The Energon Pub

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:God damn white people. They'll use whatever racist and bigoted argument including making things up to keep their knee on the neck of black people.

Labeling all of them based on your disagreement with one in a conversation is insulting and racist as well. And considering you're supposedly speaking out against it, it makes you a hypocrite as well.

As a white person, I'm suddenly not allowed to go "God damn white people"?

It doesn't matter what color you are. Labeling a group of people a certain way based on the color of their skin is racism. Just because you don't approve of what 1 white person says or does doesn't mean they all do it.

Well then, I will edit it, however, I do disagree. This can explain my reasoning better than I can.

Burn wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:God damn white people. They'll use whatever racist and bigoted argument including making things up to keep their knee on the neck of black people.

Labeling all of them based on your disagreement with one in a conversation is insulting and racist as well. And considering you're supposedly speaking out against it, it makes you a hypocrite as well.

As a white person, I'm suddenly not allowed to go "God damn white people"?

I think the politically correct term is "get off my goddamn lawn, you're disrespecting it's right to be green" or some nonsense, I dunno, I didn't sleep too well and Mondays suck.

I can see why they suck since you're in the future. It's still Sunday (here).

And yet this white person respects the right to life from conception to natural death without conditions.

I seek and fight for people to keep their earned money, have more freedoms, and work in accord with what is best.

That is black lives matter.

Let me know when BLM starts actively trying to defund the systemically racist Planned Parenthood and starts promoting the necessity of a mother and father for raising a child(ren). Otherwise I doubt their claim.

Cliff Jumper wrote:the necessity of a mother and father for raising a child(ren).

I ain't awake enough for this bullshit but here goes.

My sister has been a single parent from the day she gave birth to her son, my nephew.

That kid is now 14 years old, and he is one hell of a good kid.

He's never (to my knowledge) been in a fight. If someone needs a hand, whether they're another kid, or an elderly person, he does it without asking.

He ain't the brightest bulb, but gosh darn does that kid care, and he has the capability of being a great smartarse if he just embraced it.

He never had a father. He's never known a father.

He is proof that your statement is not 100% accurate.

Cliff Jumper wrote:

High Command wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:LGBTQ adoption? (Unwanted kids need love too)

No as this is deliberately setting them up in sub-optimal environment. Yes, it is better then no parents or one parent, but nothing beats a mother and a father married.

There's no need to be insulting.

Just because you think a church-going hetronormal married couple is the best way to live doesn't make it so. Classy how you slide single parents in as being worse (in your eyes) than a gay couple.

I'd just like to add along with the central message here of Black Lives Matter. That LGBTQ+ lives matter too and it is currently Pride month so please show some respect.

What a lot of people don't like about BLM and Pride is that racism and homophobia are being challenged by those who are not black or LGBTQ+ themselves. Where once those predudices were acceptable they are being driven out of mainstream acceptability as people are called out for them. There are now far fewer safe spaces for bigots which is why they are kicking out and fighting back often by voting them into high office under the guise of bringing back traditional values. The US President and the UK Prime Minister are two such examples to this kind of populist nationalism leading us into the massive splits in society being laid bare for all to see and where we are right now.

It was not meant to be insulting. By most sociological and psychological measurements children do the best with a married mother and father. Not two moms or two dads or one mom or one dad.

Facts are not bigoted nor is it homophobic.

Facts are backed up by sources, studies and references. Opinions are not facts and to claim otherwise is dishonest.

A very brief search provides us with the following.

The majority of research on this topic shows that children or adolescents raised by same-sex parents fare equally as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents on a wide range of social, emotional, health and academic outcomes.

A paper published for the American Sociological Association in 2014 reviewed 10 years’ of scientific literature on child well-being in same-sex parented families in the US. The literature review covered 40 original published studies, including numerous credible and methodologically sound social science studies, many of which drew on nationally representative data.

The authors concluded there was clear consensus in scientific literature that children raised by same-sex couples fared as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. This applied for a range of well-being measures, including:

academic performance
cognitive development
social development
psychological health
early sexual activity, and
substance abuse.

Source of quote: https://theconversation.com/factcheck-a ... ents-82313

Overview: We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children.

Below are 75 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. [...]4 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages.

Source of quote: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.e ... n-parents/

By Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Source of quote: https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting

There is no harm caused by same-sex parenting. Studies suggesting otherwise are skewed.

