forcibly included into a group, never mind that a few "rotten eggs" couldn't "blemish an entire movement". At protests and rallies, there's hardly ever any top down control on what participants say or do in detail - nor do I know that that would be desirable. But I'm just saying - what's with all this casual racism? "Black" and "white" are pseudoscientific confusions. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm going to agree this is probably just nutpicking. Thing is, you can usually break a movement down into 3 parts. The part that opposes the goal, the part that supports the goal, and the part that has its own kooky goal which aligns with the methods of the second part. So you have the people who want equal rights for black people and the people who want some sort of black supremicist state or something, who both think leading a protest is a way to get change. CorruptUser (talk)

An interesting theory, no doubt. And the funniest part is, none of these component subgroups still solve the very blantant problem of disqualifying into their group. Again, do they measure skulls or what? Who's "black"? Science this side of the 2nd world war certainly doesn't back up any kind of grouping like that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Again with the skulls? Facepalm ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I think "black" is really "does this person have enough 'blackness' to suffer from any black biases in society"? It's a very fluid metric, and I'm certain it varies between regions, so I'll understand if you want to call me out for not giving a defined metric. CorruptUser (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, one thing I very clearly accept (and even emphasize) is the fact that people are using and being met with these very simple-minded racial disqualifiers in everyday society. It's most certainly necessary to be aware that racists use them - in fact, their use is part of the illogical basis for being a racist (as, again, these groups are shown to be arbitrary as fuck). My entire beef is then, why do people who claim to fight a different fight than the racists - or the fight against the racists - stoop to using these same, equally shitty racial disqualifiers? And regardless - can their application and use be defended for any group on a logical basis? I deem not. I also submit to you that anyone who claims that the application onto people of racial disqualifiers is some kind of an "unskippable component of racial justice" is, in fact, nothing more than a deluded racist. I think that an important piece of any good definition of "not racist" is the active process of openly calling out these apaloid-quality racial friend-and-foe-sorters for what they are. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Race is, indeed, a tricky and difficult concept. However, in order to compensate or champion people who have been discriminated against and harmed on the basis of race, it is necessary to decide who the victims are. For example, the federal government pays monies to Indian tribes and tribal status carries benefits, includingexpanded rights to hunting and fishing, and the right to live on reservation land. To determine when an applicant is an Indian from that tribe, certain blood quantum formulas are used. Moreover, it is deeply suspicious when the racist victimizer race suddenly proclaims a universalist theme that "we are all humans and nothing else matters" -- when it is time to confront the evil committed on a certain racial group the victimizer race itself designated as belonging to the "wrong" race in the first instance.---Mona- (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you are fighting a good fight, but it's a different fight. The fight to get the general public to understand that "race" is more social construct than biological reality should be fought elsewhere, because even if we somehow got to a society where no one identified as any race, we'd still have the situation where people with "thick lips and dark complexion" were being killed at higher rates than others. CorruptUser (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Is he trying to say the group is part of the problem and further creating racial divisions by using terms like "black", or is he just further going on about the racism in the group? I'm genuinely confused, it's not Rev's fault. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Before I call it a night - when you say "he", do you mean me? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Ja. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL. what happened here, last I was here it was only a few lines. Now all this to read...Krom (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get their point after reading their very worded attempted explanations/arguing of their viewpoints]. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
"However, in order to compensate or champion people who have been discriminated against and harmed on the basis of race, it is necessary to decide who the victims are." -- this is a nonsense statement since all social groups have been discriminated against at some place and point in time, this includes "white people". Krom (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Well then. I guess we should have put you in charge of the Indian Claims Commission, which you would have promptly dissolved as "nonsense." And, when Joe Sixpack applies for tribal status to receive tribal benefits based on treaties and other legal authorities, you can just say: "Everybody who claims to be a member of the tribe is, because nonsense!"---Mona- (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
It all should be dissolved its nothing more than political correctness (the same for affirmative action). Race in fact is a politically correct social construct.Krom (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I see. Well, happy fantasies to you.---Mona- (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Ad hominem, again. Unsurprising. Against a distinguished and intellectual user. Are you actually going to argue anything? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any ad hominem. I'm seeing someone finally calling out some obvious bullshit. And who's this distinguished and intellectual user you speak of? (talk) 17:14, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Ah, alright. I guess "Well, happy fantasies to you." is a good argument. I apologize. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
In what universe would that sentence actually be an "argument"? It's merely a reasonable response to Krom's latest bullshit post. (talk) 17:21, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
"I'm not seeing any ad hominem." Yes, quite. A number of users here do not know what ad hominem actually means. It is not the per se calling someone a name, or saying something sarcastic to them. Saying such things is fallacious only when the purpose is to demonstrate their arguments are false. But I see absolutely no value in arguing against the claim that the Indian Claims Commission (established immediately after WWII) constituted "political correctness." Anyone who thinks that claim holds merit is beyond my abilities of persuasion.---Mona- (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
It is only reasonable to assume you were attempting to prove it false with those ad hominem attacks, as you were not using any actual arguments. Also, I thought you were referring to his second statement in the line about race. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Still not sure where you're getting this ad hominem stuff from. Mona actually made a reductio ad absurdum argument, and Krom went right along in it, proving his views as absurd. (talk) 17:34, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Which is why Krom hadn't replied yet. Right? Perhaps you assume I am talking about their overall arguments, that is not the case, I meant the immediate last one they had provided. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Which last one would that be? Again, "Well, happy fantasies to you" is clearly not meant as an argument. It's a slightly nicer version of "Well, you're clearly nuts. It was nice arguing with you." (talk) 17:42, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Just my opinion. However I read a report that a major case for affirmative action was opposed in court recently, and what was cited against it was scientific literature showing human races do not exist. I should try and re-find the link. I agree much with Reverend above: "race" has been completely discredited, so why cling to it in thought? I mean alchemy and witchcraft did not continue after they were shown to be bogus, "race" though continues to be entrenched in thought of most people. And I don't see why anyone should have a charity or benefits based on "race", its just PC nonsense for the lazy that want a free hand out. Take for example "black" people still moaning about the African slave-trade, but what about everyone else throughout history that was enslaved? The Romans enslaved thousands of "white" Celts etc.Krom (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"It is only reasonable to assume" It is not wise to assume that with me as I am fully educated in the logical fallacies and commit them very seldom, and never wittingly. Moreover, I am conscious to avoid them, strongly conscious, when I write. If I do not address the substance of someone's argument you probably should assume I have mentally placed scare quotes around "substantive" and "argument." That said, see Krom's whataboutery in his latest comment about slave trades. That is fallacious---Mona- (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Alright, Mona. Well, happy fantasies to you. That was the only thing they'd said to dispute Krom's most recent statement. Where else would their argument be coming from?

What don't you understand Krom? They're being discriminated against because of the social construct, which is the whole point. It does not have to exist biologically to be used against them by racists. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"its just PC nonsense for the lazy that want a free hand out." Then you should have no trouble rebutting this which has made quite the impact in many circles: The Case for Reparations
Krom is completely missing the point. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That much was obvious. (talk) 17:59, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
"They're being discriminated against because of the social construct, which is the whole point." -- Well my point is everyone has been discriminated. So unless there is a free hand-out, a charity, reparations, affirmative action for everyone, it is completely pointless, e.g. Why is there a "case for reparations" for "blacks" based on slavery, but not the descendants of "white" Celts enslaved by the Romans?.Krom (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
So your argument is "Any kind of reparations are bad unless we manage to get political support to make reparations for all wrong-doings that have happened throughout history?" Come on, really? (talk) 18:07, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
People who are "black" are being discriminated against by police because of their "blackness". BLM is supposedly trying to stop this. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Rarely ever are the "black" people BLM protest over, innocent. They are criminals. This is why there is now "Black Criminal Lives Matter" hashtag on twitter. Shots fired into Ferguson home kill 9-year-old girl, injure mother Note how the BLM did not protest for this innocent girl, but a drug-addict, gangbanger "gangsta". About says it all. Krom (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Except the girl wasn't killed by the police. The BLM protestors aren't complaining about unsolved murders, they are complaining about when the 'murder' is solved but the perpetrator gets away with it. CorruptUser (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Well their name is "Black Lives Matter", but the only lives they care about is criminals. If they had a case where some innocent "black" person was killed by police, they might have a point. None of the BLM protests however have been about this.Krom (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Where does one argue not to delete article?[edit]

