When #BlackLivesMatter apologists were saying, “Hey, they denounced the attacks in Dallas and said they’re committed to non-violence,” in order to absolve them of the carnage that was brought about, in part, by the violent rhetoric and actual violence that #BlackLivesMatter has promoted, or at a minimum, tolerated…. this was my response:
If BLM and its core principles really are peaceful, two things are going to happen.
1. BLM is going to crack down hard on elements within its groups that advocate violence.
2. BLM’s rhetoric is going to change from confrontational to cooperative
I will wait and see if these things happen.
Have #BlackLivesMatter activists toned down, much less rejected violence as a tactic?
Protesters began throwing objects, including fireworks, rebar, bricks and a molotov cocktail at officers, according to the St. Paul Police Department. There were 21 police officers injured from thrown objects, including a hit to the head from a 25 pound item, later identified as a concrete block.
I would take that as a no.
By the way, issuing a statement to the press after the violence has happened denying that your group had anything to do with the violence is not a crackdown.
Frankly, I don’t get what these protests are supposed to accomplish anyway. What does marching through the street accomplish that is better than sitting down at a table with your opponents and talking with them? How does blocking traffic and preventing innocent people from getting to work or home to the hospital help advance the cause? Are these tactics even meant to achieve anything, or are they just to give violent people a space to act out and their enablers a space to bask in their smug sense of social justice?