While in academia anyone should be able to analyse and publish data, it’s unusual that recent papers reporting outlier outcomes have been led by non-expert authors, including an economist, a sociologist with particular interest in religious matters and an academic whose stated expertise is in faith and religion. One can already see the risk of bias in the interpretation of the data, and close analysis does find methodological flaws in the outlier studies.

The United Nations convention on the rights of the child is based on four general principles: the right to non-discrimination, the right to the best interest of the child, the right to survival and development, and the right to be heard. The data shows that same-sex parents can provide for these rights at least as well as heterosexual parents. As a paediatrician, I have experience working with children from all kinds of family structures. Young people from same-sex parented families have without fail been among the most wanted, loved, and well raised and cared for children I have seen.

Source of quote: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are-skewed


Again I ask that you not be insulting by repeating demonstrably false homophobic claims, which incidentally also insult any single parents or children of single parents here.

I'd like to pose another few questions.

Don't worry it's a much shorter list this time.

What is the term for an athiest who interupts a church service to say they don't believe in god?

What is the term for an aromatherapist who interupts a surgical operation to light some candles?

What is the term for a person coming in this very thread to discredit, besmirch or otherwise not support Black Lives Matter?

High Command wrote:I'd like to pose another few questions.

Don't worry it's a much shorter list this time.

What is the term for an athiest who interupts a church service to say they don't believe in god?

What is the term for an aromatherapist who interupts a surgical operation to light some candles?

What is the term for a person coming in this very thread to discredit, besmirch or otherwise not support Black Lives Matter?

I believe the answer to all three is "tosspot".

Burn wrote:

High Command wrote:I'd like to pose another few questions.

Don't worry it's a much shorter list this time.

What is the term for an athiest who interupts a church service to say they don't believe in god?

What is the term for an aromatherapist who interupts a surgical operation to light some candles?

What is the term for a person coming in this very thread to discredit, besmirch or otherwise not support Black Lives Matter?

I believe the answer to all three is "tosspot".

How about "one of a different belief?" Y'know, as a characteristic of individuality? That person might be thought of as a "tosspot," as you said, by those worshiping, performing the surgery, or following BLM. But that's just 1 side of the issue. And again, before any of you keyboard warriors lose your **** and point and scream "racist!" I'm in full support of the concept of black lives matter. I just don't actively shill for the BLM movement.

Tosspots can be individuals.

Quite frankly, there's tosspots on both sides of the debate.

Rodimus Prime wrote:I'm in full support of the concept of black lives matter. I just don't actively shill for the BLM movement.

This is becoming an increasingly untenable position. Parsing in this fashion is more or less the premier way for good people to do nothing.

megatronus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:I'm in full support of the concept of black lives matter. I just don't actively shill for the BLM movement.

This is becoming an increasingly untenable position. Parsing in this fashion is more or less the premier way for good people to do nothing.

The key point here is good people.

megatronus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:I'm in full support of the concept of black lives matter. I just don't actively shill for the BLM movement.

This is becoming an increasingly untenable position. Parsing in this fashion is more or less the premier way for good people to do nothing.

"Untenable" is based on your point of view. If you're a supporter of the BLM movement, that's your choice. You can also disagree with those who don't, nothing wrong with that. But it's only untenable from where you're looking at things. BLM has been around for what, 4 years now? I haven't cared about it in all its time if existence, and I still don't. Does that mean I don't value the lives if black people? It doesn't. Or I think the value of their lives is less because they're black? I don't. And if you don't approve of it or think I'm not a good person because of it, that's also your choice. Just like it is mine to choose what organizations and ideas I support. It's one of the characteristics of individuality.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:I'm in full support of the concept of black lives matter. I just don't actively shill for the BLM movement.

This is becoming an increasingly untenable position. Parsing in this fashion is more or less the premier way for good people to do nothing.

"Untenable" is based on your point of view. If you're a supporter of the BLM movement, that's your choice. You can also disagree with those who don't, nothing wrong with that. But it's only untenable from where you're looking at things. BLM has been around for what, 4 years now? I haven't cared about it in all its time if existence, and I still don't. Does that mean I don't value the lives if black people? It doesn't. Or I think the value of their lives is less because they're black? I don't. And if you don't approve of it or think I'm not a good person because of it, that's also your choice. Just like it is mine to choose what organizations and ideas I support. It's one of the characteristics of individuality.