Does that discussion happen here? Who nominated this article for deletion?— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs

I think Shtronimer needs to use the proper template, he used the old delete one. There's no debate yet. the link is now up. Also, If anyone deletes this without a vote, I'll undelete it. BicyclewheelModerator 19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Block of reddit text[edit]

I bet someone here can write a more succinct summary. BicyclewheelModerator 19:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Cited examples of the "all lives matter" argument would be way more relevant than some belaboured analogy from a random internet user. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody should be killed by police[edit]

There seems to be some prevailing meme, that a criminal who is killed by police somehow "brought it upon themselves" or "deserved" it. No. Police should not be in the business of shooting to kill. Even if somebody jumps at you weapon ready and all you have is a gun, there are other means thaen going for the kill. Police in many countries are trained to avoid excessive use of force. Of course, you can't teach this in a four week course and you cannot expect to get people willing to train this for years if you pay ridiculously low salaries. But we should value human lives - even that of criminals - high enough to spend this kind of money. Better paid police, better trained police means less trigger-happiness, less shooting, less dead people. As a matter of fact, even some Republican could come out and say that, even framing it as "our heroes, who guard us while we sleep deserve better thaen the crappy pay they are getting. They deserve more and better training, and they deserve higher and better wages" Yet they are not doing it. My point is: Is there at least agreement that even presumptive criminals have a right not to be shot and killed by police? Do we further agree, that if there is any legitimate use of deadly force, it is limited to war, self-defense and the due punishment for a crime arrived at after the due process of law. Which of these categories do the killings of civilians by cops fall under, again? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This prevailing meme about shooting victims who "brought it upon themselves", along with the likelihood of being shot in the first place, tends to depend on who the victim is. Hence this movement. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Well that is of course also an issue, but not the one I wanted to address here. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"nobody should be killed by police"? what? So a mad gunman that has just killed and warns he will kill more innocent people in a supermarket, should not be shot to kill by police? Also this statement is total trash: "But we should value human lives - even that of criminals", so you value the lives of paedos, drug addicts and murderers? You sound like a total sick degenerate. Krom (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Said Krom, as the conversation began to go downhill. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
There are alternatives to shooting to kill. If all of these alternatives have been exhausted it may be appropriate to shoot to kill. But only thaen. And yes of course I value the lives even of those guilty of horrific crimes. (I don't want to get into the issue of the death penalty here) Let me just say this: even sick fuckers who deserve to rot in prison deserve to live. And the police should never be judge jury and executioner. A split-second decision by an improperly trained police-officer is not the way a civilized society should decide about live and death. Even in the case of people who arguably deserve death. A guy selling smuggled cigarettes sure as hell does not deserve death. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no "rotting in prison". Prisons get visitor time, access to computers, libraries, computer games etc. That's why this argument is fallacious. Krom (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yet we just recently had a debate about whether being happy somebody is "rotting in prison" is appropriate Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Police Brutality sucks, but one should acknowledge their job has them on edge. Numerous Police Officers in the U.S.A have been killed or wounded by gunfire since the year started. It's quite surprising actually. Many of the protests BLM has done ended in the police being rightfully cleared although there are incidents of brutality. The 21 foot rule proves advancing suspects are dangers to armed officers. The center mass is unfortunately the most reliable target. It's not as often the fault of the police (at least solely) as BLM tries to make it seem. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yet for some reason in most other advanced countries police killing people or police getting killed is a minor issue or not an issue at all Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope you realize most urban criminals don't use legal firearms. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any data to back up that claim? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Is great for supporting this already common knowledge. By the way, this is the logical conclusion because criminals generally don't have the best records (and therefore have more difficulty getting firearms). <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yet suicides and "accidents" with firearms claim more dead thaen murders and manslaughters with firearms. And the former almost exclusively happens with legal firearms bought for "protection". Also, any illegal gun ever used to be a legal gun once. Less legal guns means less illegal guns sooner or later. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Suicides? Please specify. People solely killing themselves or do you mean murder-suicides? Also, why would illegal guns eventually disappear? Police crackdowns? There are not just a few hundred illegal guns in the U.S.A. You also forget about home-made firearms and that there are lethal weapons besides firearms. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you see a person with a gun and don't know whether it could be legal (open carry is fucking Bullshit for precisely that reason) you cannot crack down as efficiently as you can when open carry as well as most firearms are generally illegal. Also, firearms don't have indefinite lives. If you cut down the supply, the number will stop increasing and eventually decrease even if you do nothing else thaen confiscating illegal weapons found "by chance". And I mean suicides, as in people putting a gun to their head/chest/whatever. Without killing anybody else nor intending to Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I support the right of adults to terminate their own lives. I wish to challenge you on your idea of open carry: wouldn't many more armed citizens be able to defend themselves make illegal guns much less of a problem and eventually negligible? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I guess you would not have made the former statement if you knew somebody with depression. The fact of the matter is that easily accessible firearms raise the number of suicides. The total number of suicides. As to open carry: We can see in the US that this is demonstrably wrong. Imagine the guy on the train would have been some guy in an open carry state. None of the first responders would have known that he is not supposed to have a gun and hence he would only have been stopped after much more bloodshed. And you are of course distracting from the actual issue at hand by tacitly stating your opinion. In your world "bad guys" should be shot. That is not the way societies in the 21st century should handle things. Violence should only be the ultimate last resort. Deadly force should be reserved for clear imminent threats to the live of one or more human beings that show no other way out only. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Cops ain't magic super-ninjas and sometimes there's either the perp or them (and/or a bunch of innocents at gun-/bombpoint). Police violence is a very, very bad thing, but sometimes cops have to use force, even deadly force.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure that's what they should be trained for. To discern the very few situations where deadly force is truly the only way out and thaen apply it in the right way. The alternative shooting a fleeing criminal in the center mass or letting them get away never is one. You can also shoot them in the legs. Or chase them (if you pass a physical worth its salt, that is) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Shooting somebody in the legs when you don't have the time to aim properly and they are moving is actually harder than you'd think. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
That's why you have training and only let the best of the best become cops. Or at least it should be that way. Most of the countries that have a lower rate of police violence and violence against police also have higher requirements to become an officer. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Factually false note doesn't belong[edit]

Two editors continue edit warring to include a factually false footnote. I reworded it with suport so that it was accurate. Then, I tried deleting the who extraneous thing. There is no dissuading the two Zionists, who won't accept either my supported claims or those of ChrisAmiss. The Zionists insist on a factually false note to the BLM quoted statement in the BDS section.---Mona- (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing the BDS section[edit]

Reasoning: It has next to nothing to do with the topic at hand and just draws unsavory edit wars Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No. And your trying to making make this seem attractive by insisting on either a false footnote or having an edit war, won't succeed. We wouldn't be having an edit war if YOU and Arisboch were not insisting on a factually false footnote. Stop it.---Mona- (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Locked the page. Enough edit warring. (talk) 21:38, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Care to change that to mod protection? Kind of unfair since Arisboch is a sysop but Mona/Chris/Avenger are not... CorruptUser (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to, but only mods can do that. (talk) 21:41, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
"Kind of unfair since Arisboch is a sysop but Mona/Chris/Avenger are not" I assume this means Arisboch can bypass the protection?---Mona- (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, since is a sysop like me. Only a mod could lock the page, so that even he or I couldn't edit it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It in fact has a lot to do with the topic, being a view of the movement. Edit wars are not justification for removing sections. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is the BDS section in this article in the first place?[edit]

