"March for Our Lives" founder David Hogg explicitly not denouncing violence by non-white people

[Derec]

David Hogg, the darling of the anti-gun movement is very selective about what violence he condemns.
After writing some tweets condemning violence in general, he quickly clarified that he meant to only condemn violence by white people and that violence by so-called "BIPOC" (an alpha buts PC term for non-white people) is ok by him.

David Hogg Apologizes For Denouncing Violence, Saying His Message Only Applies To ‘Young White People’



His obsession with violence by "white people" and refusal to condemn any violence by non-white people is all the more disgusting when you consider that per capita blacks commit a lot more violent crime than whites.
Dozens of shootings in cities like Chicago over a weekend? Nothing to condemn there! A black guy shoots two LA deputies, another black guy shoots a Louisville police officer and a black man and woman shoot a Jacksonville detective? Hogg thinks all that is just a response to alleged "violence directed at them by the state" and that white people should not be saying anything against it.
What an idiot! I am all for condemning violence and stricter gun laws, but David Hogg and other extremists are not doing that cause any favors by being selective what violence they condemn, especially when they do so on racist grounds.
This idea that white people should not be allowed to condemn violence by black and other non-white people is racist claptrap, but claptrap that is finding a lot of purchase in the left-wing extremist circles. Therefore, I predict the usual suspects (you know who you are) will defend that disgusting (and self-hating racist) pig.

 

[Metaphor]

David Hogg, the darling of the anti-gun movement is very selective about what violence he condemns.
After writing some tweets condemning violence in general, he quickly clarified that he meant to only condemn violence by white people and that violence by so-called "BIPOC" (an alpha buts PC term for non-white people) is ok by him.

David Hogg Apologizes For Denouncing Violence, Saying His Message Only Applies To ‘Young White People’


View attachment 29562
His obsession with violence by "white people" and refusal to condemn any violence by non-white people is all the more disgusting when you consider that per capita blacks commit a lot more violent crime than whites.
Dozens of shootings in cities like Chicago over a weekend? Nothing to condemn there! A black guy shoots two LA deputies, another black guy shoots a Louisville police officer and a black man and woman shoot a Jacksonville detective? Hogg thinks all that is just a response to alleged "violence directed at them by the state" and that white people should not be saying anything against it.
What an idiot! I am all for condemning violence and stricter gun laws, but David Hogg and other extremists are not doing that cause any favors by being selective what violence they condemn, especially when they do so on racist grounds.
This idea that white people should not be allowed to condemn violence by black and other non-white people is racist claptrap, but claptrap that is finding a lot of purchase in the left-wing extremist circles. Therefore, I predict the usual suspects (you know who you are) will defend that disgusting (and self-hating racist) pig.

He's racist, but I don't know about 'self-hating'. I'm certain that every time he condemns white people for doing something he refuses to condemn non-white people for, he feels very, very pleased with himself. But perhaps that is not really self-love, but more akin to the high a heroin addict gets by taking a shot.

 

[J842P]

He is making a distinction between violence by individual actors using turmoil as an excuse to loot, and violence against state actors in response to their violence. In theory, I agree it is an important difference, of course, I don't see the relevance of whether or not it is "BIPOC". And I don't agree that the state is oppressing persons of color. But granting that for the sake of argument, I agree with what he is saying.




I see the use of that term "BIPOC" as indicative of a mind in the throes of ideological possession. It is a signal word, like "the deep state", of a certain bubble you are in, and usually, it is a sign of someone who isn't very bright. But almost invariably, it is the sign of someone who is ideologically possessed.

 

[Patooka]

Was waiting for this. Although to be fair I was expecting a thread from derec about the evils of black supremacy after the debates.

 

[Trausti]

 

[laughing dog]

Mr Hogg wrote
“Let me be clear,” Hogg wrote, “what I am NOT trying to do is tell BIPOC people how they should react to violence directed at them by the state.”

So the OP is a straw man - Mr Hogg is specifically talking about reacting to violence directed by the state, not non-state violence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why am I caring what a person who went to a high school that had lots of students get murdered says?

Pick your fucking fights man. If you peruse the entire Internet trying to right every person that takes a gray position, you'll never be content.

 

[Derec]

Mr Hogg wrote
“Let me be clear,” Hogg wrote, “what I am NOT trying to do is tell BIPOC people how they should react to violence directed at them by the state.”

So the OP is a straw man - Mr Hogg is specifically talking about reacting to violence directed by the state, not non-state violence.

The Pigman is classifying looting and other violence he condemned in his previous tweet as "reaction to violence directed by state" because it occurs in response to police shootings (most of which are justified, even among those that lead to "protests"). He is also refusing to condemn gun violence by so-called "BIPOC" including the shootings of police officers that I have mentioned above.That is especially ironic given his ostenisble activism against gun violence. But not when the guns are wielded by the so-called "BIPOC".

 

[Derec]

Why am I caring what a person who went to a high school that had lots of students get murdered says?

Pick your fucking fights man. If you peruse the entire Internet trying to right every person that takes a gray position, you'll never be content.

I do not think this is quite the case of this. He is an activist with a high profile and he is echoing a position shared by many on the hard Left.
I predict he will be in Congress or at least a state legislature by 2030.

 

[Derec]

Was waiting for this. Although to be fair I was expecting a thread from derec about the evils of black supremacy after the debates.

Actually, that's a great point! The issue of not criticizing "BIPOC" for violence is very related to not criticizing black supremacists. Instead of being shunned, black supremacists like Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan get excused and in some cases even rewarded.


If Trump had been photographed at an event next to David Duke, there'd be a shitstorm.