To quote Angela Davis, "In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist." It doesn't matter how much we don't hate Black people, or think they're fine, or whatever. If we're not actively working to dismantle the systems that oppress people, we're part of the problem.

Jeddostotle7 wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:I'm in full support of the concept of black lives matter. I just don't actively shill for the BLM movement.

This is becoming an increasingly untenable position. Parsing in this fashion is more or less the premier way for good people to do nothing.

"Untenable" is based on your point of view. If you're a supporter of the BLM movement, that's your choice. You can also disagree with those who don't, nothing wrong with that. But it's only untenable from where you're looking at things. BLM has been around for what, 4 years now? I haven't cared about it in all its time if existence, and I still don't. Does that mean I don't value the lives if black people? It doesn't. Or I think the value of their lives is less because they're black? I don't. And if you don't approve of it or think I'm not a good person because of it, that's also your choice. Just like it is mine to choose what organizations and ideas I support. It's one of the characteristics of individuality.

To quote Angela Davis, "In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist." It doesn't matter how much we don't hate Black people, or think they're fine, or whatever. If we're not actively working to dismantle the systems that oppress people, we're part of the problem.

Another point of view.

Jeddostotle7 wrote:To quote Angela Davis, "In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist." It doesn't matter how much we don't hate Black people, or think they're fine, or whatever. If we're not actively working to dismantle the systems that oppress people, we're part of the problem.

See, to me, the problem with that is someone may not be in a position to help.

Some people may choose to keep their opinions to themselves to spare them from abuse or criticism.

Some people may not have the tools to help.

I've seen people being branded racist because they haven't declared that they're anti-racist, that their silence means they are racist.

That's not fair, we shouldn't have to declare sides.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:I'm in full support of the concept of black lives matter. I just don't actively shill for the BLM movement.

This is becoming an increasingly untenable position. Parsing in this fashion is more or less the premier way for good people to do nothing.

"Untenable" is based on your point of view. If you're a supporter of the BLM movement, that's your choice. You can also disagree with those who don't, nothing wrong with that. But it's only untenable from where you're looking at things. BLM has been around for what, 4 years now? I haven't cared about it in all its time if existence, and I still don't. Does that mean I don't value the lives if black people? It doesn't. Or I think the value of their lives is less because they're black? I don't. And if you don't approve of it or think I'm not a good person because of it, that's also your choice. Just like it is mine to choose what organizations and ideas I support. It's one of the characteristics of individuality.

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think most people see a distinction between the belief that Black lives matter, And Black lives matter the organization. You can believe that black lives matter, And still not support the organization. This isn't a zero sum situation.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:I'm in full support of the concept of black lives matter. I just don't actively shill for the BLM movement.

This is becoming an increasingly untenable position. Parsing in this fashion is more or less the premier way for good people to do nothing.

"Untenable" is based on your point of view. If you're a supporter of the BLM movement, that's your choice. You can also disagree with those who don't, nothing wrong with that. But it's only untenable from where you're looking at things. BLM has been around for what, 4 years now? I haven't cared about it in all its time if existence, and I still don't. Does that mean I don't value the lives if black people? It doesn't. Or I think the value of their lives is less because they're black? I don't. And if you don't approve of it or think I'm not a good person because of it, that's also your choice. Just like it is mine to choose what organizations and ideas I support. It's one of the characteristics of individuality.

There were plenty of people in MLK's day who said "I support equal rights, but I can't support that man or the movement he leads."

Is that truly a tenable position? The Civil Rights Movement made folks uncomfortable, and so they demurred, but what that said was their discomfort was not a price they were willing to pay to make the idea they said they supported a reality.

I view your position in much the same way. I wouldn't call you a racist - I don't know you, and you haven't outed yourself as one here, unlike some others. Just the opposite, actually.

However, what was true then was true now: saying you support the idea of black lives matter, but not the organization whose sole purpose is to make that idea a reality, comes off as disingenuous.

You're right, that is my perspective, my point of view. But it's an expansive one.

WonkoTheSane42 wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:I'm in full support of the concept of black lives matter. I just don't actively shill for the BLM movement.

This is becoming an increasingly untenable position. Parsing in this fashion is more or less the premier way for good people to do nothing.