I mean... What exactly was this supposed to achieve apart from dredging the current conflict about anything related to Zionism onto yet another page? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It sums up the views of the movement towards an important topic. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Black lives matter originated as a Twitter Hashtag. How does that constitute a "movement" that is homogeneous enough to agree on anything besides the fact that black lives matter and issues which immediately relate to this issue? How does BDS relate to this issue? Mona has not established it, and unless we also want to document the opinion of certain factions within BLM towards the Iran Deal, military spending or contemporary tabletop games. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Israeli media established, it Avenger. You've seen my support. Israel is beside itself over the BLM support for BDS -- Ethiopian Jews in Israel are carrying the hashtag on their protest signs. BLM leaders and other black leaders have gone to Palestine on a fact-finding and solidarity mission. They issued a BDS-support statement with 1000 signatories. It's in the media everywhere. Get over it.---Mona- (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
"Black journalists, artists and organizers representing Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100), and more have joined the Dream Defenders for a 10-day trip to the occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel."-Ebony. Organizers...artists...and journalists..sounds like some key members. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sysops "resolving" edit wars by protecting their preferred version[edit]

A case in point can be seen here... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The case in point I should probably ban spank you for blanking a section and inserting blatant misinformation? (talk) 21:39, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
He told me on the Zionism page, point blank, that both he and Arisboch will never, under any circumstances, permit to stand any edit that they don't like about Israel. He has sworn to revert endlessly. What can be done with such an editor, who cares not a whit about documentation -- either about supplying his own or having respect for the supported fact claims of others? He's simply doing precisely what he avowed to do. So, what?---Mona- (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This is non-stop edit warring that has been going on for several hours. Why are the mods not doing anything? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona, the way you are flinging around dirt at established editors and misrepresenting their statements is not helping your case. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why are the mods not doing anything? Because i'm the one most likely to get involved and i've been at work for the last 8 hours.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You were not the only moderator online Paravant. It's also pretty sad that such a thing is even happening. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't? Moderator isn't the same thing as sysop by the by. (talk) 22:16, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Avenger, I'm not misrepresenitng anything. When I first arrived, I think it was Corrupt User -- but it could have been Castaigne -- told me no edits will ever survive that don't please those who think "Israel is great." Then, you avowed on the Zionism page that no parallel versions such as on the Morality of Abortion page would work because you and Arisboch would not permit edits you didn't approve of. Not even if one version was your side. You simply won't allow it. Period. And you are showing that here, right unto insisting on notes with false information, over and above those with support. What can be done with that kind of editorial "standard?"---Mona- (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Write an essay, for crying out loud! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Then you'd probably start edit warring over her essay in all likelihood. >.> (talk) 22:16, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Whether I write an essay is unresponsive to my true accusations about your obstruction and grossly unreasonable standards and behavior.---Mona- (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes 142. I am aware of that. Also, why write an essay? Why doesn't it belong where it is, other than the fact it displeases you? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
She is free to write what she pleases in her essay. However, I will most likely post some questions on her talk page. It is of course entirely up to her whether she responds... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

well i mean if you people want it to be mod locked[edit]

i guess that works?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In which version? Mona's or Arisboch's? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
whichever one it's currently on because the blank the page option isn't viable. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit fucking conflict)Well that would be de facto Mona's because the person who looks like a BoN but isn't reverted it to said version before locking it. Which is imho a problematic way of "resolving" conflicts... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The current version is actually a compromise version, with the largely irrelevant footnote still present but with the misinformation inside it corrected. (talk) 22:44, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
There is no good way to resolve edit conflicts when locking pages, one side is going to get the unfair bit of the stick beating. my choice for it with you and Mona is pretty much a mental coin flip as my main goal is to force the edit-war to end.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Just remove the footnote. It's a tangent to a tangent & the squabbling over it adds nothing to the core subject of the article. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While you are partially right, Paravant, doing a big revert of something other thaen obvious vandalism (and I mean obvious obvious as in "climate change is a hoax" or "fuck your titty ass")before locking down the page is not a good way to resolve a dispute. I know you did not do that. But a look at the fossil record shows us who did. And no, inventing second generation refugees where none exist does not make it a "compromise version". If anything, it is a compromise between reason and Bullshit. And you know with one drip of shit in a liter of wine... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
"Just remove the footnote." Fine with me, and I tried that and even truncated the quote so it didn't use the word "refugee." But they wouldn't accept that, either. Wholly in line with Avenger's vow that no edits he dislikes about Israel will be allowed to stand. ---Mona- (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I seemed pissed, even hyper
When I was going round and round on the Zionism talk page, and the edit warring was going on. But I was truly outraged that basically 2 people (and occasionally 1 or 2 of their supporters) could hold hostage an entire article by NOT sourcing it and merely asserting with their preferred narrative, coupled with constantly reverting anyone who made SOURCED edits they disliked. Really, I had a hard time accepting others were not as rejecting of this behavior as I was. I do hope maybe I've made a point about what's wrong with it. Perhaps I was less than diplomatic in my newness and utter outage -- but really, this is a problem and is so for any article touching on Israel (as we see). Moreover, as the BLM support for BDS shows, the narrative is changing "out there" and it can't be avoided. The question is whether the evolving argument is allowed to be reflected here , or whether two hardcore partisans are allowed to obstruct that---Mona- (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona, this is not the appropriate section to discuss that. Maybe even the wrong page, but that is not for me to judge. Kind regards Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You literally followed her around to multiple pages to continue the fight. At this point you're really clearly the problem - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
(5 or so edit conflicts) It might fix the BLM conflicts for a while but it's part of a larger problem of a small amount of editors consistently disagreeing. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: It was a problem before I arrived 3 weeks ago. I was told so. I was told the Zionism page can't be fixed; the unsourced mess can't be edited with any other viewpoints and SOURCES -- which they don't have anyway. That there are two people who won't let it or any other article touching on Israel. I found this was totally true and, indeed, one of these two obstructionists flatly told me he and his friend would never permit even SUPPORTED facts they don't like to stand. They'll always revert, and he said no negotiation can change that. So, I mean, WTF?---Mona- (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


Black mom becomes viral star with rant at Black Lives Matter protesters for rallying over death of 'thugs and criminals' instead of black on black crime[edit]

  • Peggy Hubbard who grew up in St Louis, Missouri, released a rant to Facebook on Thursday which went viral and racked up millions of views
  • Hubbard said Black Lives Matters protesters rallied for an 18-year-old 'armed' black teen shot by police instead of black on black crime
  • The former Navy officer and mom said focus should shift to events like shooting of black nine-year-old girl in Ferguson by an armed black shooter

This is exactly what I was saying above. Krom (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That not all groups are perfect and that not all parts of a group move in one hivemind block?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Wait, can you be shot by an unarmed shooter? CorruptUser (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
That depends on what the meaning of the word "shoot" is Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
First you are going to cite the dailyfail showing a token black woman as your defense. Let's start off with your 'black on black' crime assertion. In the US ethnic groups tend to be highly concentrated in homogeneously which is why Ferguson is 67.3% black. So obviously the most people wronged by criminals who are black would be black because most criminals commit crimes in their own neighborhoods. The exact same thing can be said about whites in the US, but you aren't worried about 'white on white' crime. Secondly, these criminals will be caught and tried, just look at the US prison rate, but the police who are arrested for misconduct rarely get convicted. Blacks are arrested more often for marijuana possession than whites even though they use the drug at the same rate. Blacks and Hispanics are also stopped and frisked more often as well. But if police are only killing criminals then tell me did Sandra Bland, Sam Dubose, and Eric Gardner have to die for minor violations. Also I have heard you aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people but there is no national use of force standard so it depends what the department considers excessive force.--Owlman (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Despite what the media might indicate in the vast majority of the cases of capital offenses, victim and perpetrator knew each other or were even closely related or (former) lovers. As the US is extremely segregated along skin-color and income lines, it is more likely for black people to know black people closely, just as it is more likely for white people to closely know white people... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh so a random Black woman on Youtube criticizes BLM, so therefore racism is now over, and somehow John Crawford deserved to die for holding the rifle he intended to purchase in a supermarket, Tamir Rice deserves to be gunned down for holding a toy gun, Sandra Bland deserves to die in a police cell over broken car lights, and Freddie Gray deserved to die of a broken spine at the back of a police wagon, since the latter is a "thug"? Your attempts to whitewash systematic racism in police forces and dehumanize people for having the wrong skin color make me sick.-- (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey racist troll, you're the one posting racism and extreme statements. Claiming there is "systematic racism in police forces" is not only wrong but offensive to police.Krom (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Why are these cop shootings racist? They aren't, and the only people claiming this are racists and other conspiracy nutters themselves. Here's what Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland police union said about Tamir Rice;
“Tamir Rice is in the wrong. … He’s menacing. He’s 5-feet-7, 191 pounds. He wasn’t that little kid you’re seeing in pictures. He’s a 12-year-old in an adult body. Tamir looks to his left and sees a police car. He puts his gun in his waistband. Those people—99 percent of the time those people run away from us. We don’t want him running into the rec center. That could be a whole other set of really bad events. They’re trying to flush him into the field. Frank [the driver] is expecting the kid to run. The circumstances are so fluid and unique.”

