Clearly you don’t care about people dying of cancer. See how that works? The vast majority of advocacy groups have a singular issue that is their main focus. Whining about them not having a wider focus is ■■■■■■■ BS.
Advocacy groups
Um. yes?
Um. Sure.
You don’t like that as a descriptor for BLM et al?
Its all about power. That’s all DEMs care about. Those who are disadvantaged are simply pawns, used by DEMs to obtain and hold that power.
Calling an insurgency an “advocacy group” seems akin to calling 1966 Ann Margaret a “pretty girl” - technically correct, but…
Some violent criminal rioter wearing a BLM t-shirt does not make them a member of BLM nor does it show BLM to be behind the violence.
Creating the environment for violence while denying direct involvement does not absolve.
Where did he get the T-shirt?
Silence Is Violence
It does for black people… apparently.
Weird how they think BLM is not popular. Perhaps not in their circles but I don’t see how one can deny BLM popularity as it has gone quite mainstream.
Silence Is Violence
Right on.
Maybe they don’t mind the rioting, that I can’t say, but the fact remains that they are not perpetrating it.
Who cares where he got the shirt? You could buy one too, it doesn’t make you a member.
Silence is Violence is a talking point designed to get people to take action they might not otherwise take. It is not some hard and fast “rule”. If only the world were that simple…
1 Like
One of the definitions of “perpetrate” is to bring about. And that they are not doing it is not “a fact”.
“Buy”?
Exactly. It doesn’t swing one way. If violence is being done on your behalf or it benefits you, your silence makes you complicit. That’s the whole concept of it. Silence Is Violence.
Silence Is Violence
All conservatives are judged by the actions of a few. Repeatedly on here. You can’t deny that. Why should it be different for BLM?
Silence Is Violence
Can we see the actual questions that were asked?
Did you click the second link?