"Untenable" is based on your point of view. If you're a supporter of the BLM movement, that's your choice. You can also disagree with those who don't, nothing wrong with that. But it's only untenable from where you're looking at things. BLM has been around for what, 4 years now? I haven't cared about it in all its time if existence, and I still don't. Does that mean I don't value the lives if black people? It doesn't. Or I think the value of their lives is less because they're black? I don't. And if you don't approve of it or think I'm not a good person because of it, that's also your choice. Just like it is mine to choose what organizations and ideas I support. It's one of the characteristics of individuality.

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think most people see a distinction between the belief that Black lives matter, And Black lives matter the organization. You can believe that black lives matter, And still not support the organization.

I see the distinction, but I believe that parsing is meant to provide people comfort in lip service.

WonkoTheSane42 wrote:This isn't a zero sum situation.

Really depends who you talk to. For plenty of black folk... I'd say it's been fairly zero sum.

Burn wrote:

Jeddostotle7 wrote:To quote Angela Davis, "In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist." It doesn't matter how much we don't hate Black people, or think they're fine, or whatever. If we're not actively working to dismantle the systems that oppress people, we're part of the problem.

See, to me, the problem with that is someone may not be in a position to help.

Some people may choose to keep their opinions to themselves to spare them from abuse or criticism.

Some people may not have the tools to help.

I've seen people being branded racist because they haven't declared that they're anti-racist, that their silence means they are racist.

That's not fair, we shouldn't have to declare sides.

I agree, not everyone is able to like, donate a lot, or march, or even necessarily vocally show support or what have you, depending on their situation. But there are things everyone can do. First off, examining how we benefit from and contribute to white supremacy, even unintentionally and/or subtly, and working to dismantle the racist thinking and behaviors we've been taught, and reading works about these topics to accomplish this (note: this is not a thing you can do and then you're done, it's a lifelong process).

Burn wrote:

Jeddostotle7 wrote:To quote Angela Davis, "In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist." It doesn't matter how much we don't hate Black people, or think they're fine, or whatever. If we're not actively working to dismantle the systems that oppress people, we're part of the problem.

See, to me, the problem with that is someone may not be in a position to help.

Some people may choose to keep their opinions to themselves to spare them from abuse or criticism.

Some people may not have the tools to help.

I've seen people being branded racist because they haven't declared that they're anti-racist, that their silence means they are racist.

That's not fair, we shouldn't have to declare sides.

I very much agree with this. I've been silently monitoring this thread since it started, And I briefly laid out some of my thoughts around then.
I'm always one for a civil conversation about things like this; Indeed, I believe that is a staple of any reasonable, civilized society.
But the reason I personally mostly stayed out of this one is summed up very well by your second point: "Some people may choose to keep their opinions to themselves to spare them from abuse or criticism."
That hits the nail on the head.
I'm not looking for a fight.
In my experience, These sorts of conversations often start out friendly enough, Then slowly escalate, Until sooner or later one side gets mad at the other, And then civility ends, And vitriolic arguing begins.
Without naming names, I've seen it multiple times in this thread.
See, I know I'll never meet most of the people on this site in person, (I've been lurking since right before the release of the 2007 movie, But never made an account) But I'd still like to be friendly on the site with those people.
Unfortunately, After people (who previously got along fine) have argued with each other for long enough, It's often hard for them to see each other the same way afterwards.
Even before joining, I vicariously enjoyed the comradely of the forums; It was always nice to see other people who liked the same things I liked.

Heh. It's late, And I fear I may be starting to ramble.
Anyway, I guess to conclude, I wish more people could have civil conversations, Debates even, Without eventually resorting to hostility.
Oh well.

When asked if you believe black people matter, that their lives have worth, and you can't say "Yes, they do have worth and value and indeed matter." or something along those lines, and instead go back to "I can't support the Black Lives Matter movement" even after being told those are not the same... Eh, I think that speaks for itself. No one is going to go "HA! Gotcha!" if you say yes they do. No one is going to suddenly show up with a card reader telling you to donate or force you to go march.

When your stance is neutral though, I wonder how and why. Because this isn't a question of McDonalds or Burger King, Hasbro or Takara, Popeyes or Chic Fil A, Pepsi or Coke, Biden or Trump, or any other competing brand. It's do the lives of people have value. Should they be treated as equals.

When the first slaves arrived in America in 1619, maybe a majority of people didn't think it was right to own another human being. But we'll never know, because that majority didn't stand up. Instead they stayed neutral.

When Jim Crow laws were put into place in America in 1877 following the Civil War, maybe a majority of people didn't think it was right to strip rights from Black people. But we'll never know, because that majority didn't stand up. Instead they stayed neutral.