So you got a guy that looked like an adult (in his 20s) waving and firing a gun in the street and then puts his gun in his waistband when the cops arrive. How is this innocent? Of course the cops weren't to know the gun wasn't real.Krom (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Its rather sad people turn this into a "race" issue. It has nothing to do with that. The cops are here just doing their job. No one claimed they were perfect, so of course a minority of killings are their mistake. But there is no truth in this crackpot conspiracy that the police go out murdering "blacks" on purpose. There is no evidence for "systematic racism" in police. Krom (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In other news: Krom is still missing the point by several miles.
Krom: Before you go dismiss stuff as "crackpot conspiracies", perhaps you should first figure out what is actually meant by the term "systemic racism". You might be blown away by the massive surprise. (talk) 18:44, 11 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Too many people are killed by police in the US. More people die at the hands of police thaen in any other major country. Due to systemic racism and class issues, poor people, African Americans and poor African Americans are way more likely to die as a result of police action. This should change. Getting rid of guns and giving better training to cops are two ways to solve this problem. Denying the problem solves nothing. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem extends way beyond police actions. For example, there are huge racial biases in how shootings are reported in the media, how much attention they get, how perps & victims tend to be described, which incidents are described as terrorist acts, etc. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You are of course entirely right. And despite appearances, it is not limited to the US alone. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Some possible criticism[edit]

So I was wondering if BLM was too limited in their scope on racial justice. I mention this since Latinos who are killed get little attention. They same can be said about Native Americans as well.--Owlman (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That's straight-up whataboutery - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
So is a lot of the other crap on this talk page. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong still support the movement and I don't think they or us are purposely over looking other racial issues. I just find it odd that Latinos and Native Americans don't have their own BLM yet or have joined BLM in order to expand their message. Regardless, if any of the reforms pushed for by Campaign Zero get passed it will greatly benefit everyone.--Owlman (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
BLM is a racist/black supremacist movement, so why would they care about others? Watch the video I linked above where BLM activists turn away a "white" guy and say their movement is for "blacks" only, and shouted at him slurs. Krom (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Yawn.gif ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Omar Barghouti[edit]

Is a hypocritical fuck who on one hand calls for, among other things, academic boycott against Israel but studies at the Tel Aviv University, oposes the two-state solution and pulls Godwins all the fucking time.
P.S.: Is this fucker a relative of Marwan Barghouti?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. There's been much agitation to expel him, but so far the university will not.---Mona- (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
An Israeli university won't boot an student engaging in directing a campaign to destroy Israel not by bombs, mortars, rockets, knives and stones, but using "softer" methods. Must be the Israeli apartheid, huh? Sarcasm.gif.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is an apartheid state, for all the reasons copiously explained and documented at our Apartheid article.---Mona- (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Copiously pulled out of numerous asses...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Asses that have support from reasonable sources and individuals adducing facts.---Mona- (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Clear PRATT, you prat. Arab Israelis have the same rights as anyone else, even more (they don't have to go to the army, but many do anyway)!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

An issue we should debate here instead of Mona just reverting it[edit]

How are BDS and BLM in any way similar? Also how many BLM supporters even know about, let alone support the stance of some guys on BDS? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The ever-increasing mutual support and events/activities of both speaks for itself. If you have a reliable source showing significant ignorance among BLM participants of solidarity with the pro-Palestinian movement, please provide it.---Mona- (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source about the BDSM/BMLBLM-ccoperation being more than some fringe stuff?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
See my documentation. It's not fringe people, and it's happening a lot.---Mona- (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
BLM protests are replete with pro-Palestinian signs. See Deray McKesson tweeting from Ferguson. ---Mona- (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not even a BLM hashtag. Is BLM even an organization even more then Anonymous is?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch are you familiar with the German Facebook site that calls itself anonymous and has been disowned by pretty much all other anonymous activists? They are what we like to call Wahnwichtel and full of antisemitic, pro-Russian and general conspiracy theorist BS... Maybe a similar thing has happened to BLM and Mona is the only one to fall prey to it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't heard of that Facebook site, but didn't (some part of) Anonymous did some DOS-attack on some smallfry Israeli sites?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You know what could help settle the issue? A reputable poll by a reputable source... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FFS Arisboch, Deray is one of the prominent voices of BLM. He doesn't tweet non-existent stuff.---Mona- (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Him saying stuff on his Twitter channel doesn't mean, that a significant part of BLM (I really hesitate to call it an organization) shares his opinion or even knows of this.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The article already notes that it is possible many in the BLM movement don't know about the alliance with the Palestinians. Nothing more is necessary unless and until someone provides a reliable source showing some widespread ignorance or dissatisfaction with this alliance. But given that pro-Palestinian signs show up at virtually every BLM protest I've seen photographed online, I doubt it can be found.---Mona- (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
This is from Ebony magazine. And editorials in The Times of Israel are most unhappy about this alliance. This article from In These Times is on point.---Mona- (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Opinion pieces on obscure Internet sites and a blog you normally considers the work of the devil Zionists? C'mon, you sure can do better than that!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It just seems she can't. Well why would that be? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I have the suspicion, that it's mostly an Internet phenomenon like, say, GG or Anonymous with little to no impact on the real world (besides getting some two-bit Youtuber her 15 minutes of fame before the UN clown car).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Quite frankly to this day I don't know squat about GG. I know who Sarkeesian is and I have seen a couple of her videos, but that's basically it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I summarized GG once as "a vaguely organized movement which is dedicated to improving video game journalism ethics, but ends up spending the vast majority of its time whining about feminism for ruining somethiing somehow. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
And its a great shame, because VGJ is actually horribly unethical. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Lo and behold: Two shitfests fuse into one on an entirely unrelated page... Just kidding ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ebony is not some obscure Internet site. Moreover, In These Times is not "some blog." It's been around since the 70s as a paper, and has had contributions form Garrison Keller, Paul Wellstone, Barbara Ehrenreich, John Judis and Joan Walsh. It's won awards from, e.g., the National Council on Crime and Delinquency for the indicated coverage. In any event, you've offered no reasonable or substantive objections to the facts about the BLM and pro-Palestinian alliance. Even The times of Israel has lamented this reality.---Mona- (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

They lamented, that some guys who tack the blm hashtag to their posts went on BDS demonstrations and that bds is trying to get blm to jump in bed with them. Relevance beyyond some more or less obscure Internet sites and guys with blm signs seen on some demonstrations? Nope.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
BLM has "jumped into bed" with them. As my documentation on the article page, and here, demonstrates. One of the founders of BLM is leading the alliance. You simply dislike these facts with the heat of a thousand suns -- as is usual for you regarding the many unpleasant facts pertaining to Israel and Zionism. [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
What a drama queen.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What does trending #1 on Facebook mean?[edit]

Is that even a thing? Or just something Mona made up? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Try readinf reference notes. Moreover, this section has already been discussed and argued; your faction is outnumbered. You need to get used to that.---Mona- (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
In the general case, if Avenger objects to something then it may well be a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
your faction is outnumbered.- -Mona- Citation needed. [dubious] [Where?] [By whom?] --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
A thing almost certainly is a fact if Avenger claims otherwise.---Mona- (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Is BDS anti-Israel? What else are they if they aren't?[edit]