But Farrakhan is a-ok. Women's March leaders were also linked to that racist piece of shit, but the Left has not shunned the likes of Linda "Cockroach" Sarsour and Tamika Mallory.

 

[Derec]

He is making a distinction between violence by individual actors using turmoil as an excuse to loot, and violence against state actors in response to their violence.

No, he is making a distinction based on race of those committing the violence. Plenty of black looters do it just because they want "free" Nikes and Beats and TVs. Plenty of white rioters engage in violence because of sincerely held anti-police beliefs. But Hogg is making a distinction based on race, not motivation. Not that either of the two motivations for violence are in any way justified, of course.

In theory, I agree it is an important difference, of course, I don't see the relevance of whether or not it is "BIPOC".

I do not think violence should be excused just because somebody may have a beef against police. I agree that the race of the perpetrator should not matter

And I don't agree that the state is oppressing persons of color. But granting that for the sake of argument, I agree with what he is saying.

There are plenty of people who feel oppressed by the government. Does not give them a justification for violence.

I see the use of that term "BIPOC" as indicative of a mind in the throes of ideological possession. It is a signal word, like "the deep state", of a certain bubble you are in, and usually, it is a sign of someone who isn't very bright. But almost invariably, it is the sign of someone who is ideologically possessed.

No, Hogg is not very bright. He ended up being accepted by Harvard despite a middling SAT solely due to his extremist left-wing activism.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, that's a great point! The issue of not criticizing "BIPOC" for violence is very related to not criticizing black supremacists. Instead of being shunned, black supremacists like Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan get excused and in some cases even rewarded.

The Nation of Islam does not have the disgusting history of lynching and violence that the KKK has, nor did have the political power that the KKK had. So your attempt of equivalence of those leaders with David Duke is either an example of ignorance or bigotry.

 

[laughing dog]

No, Hogg is not very bright. He ended up being accepted by Harvard despite a middling SAT solely due to his extremist left-wing activism.

Really, did Harvard give that as a reason or do you sit on the admissions committee?

 

[Derec]

Really, did Harvard give that as a reason or do you sit on the admissions committee?

It may not be spelled out by them, but it's pretty obvious. Hardly anybody gets into Harvard with a 1270, unless they are black or David Hogg.

 

[Derec]

The Nation of Islam does not have the disgusting history of lynching and violence that the KKK has, nor did have the political power that the KKK had. So your attempt of equivalence of those leaders with David Duke is either an example of ignorance or bigotry.

Nation of Islam has a racist ideology every bit as disgusting as KKK. Why do you feel this need to defend black supremacists and racists?

 

[laughing dog]

Really, did Harvard give that as a reason or do you sit on the admissions committee?

It may not be spelled out by them, but it's pretty obvious. Hardly anybody gets into Harvard with a 1270, unless they are black or David Hogg.

Or a legacy or an athlete or ____. In otherwords, you are confusing your assumption with fact.

 

[laughing dog]

The Nation of Islam does not have the disgusting history of lynching and violence that the KKK has, nor did have the political power that the KKK had. So your attempt of equivalence of those leaders with David Duke is either an example of ignorance or bigotry.

Nation of Islam has a racist ideology every bit as disgusting as KKK. Why do you feel this need to defend black supremacists and racists?

As I wrote, they do not have the disgusting history of lynching and violence as the KKK nor did they have the power to implement and defend racist policies. That is not a defense, but a statement of historical reality that anyone remotely familiar with US history would understand. And, of course, "whataboutism" is not an argument.

But why do you feel the need to make such bogus equivalences? I could understand if someone was clearly saying the Nation of Islam or Louis Farrakhan was a significant force for good, but no one is doing that.

 

[Derec]

As I wrote, they do not have the disgusting history of lynching and violence as the KKK nor did they have the power to implement and defend racist policies.

There haven't been many lynchings for 60 years or so. So you are right to emphasize the "history", as in "the past." NoI in the here and now is as disgusting as KKK in the here and now. Period.
By the way, black supremacist/nationalist groups have engaged in violence as well. Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army committed many murders in the 1960s-1980s. NY is just about to release the BLA murderer Anthony Bottom. He and two fellow black supremacists (one was unfortunately already released and the other luckily died in prison from cancer) ambushed and murdered two NYPD police officers in 1971. So much for historical race-based violence, in this case much more recent than the heyday of KKK lynchings!

That is not a defense, but a statement of historical reality that anyone remotely familiar with US history would understand.

I am probably more familiar with US history than you. Nothing in US history justifies black supremacist groups like NoI and others.

And, of course, "whataboutism" is not an argument.

Neither is rank hypocrisy.

But why do you feel the need to make such bogus equivalences?

It's not a bogus equivalence. If we are to condemn racism, and we should, then we must condemn ALL racism. Not just focus on white people as singularly guilty, as is happening today. That is racist in itself!

You are as incapable of condemning black supremacists as Trump is incapable of condemning white supremacists, if not more so. The two of you are cut from the same cloth.

I could understand if someone was clearly saying the Nation of Islam or Louis Farrakhan was a significant force for good, but no one is doing that.

Tamika Mallory, a "Women's March" leader and "Black Lives Matter" activist, called Farrakhan "the greatest of all time".

 

[Derec]

Or a legacy or an athlete or ____. In otherwords, you are confusing your assumption with fact.

I said hardly anybody. In any case, racist Pigman is neither.

 

[KeepTalking]

Wait, did Derec just hold up a mirror and find a left-wing version of himself?

I mean, just replace white with black, and BIPOC with Police, and this is Derec posting about any recent police shooting.