Calling for the boycott of a country constitutes being anti that-country. Or am I mistaken? My calling for a boycott of Saudi Arabia makes me anti-Saudi. And I am proud to openly say: "I am anti-Saudi. I am against the current Saudi regime and its policies and I wish for it to disappear and be replaced by something rather different." Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Russian boycott is anti-Ukrainian invasion, not anti-Russian. Similarly, An Israel boycott is anti-occupation policy, not anti-Israel. There is a big difference; anti-Israel is a very "loaded" term which sort-of implies that they deny Israel's right for existence, as some people do. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, BDS is pro-Palestinian, founded by and for Palestinians. BLM is simply in solidarity with the Palestinians, as are many.---Mona- (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I also removed the "pro-Palestinian". Just say it supports the boycott moment and discuss what's pro-what or anti-what on that page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well calling (as BDS does) for a huge number of people (exceeding the current population, if I am not mistaken) to be given a "right of return" comes rather close to advocating the end of the Jewish state. And BDS (if not all its supporters) know that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well CS, that's getting pretty lengthy. RW needs a BDS article as several have mentioned now on various talk pages. I'm pulling together sources, then we can just embed it. But the full monte on BDS is a bit much, don't you think, for this section?---Mona- (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
These are all points you can make on a BDS and/or right to return page (which we don't seem to have, but the Wikipedia link is the next best thing), I think going into the specifics of BDS is off-topic on this page, and calling it either "anti-Israel" *or* "pro-Palestinian" is a gross oversimplification of the subject. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
All hail Zion-wiki (though to be fair, I myself consider the "right" to return to be on mission) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok CS, no prob, don't really agree but also don't feel that strongly. But it is perceived as a pro-Palestinian cause. That's who founded it and what it is about.---Mona- (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona I reinstated a neutral wording[edit]

Why do you need it to be tendentious? It's a fact that there were Jew baiting black civil rights activists before any American knew how to spell Palestinian or occupation. It is also a fact that a minority of BLM people (which You, Mona, make out to be much larger, of course) support BDS - which does not mean they support Palestinians, as the people who lost their job at Soda Stream thanks to BDS can tell you Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't "neutral," it's not factual. If you like, we can make the section even longer while I quote and document BLM and other black activists denouncing the occupation.---Mona- (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The claim, that BLM is denouncing it is a rather bold one, since in a leaderless movement such as the BLM, almost nobody can speak for all of them and I don't know, how it is even possible to gauge, how many "members" of BLM share the opinion of these few VIPs you mentioned. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The first (half-)sentence is not about BDS. It's about the sad tendency of many black civil rights leaders to hate Israel Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
IMHO both descriptions are fine; you people are really splitting hairs here... Note that I wrote "occupation of Palestinian territories" for no other reason than that's what first entered my mind, and I was in a hurry to finish my edits (as I wanted to prevent an edit conflict) Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well given that Gaza is not occupied (in the sense that no Israeli troops are currently in Gaza) "policy towards Palestinians" is a more neutral wording... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hm, that's a good point. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
No it is not. No one but Zionists says Gaza is not occupied. The UN says it is.---Mona- (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
How can you occupy something without being there? The UN may claim some sort of politically motivated legal fiction, but it stays legal fiction.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, reality has a UN- and rest-of-world bias.---Mona- (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That is not an answer, how you can occupy anything without being there, just a argument by assertion/argument from authority.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be an interesting discussion to clear up what "occupation" actually means. But not at the talk page of Black Lives Matter Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The self-stated goal of the movement is "the end of Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian land, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and respect for the right of return of Palestinian refugees". Clearly opposition to occupation is a major element here (but not the only element). Whether or not Gaza specifically should currently be considered occupied is a red herring. (talk) 19:18, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Please don't make this page another site for edit-warring over Israel/Palestine.[edit]

This is why we can't have nice things. Describe what is essentially a side-issue for BLM in a concise way, and leave the focus of the article on the focus of the movement. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would argue not to mention BDS at all, as most BLM supporters ("activist" is too strong a word for someone tweeting a hashtag) are neither aware nor supportive of the stance some BLM people seem to have taken on BDS... Just like many people going to Al Quds day rallies honestly don't know that Hezbollah is among the chief organizers of Al Quds day rallies throughout the West... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with your version, AH. To ignore BDS as Avenger wants to do ignores a huge and growing solidarity movement. Both praised and lamented (the last by Zionists all over). When some of us get to the BDS article, it, too, will include a section on solidarity and networking.---Mona- (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
And also on destroying Palestinian jobs.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
WP can discuss BLM without mentioning Palestine or Israel - why can't we? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Doxys Midnight Runner raises a fair point. If flamewars on Israel/Palestine have to be our thing, let's try and limit them to where they belong.... This here should be flamewars against racist trolls only... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
WE are more current then, and also, we are not WP.---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia doesn't include many of the things that we do include. If it did, it would sort of mean this site has no purpose ;-) That said, I also don't necessarily see why we need this section, but ah well... Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
WP also doesn't point out the movment is spreading, especially to...Israel.---Mona- (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's have a vote shan't we?[edit]

Keep BDS section[edit]

  1. We shall not remove relevant, missional content to please Avenger. (talk) 19:00, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
  2. While I don't think we "need" this section, I'm not in favour of removing content unless there's a good reason, and the only reason I've seen so far is to stop the squabbling over minor points in the wording. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. In favor of keeping on the basis of highlighting themes of broader social justice. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. What Carpet said. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. It's relevant and highlights the broad solidarity between the two movements. When we get to the BDS article it, too, will reciprocally cite BLM and other SJ movements in solidarity with it. Oh, and BLM has spread to Israel.---Mona- (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Well, as I understand it BLM is a "movement" which is very loosely organized. I can't find anything about this on for example ... As the section already says, one must wonder just how "connected" these movements really are. Sure, a few activist leaders support it, but if all of those people turn out to attend My Little Pony Star Trek conventions, would these people then be "connected" to Star Trek? Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Well, that's pretty bare bones web site, but it does say this: "This is the Official #BlackLivesMatter Organization founded by Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza. #BlackLivesMatter is an online forum intended to build connections between Black people and our allies to fight anti-Black racism, to spark dialogue among Black people, and to facilitate the types of connections necessary to encourage social action and engagement." Patrisee Cullors, as our article says, is a co-founder and very active in promoting solidarity with BDS.---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. "Ferguson to Palestine" is a part of the BLM movement and reveals how said movement has grown beyond its original conception, and any decent article on BLM should include it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Where can I find that on their website? I'm looking for official endorsement of the hashtag and I'm not seeing it. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    That website is not very active. Not much there. But as we sourced in the article the coalition is forming globally. One BLM activist from Toronto explains it here. More comprehensively, the founder of BLM and many other leaders of black activist organizations have poured out in support for BDS. If you like, I can find many Israeli papers and sites lamenting the growing movement of BLM/BDS.---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    A statement of support is not a statement of alliance. I would require a specific statement of alliance by organization leaders. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Patrice Cullors is an organizational leader and she signed the letter with 1,000 other black activists supporting Palestinians and BDS. But they don't make "official" pronouncements; you are asking for a policy they do not have. They simply forge the alliances, which then exist.---Mona- (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    How can I prove there is an official alliance, rather than just support, predilections, and interests by individual members? Alliances between groups are official; something unofficial just isn't of note to bother with. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Again, you're asking for something BLM does not do. They do this, per Ebony magazine: "Representatives at the forefront of the movements for Black lives and racial justice have taken a historic trip to Palestine this week to connect with activists living under Israeli occupation.Black journalists, artists and organizers representing Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100), and more have joined the Dream Defenders for a 10-day trip to the occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel. The trip comes after a year of highly-publicized repression in Ferguson, the Gaza Strip, and West Bank including East Jerusalem, as well as solidarity between these places."---Mona- (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Fine, you determine it, then. Which is it, official or not? Is this organization supported or individually supported? Is BLM a Palestinian front group or not? Make a decision and be done with it. This voting crap is ridiculous. Decision-makers don't vote. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove BDS section[edit]

  1. I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand, given that many people tweeting the hashtag or going to the rallies don't know off (let alone support) the BDS thing... Just like many BLM supporters were against the whole Bernie Sanders disruption thing... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Mona has yet to provide proof, that a significant part of BLM even knows of the BDS-hijinks of some VIP somehow associated with BLM.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    No, thgis has been argued before and Avenger lsot. We who want it will just come back with a majority.---Mona- (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    really, if you want this section to be an ongoing source of warring, just remove it. It'll be back. There were a good number of us, if you see FR, who feel it is warranted.---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Whether you are a majority or not is what the vote is for. Given its tangential (at best) relevance for the topic, we will see how the mob decides... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, it is most relevant. Virtually every BLM protest also hosts BDS and other pro-Palestian signs. (And as you know, I can document my claims. I always can.) And the point is a good number editors have already determined it merits inclusion because we think it is relvant+.---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    A few people waving BLM and BDS signs near to each-other no proof, that a significant number of the BLM members retwitterers supporters even knows and/or endorses that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    According to Mona-logic Jeremy Corbyn supports Hezbollah, because he has gone to numerous Al Quds day rallies where Hezbollah was not only present but one of the driving forces... But yeah... Logic and all that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, that "logic" would work if pro-Corbyn rallies virtually always also had signs supporting Hezbollah, and if Corbyn staff were running around making solidarity videos & etc with Hezbollah. If that were all true. But it's not.---Mona- (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    According to whose logic now? If I recall correctly, you suggested exactly that in the past. (talk) 19:20, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
    Going to an al Quds day rally is a thing no sane and intelligent person should do. Especially if they have access to people who can research what Al Quds day is and means and who organizes it. Him continuing to attend this shit is grounds enough to be wary of him... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. This is not "activist wiki," and I'm not sure the article itself is, like most articles we have on social justice movements, really germane to a narrower reading of the mission. If BLM said crank things, maybe. The fact they attract some racist criticism might be worth a mention in an article about racism, but I'm not sure we do a very good job of filling in the gap between the stated mission and topics like this. I won't AFD the article, in part because I know how the process would play out and in part because I’m not sure I'm right about this, but this edit war/this section/this article is, to me, another example of how, outside of a really narrow reading of pseudoscience/woo/etc, we don't know what we're doing and are unable to present a clear sense of purpose to our readers. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    It should be noted that RW does not have a clear and set purpose, only guidelines. The moment a clear and set purpose is established is the moment we should begin purging the SPOV. RW will then become a different animal. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    It's been turned into an activist wiki by now, the loudest and most fanatic being Mona. To quote: „I don't insert anything about Gaza in, say, the Gamergate or creationist articles.“ That has to be the lamest self-justification in ages. And her tendency to speak of herself as „We, the people“ isn't really inspiring confidence either. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No edit war[edit]

We're not going to edit war over this. Instead of arguing whether BLM is pro-Palestine or pro-Israel and who is right or wrong, let's just focus on the conservative wingnut conspiratorial arguments and leave it at that. Whether BLM is pro-Palestine or not is irrelevant to the article. --Castaigne (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think nobody has ever argued that BDS is pro-Israel, though... scnr... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I truly don't give a fuck. You and Mona made me ask for a mop, which I never wanted to do here. Now there is a responsibility. This crap between you ends now and the results will neither be pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. --Castaigne (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Yay, balance fallacy. (talk) 19:33, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
No, not balance fallacy. There will be no presenting of the two sides as equal. There will just be no presenting unless there is a direct application of topic. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That's alwasy been my approach. I don't insert anything about Gaza in, say, the Gamergate or creationist articles.---Mona- (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
She writes, having comfortably forgotten [2]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The implication is that it is relevant to the topic in this case, sillyhead. (talk) 21:25, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
That's alwasy been my approach. I don't insert anything about Gaza in, say, the Gamergate or creationist articles- Mona Do You Believe That? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, you are the least reliable user here. You do not and cannot cite an example of my gratuitously inserting Israel-related text into in irrelevant article. Indeed, even if you wanted to argue Israeli policies don't belong in the Apartheid article (and you do), that section was already here when I arrived.---Mona- (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
"You and Mona made me ask for a mop" While it may be the case that my arrival -- with my aggressive objection to the Zionist narrative in many RW articles -- I was not and am not alone in my views. I simply pushed back strongly against both the Zionist mythology and an absurd lack of sourcing (not a deficit confined to the Israel-related articles). Having been the main force against all that, I was not, however, left standing alone.---Mona- (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Mythology? What's that supposed to mean? Do all Zionists secretly worship Zeus? Or Satan? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You are biased towards Palestine/anti-Zionist, immensely so. Avenger is biased towards Zionist/Israel in the exact same manner.
I hold both equally in contempt, and regard either as having agendas to promote themselves at the expense of others. To me they are no different than the Republican or Democrat parties, both of whom I hold in disfavor. This makes you see me as an Agent of Zion and causes Avenger to regard me as a Hamas operator, but I have chosen a different side - both are wrong, and the anti-conflict people are right. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what was all that? All I heard was "Exterminate! Exterminate! You will not prevail! Maximum extermination!" ;) (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a terribly accurate translation. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
"I hold both equally in contempt, and regard either as having agendas to promote themselves at the expense of others." Castaigne, that's unfortunate, because the Israel-Palestine issue is exploding around the globe, including in the U.S. Just this past week two prominent but desperately angry (at Israel) Zionists -- one on the Harvard faculty -- wrote an op-ed in WashPost endorsing BDS. The issue is here, and raging. It just is.---Mona- (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not "exploding". It's in the exact same state it has been for the past 40 years and the exact same situation will still exist 40 years from now, barring thermonuclear war. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh and Castaigne, please do not again revert the section that many of us -- myself, Chris (I think) 142, AgingHippie [and Weaseloid and Owlman] have all worked out. Even some of Avenger and Arisboch is in there.---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Too late. Protected. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Mona is a sysop Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I know. And now so am I. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ehm, as far as I know everyone accepted (more or less anyway) the version before you edited it? I think you're pouring gasoline on the fire here, rather than helping.... Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
If people are still arguing over it, it's not accepted. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me everything had pretty much settled down before you restarted things again. (talk) 21:29, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Restarted what? How? Please link to diff in question... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted Castaigne again. He is ignoring that the version was worked out by many users, listed above. All you've now done -- after appointing yourself to "settle" issues supposedly only between myself and Avenger -- is re-start warring. Knock it off.---Mona- (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona Castaigne's version - while by no means perfect - was not edit warred over and apparently everybody can come to at least grudgingly accept it. And now you are starting shit again. Stop it! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Pfft, please Avenger, no one is by any means obliged to 'grudgingly accept' Castaigne's arbitrarily and unilaterally instated version. (talk) 21:58, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
A glance at the fossil records of the article and this talkpage reveals as much. (talk) 21:58, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Moreover, Castaigne's version is inaccurate.---Mona- (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

inaccurate- -Mona- You mean not enough aggrandizement for the BDSM? Cry me a Nile and an Euphrates.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, Castaigne doesn't know jack shit aboiut either BLM or BDS., I do, and I've sourced every claim I make. His notion that "passing references" to supporting Palestinains has happened at a few BLM events is laughable. He can't and does not know that. See AgingHippie's text in his Keep vote above.---Mona- (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Go piss up a rope, Mona. You "references" (your notion of "sources" is a goddamn joke) did prove fuck all about how widespread the support is.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well Mona has reinserted her version and threatens to call daddy Paravant if anyone dare revert... How do they call it over at TV Tropes? Schmuck bait? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean AgingHippie's version? (talk) 22:08, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yes, AgingHippie made some very good edits last nite. Including cleaning up clumsy prose. Poor writing is often the result of warring factions reaching compromises -- what's left is often less than elegant. But Avenger had to come in and mess with it.---Mona- (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
„Poor writing?“ You're the master of that. Be kind to your fellow unfortunates. Anyway, 142 doesn't count. He's just his mistresses voice. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I do know jack about BLM. The Palestine support is limited to individuals with BLM; it is not an organizational policy. The whole of BLM does not march in lockstep solidarity alliance with BDS/Palestine, no matter how much Breitbart and Free Republic want it to be so. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm active in BLM and have interacted with any number of it's spokespeople. They also have moved into the pro-Palestinian camp. Bree Newsome, Deray Mckesson. (The latter, among other things, tweeted pro-Palestinian signs from Ferguson.)Moreover, your self-appointed role to "settle" disputes related to Zionism is not working and is very unhelpful. The consensus -- not merely my view -- is that you make things worse. ---Mona- (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Mona is unhappy with Castaigne's version[edit]

So what are going to do? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You people ... both you of ... Rarely have I wanted to vocalize a loud sigh over the internet more than now Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing needs to be done. Nothing. CarpetSmoker is right; Castaigne re-ignited the warring and poured gasoline on it. No one wants Castaigne's version but you, and that's because you don't like the one the group agreed upon even more. I (again) reverted Castaigne, and there it stands.---Mona- (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
And I thought Castaigne had it all resolved... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It already was resolved, until Castaigne felt the need to give the teacup another stir. (talk) 22:06, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Anybody who thinks that Castaigne had resolved it by suddenly showing up and demanding we not edit war because he said so, while resparking the edit war with his removal, is stupid. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Cause why not inserting some BDS propaganda, cause her Holeyness Mona wants it so, amirite?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought when Mona first inserted this BS into the article... BDS and BLM have no connection beyond the ones Mona has taken day and night to dig out... I am sure we can find the same kind of spurious "connection" between French fries with Ketchup and Mayo and fish dying out in the Baltic... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, there's that good old Avenger spouting blatant bullshit like there's no tomorrow. Welcome back. ;) (talk) 22:17, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Apparently RW has become the "Mona is angry about something" show. Come one and all to see the circus on talk pages how it is overly Zionist and everything becomes a shouting match. Which will just end up with Mona making another Coop for who pissed her off today. In the back is a gun to blow your brains out if you want to do anything else. Just after we got rid of LogicMaster and his continuous fighting on talk pages about everything he can't see is a religion. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, I see you're new to this recent party. ;) As any even superficial overview of the recent events will reveal, Mona was not the issue here. In related news, it seems Avenger has reverted back to their total-bullshit form. No doubt many glorious shitfests are to come of this. Hurrah! (talk) 22:26, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Mona was not the issue here.- 142․124․55․236 Do You Believe That? Ah, vraiment?!? [ponyshit] --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's a more complete quote:
As any even superficial overview of the recent events will reveal, Mona was not the issue here.
Which is actually a more ambitious claim than the part you quoted. Yet I fully stand by it. (talk) 22:53, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Ha! EmeraldCity, this time our Avenger was reverting AgingHippie's (good and needed) edits from last nite. Moreover, I haven't cooped anyone. Apparently, I didn't even coop AH---Mona- (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
„Ha!“ Was that an exclamation or yet another attempt at humor. Actually, anything remotely related to Israel has become Mona's battlefield for a lost cause. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Netanyahu racist?[edit]

well, Haaretz seems to think so. BicyclewheelModerator 19:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A paywalled opinion piece and then claiming in what smacks of appeal to authority, that "the Haaretz" thinks so? Without any of the arguments why being written in the free part? Whom you're trying to fool??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Am I allowed to ask why an article by Odeh Bisharat is actually by Dennis Ross? BicyclewheelModerator 19:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

is actually by Dennis Ross- Bicycle Wheel Where the devil did I claim THAT?? Clear strawmanning (he cites a book from Dennis Ross, where he claims, that Rice said that. Clear rumour-mongering).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I cited Jerusalem Post. I could cite Times of Israel reporting the same.---Mona- (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that's them citing Newsweek citing, what "Democratic congressional aide" said and Dennis Ross claimed in a book, that Susan Rice claimed, that Bibi was being racist against Obama (that's why the claim, that Netanyahu has done everything except "use ‘the N-word’ in describing the president"). And having lotsa stuff about the Israeli/Palestine issue is also not a proof of Netanyahu being racist.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
And, FrontPageMagazine accepts Rice said that, but think she's horrible.---Mona- (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)---Mona- (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC) ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC) this is an issue. The issue is not whether Netanyahu is a racist, but that so many blacks think he is. And the report about Susan Rice has currency. That's not beieng discussed at Infowars. (Or, if it is, at sane sites as well.)---Mona- (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hell, even if Rice actually said that, it's still a baseless accusation.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
We don't have to determine whether it is baseless or not. Simply that blacks and others are saying that it is so. Even the Israeli mainstream press is reporting the problems caused by this "perception." That's not a small thing.---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
We're not wikipedia we don't quote "A says X" just because A or X are "notable" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Netanyahu wouldn't dare try to snub George Bush by barging in on the US Congress and trying to undermine a negotiated deal. That he did it to Obama and the Black Congressional Congress was disgusted by his actions to boycott it I think does not speak well of Netanyahu. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

== The full record is missing ==

An editor has seen fit to remove some of the talk record that directly pertains to material in the Black Lives Matter article. Therefore, those checking this talk page, or its archives, cannot be assured the have seen all previous discussion that would help guide their own editing decisions.---Mona- (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Here, I went ahead and fixed tings anyhow. Should be all good now. (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we stop dragging things and people that have little bearing into this matter?[edit]

Like who said what when about Netanyahu or something along these lines? This is really tiresome... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It is forbidden for the govt to do[edit]

what any user of Facebook, Twitter and Vine legally and openly can? Next time you claim, that's it's illegal for the FBI or whatever to open a newspaper to read up on stuff.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Specifically targeting people for being out in favor of black rights should not be defended. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not a answer on the question whether it is illegal. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It is legal for me to hire a private investigator to follow you, and have him report to me on your activities. That would be because I am not the government. For the state to do that to you, and to compile information about you -- because it didn't like your politics -- would be unconstitutional.---Mona- (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
IS it legal for the government to investigate and follow your actions, often in violation of your privacy, solely because you posted "down with racism #blacklivesmatter"? The government shouldn't be investigating people for supporting civil rights, or else freedom of speech is dead.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The legal rights and responsibilities of common citizens and governmental institutions are not the same. Thank God they aren't. How can this possibly be new information to you? (talk) 04:43, 12 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Judging by what Mona wrote, they were just using Facebook, Twitter and Vane. Data available to anyone without any kinda need for private investigators or such stuff. How is freedom of speech dead, when the FBI learns to enter '#blacklivesmatter' into a Facebook or Twitter search box??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
See this article about how the FBI knows it is not supposed to spy purely on the basis of protected speech activity (but can be counted on to absolve itself from having done so). It is, as I said, unconstitutional.---Mona- (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is the government investigating me in the first place, including a member of government, for using a hashtag about ending racism? --04:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it now about some kinda motives or whether it is legal for an FBI agent to enter '#blacklivesmatter' into a Facebook or Twitter search box?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If the FBI has reasonable suspicion that a criminal they are trying to find is active in BLM, they can search the hashtag on Twitter for that specific person. What they cannot do, is just cull the most prominent BLM activists by searching with the hashtag, if their only reason for doing so is that they've decided they want to monitor people who are merely engaged in protected free speech activity.---Mona- (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
So apparently the FBI needs a warrant to enter '#blacklivesmatter' into a search box of an public website. BLM People using the #blacklivesmatter hashtag want to feel special and what better way to feel special is there than to feel persecuted?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No, Arisboch, they don't need a warrant to enter a search term into a site's search box. Have you read what I've written and the linked articles? The FBI cannot turn it's attention to political movements and the individuals participating in them unless it has articulable and reasonable cause to think crimes are taking place or being plotted. If you are unfamiliar with COINTELPRO and/or the Church Committee I suggest you do some reading. Black activists have been subjected to horrendous federal and state surveillance and harassment for a long, long time in America. It's unseemly, at best, for you to show condescending dismissal of BLM's justified concerns in light of this odious history.---Mona- (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I find it fucking idiotic to equate entering '#blackmatterlives' into a web site's search with the shit COINTELPRO and similar pulled off.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I find it fucking idiotic how people equate 'falls into the same broad category' with 'these things are claimed to be equivalent'. (talk) 23:01, 12 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well Arisboch, what you find "fucking idiotic" is of virtually no importance. What is off great importance is that, as the ACLU has said, the policies that now bind the FBI/DHS to prevent any more COINTELPROs have probably been violated. These policies are not mere "good ideas." They are what the Constitution of the United States requires of our government vis-a-vis a free people. Therefore, your ill-informed opinion is completely irrelevant.---Mona- (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch: you really should read up on this stuff. Mona is completely correct here. You're talking hypotheticals off the top of your head, Mona is talking the actual rules in question and their history - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with "Stance on Israel/Palestine" as a headline?[edit]

This avoids any type of conflict and is actually accurate enough as to not contradict the body of the text... But I guess Mona can't deal with that. And given that Paravant saw fit to kill my mop.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Pff, why is it so important to change it? Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Ask Mona why it is so important to lock the page over it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Nice job avoiding the question. (talk) 21:19, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Nice job not answering the question in the headline... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, do they have a clear 'stance' on the whole Israel/Palestine deal beyond 'Palestinians are being discriminated against/oppressed by Israeli authorities and we think this is bad'? (talk) 21:31, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
The stance of some people that Mona thinks speak for the movement is "We should boycott Israel" (yeah, the whole boycott thing is an idea someone already had with regards to something liek that....). The most dangerous thing about BDS is that they don't say what they actually want. But that is of course by design... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
They don't say what they want, you say? Try again. (talk) 22:07, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Let me translate this into simple English: They want the end of the State of Israel. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] (talk) 22:56, 8 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Why is Palestine even there?[edit]

Why does every article Mona and others touch include a negative reference to Palestine, Israel and so forth? I believe I know the answer, but I would like to hear it from her/them. The world is larger than that, and so far we've seen precious little sympathy for other, larger humanitarian problems. Hypocrisy at its worst. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

see above--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If you dare raise that point Mona accuses you of whataboutism Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Apartheid: Overly long discussion of Israel. The rationale for that was that it wasn't substantial enough for a separate article. Now it certainly is. Israel: Discussion of Apartheid. Sources for both: Mainly appeal to authority citing Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu (if I recall that correctly) as well as the famously neutral UN. I could cite other appeals to authority and quite a number of appeals to Mona logic, but I'll leave that be for now. If you're not disgusted, you're a lesser man than I thought. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
But apparently I and Arisboch are the problem... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You two aren't even wrong.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
We may be wrong, we may be right, but as for your comment, you aren't even wrong. You show a decided lack of understanding, possibly studied lack of understanding. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
When you question why "every single article Mona edits criticizes Israel", and a quick look at her contributions shows that to be a hogwash claim...yeah, your "answer" to the question is not even wrong. If anyone here is trying to enact a studied lack of understanding, it's the pair of malcontents always alleging a conspiracy against them.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I ban Avenger for 2 weeks, and we have a week of niceness. I ban Arisboch for the second half of that week, and things are calm. Yes, you two are the problem. And i'll always repeat my statement, if you feel my moderatorship has been improper, take it to the coop. but the fact that I was re-elected mod on the premise my handling of you two would be a indication of how I intended to do mod stuff when i had to, the outcome of your coop case is already evident. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
At whom are you addressing this? Arisboch and Avenger or me and Avenger? I have behaved rather conciliatory at least comparing to my older contribution. I am fairly certain, that altogether you can't honestly call me a major disruptive source. I am quite capable of writing about real-world things. I still respect you, since you are patient and well-informed. There doesn't have to enmity between us. I could think of having a nice pint with you. But take a look at Krytenkoro and read Mona's opera - and judge for yourself. There really are more than one opinion. You know that and therefore I endorsed you. I still stand by that decisions. Perhaps a talk elsewhere could be beneficial. As for Mona and her acolytes: She's a „leader“ of a sugroup of a sub-group and best emplyoid here. She will never have anything to say apart that she's a supersmart lawyer who feels herself able to change 4.000 or so years history. Reply or reply not - I'm rather certain that you will find one or two items you agree with. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
...Sorte, you've recently claimed that Mona is "trying to bring about the extinction of Israel". Don't try to pretend you've been friendly to everyone. As for the accusation that I'm Mona's acolyte...FFS. Check my contributions. That I have an issue with your behavior doesn't mean I'm on board with Mona's.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Shove this argumentum ad populum and your mod-penor-swinging were the sun doesn't shine. The only thing I and Avenger did was contradict your stalking horse.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Actually Arisboch, Paravant was not committing the fallacy of claiming what he said about you is true because most agree with him. No, he was arguing that vis-a-vis any coop case you might bring against him, there is strong evidence of popular support for him which suggests you'd lose. (He's right.) Finally, I see you as coupled with Avenger only when you two tag-team. You are not Avenger, and I don't support banning you or any discipline at all.---Mona- (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing about Galileo was that he was correct when everybody was against him. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"The rationale for that was that it wasn't substantial enough for a separate article" No. The primary rationale is that in this time of the world, Israel is the Western apartheid state. According to a great many including some Israelis. It is entirely right for our article to reflect that.---Mona- (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The rationale is found in the Israel talk pages or Israel archives. It's there to see - unless you don't wish to encounter demons past and deliberately pull a bindfold. That part is evident. Your sanctimonius hipocrisy drives everybody off. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
"Your sanctimonius hipocrisy drives everybody off."Er, Sorte, you and Avenger do not constitute "everybody." I play well with most others here and have moved on. You seem unable to.---Mona- (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Your playing well with most others is somewhat negated by your history. And you are a sanctimonius hypocrite. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorte, my purported sanctimony is not what actually bothers you. No, as you've rather obsessively noted, I have a great deal of knowledge about the I-P matter and thus a well-demonstrated ability to document facts you deeply dislike. Very few who do not share that intense loathing of the I-P claims I edit in -- with sourcing -- have a problem with me. You really should move on.---Mona- (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a heartfelt loathing for single-issue hypocrites. That is what bothers me - that not all lives are equal. You haen't shown an iota of sympathy for anyone but your chosen martyrs. You have not had a peaceful time here with nearly everybody and you have been taken to task for offensiveness. Add a bit of megalomania. You can copy and paste all you want, but you are just as honest as Chomsky in his rantings. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
No, as I've said several times now, I'm active in BLM. That is how I was able to edit several sections of it, much having nothing to do with I-P. My edit history shows many dozens of myriad edits to non-I-P related articles. Again, you simply deeply dislike that I know so much about the Palestinian cause and the history of Zionism. You hate that with the heat of a thousand suns. -- so much so that you have written some very vulgar things to and about me for which you have been "taken to task." And, if I haven't been "taken to task for offensiveness," that's prolly cuz nothing I write is offensive on a level requiring it. My aggressive style of argumentation does cause some to erroneously feel there MUST be some outrageous name-calling and the like in it, because I so piss them off. But, it's just my arguments and the assertive manner in which I make them. You are not the first to find that off-putting. Too bad.---Mona- (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
„You hate that with the heat of a thousand suns.“ This is probably the closest thing you've come to poetry, but alas, as with poetry, this is just that. I don't hate your purported knowledge. I despise your ethics. That's something different. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey pot. What's up?KrytenKoro (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The current version is the result of extensive discussion. Why does this need to be brought up again? Avenger certainly had his fair chance in saying his piece, and if I recall correctly he certainly "won" (so to speak) some points which resulted in a different page. Is it the page *he* would have liked to? Probably not, but wiki editing is consensus by nature. Deal with it. I personally don't think this section belongs here, but is it truly such an abomination that we need to have endless discussions about it? I think not. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, a large part of the reason the Palestinina section is comparatively long is that Avenger & Co. wanted evidence that support for Palestinians was really significant in the BLM movement, rather than me making exaggerated claims about a tiny fringe. So, they got that documentation, and now that section is longish. But, I've worked some on the other sections, added a section(s), and will continue to add as I collect material. I am loosely networked with BLM activists and should be able to do that.---Mona- (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)