When Civil Rights started in the 1950s and 1960s, maybe the majority supported it. Maybe we could have avoided the last 60+ years of on again off again protests and riots, and got fully enforced civil rights so everyone would be equal. But we'll never know, because enough people didn't stand up. Instead to many stayed neutral.

So now in 2020, you can't stand up and say "Yeah. I think Black people matter." and stick with neutrality saying "There's always another way" but don't put one forth, and then get upset when people tell you you're part of the problem.

Well, history is pretty clear.

Keep in mind, this is only American history, and doesn't even cover the terrible things done to Native Americans or British problems with race or Australian problems with race or Canadian problems with race. And it's not even a complete history. I'm sure if I spent enough time, I could find a laundry list of times where if people just stood up, things would be different. But sitting in neutrality is comfortable. Standing for something isn't.

Maybe you think this is just a stupid fan site, so it doesn't matter. But if not here, behind your anonymity, then when?

Maybe it is a stupid fan site, but think about why you're here. Think about your favorite characters. Not just from Transformers, but from any and all mediums. Think about what they would do.

WonkoTheSane42 wrote:But the reason I personally mostly stayed out of this one is summed up very well by your second point: "Some people may choose to keep their opinions to themselves to spare them from abuse or criticism."
That hits the nail on the head.
I'm not looking for a fight.

Same. Looking at my local Facebook groups, there's some incredibly ignorant people in my town.

I've seen that same ignorance from customers that have come in and mocked/joked about the whole thing.

I've been talking to people and suddenly the topic turns to the protests and suddenly those people I was having a friendly conversation with are suddenly sprouting their opposition to it.

I keep my opinion to myself, because I honestly do not want to waste energy trying to enlighten people. Not only that, what right do I have to do that? I feel like I'd be forcing my opinion onto others, and that just doesn't sit right with me because I absolutely hate when people do it to me.

So I stay silent.

Burn wrote:

Jeddostotle7 wrote:To quote Angela Davis, "In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist." It doesn't matter how much we don't hate Black people, or think they're fine, or whatever. If we're not actively working to dismantle the systems that oppress people, we're part of the problem.

See, to me, the problem with that is someone may not be in a position to help.

Some people may choose to keep their opinions to themselves to spare them from abuse or criticism.

Some people may not have the tools to help.

I've seen people being branded racist because they haven't declared that they're anti-racist, that their silence means they are racist.

That's not fair, we shouldn't have to declare sides.

The phrase "silence is violence" is being used a lot now. Fence sitting in an easy way out for those who benefit from white privilege because they're not the ones in fear for their lives because of the melanin content of their skin.

This is not to say that everyone can/should help in the same way as it can be done in a variety of ways:

Direct action: physically taking part in a protest or stepping in if you see police brutality in action. Not open to everyone, either through where they live or how physically able they are. White people though have a sheild they can use to directly protect black lives so use it if you can.

Remote action: maybe donate some money. This can be to a group that is bailing out protestors or helping with other legal costs. Lots of people can't donate because they don't have the money which is fair enough. Everyone can sign a petition against police violence though. Likewise emailing your local politicians and tell them what you think too.

Using your platform: This thread is an example of it. Use what platform you have, be that on social media, a blog etc. It's very simple to put a simple message of support and can be done anonymously of course too.

Education: listen to black voices and what they are saying, both online and IRL. Read up on the history you weren't taught in schools. There is ample material available online and free.

Calling out racism: some racists are quite open about it others will only let it slip out if they think it's safe to do so. If you're in the presence of that, either IRL or online, call it out. Say that you don't agree with racist attitudes. It might make for an uncomfortable family dinner or some people in the facebook group might kick off but that's just tough. Letting these views slip by is harmful.


Simply sitting back and saying "this doesn't affect me" or posing an pseudo-intellectual argument of not being able to support them, put your on the wrong side of history.

"Property got damaged."
Well guess what this has happened at almost every protest against equality in history. From women's sufferage to gay rights. Also note that footage of cops breaking shop windows is out there, done to discredit protests.

"They attacked the police."
These protests which have been mostly peaceful with the exception of wherever the police have been in large numbers wearing stormtrooper armour. It turns out more police brutality is not the way to end protests against police brutality.

"The protesters are violent."
Some of them may be. They aren't professionally trained to deal with situations like this. The cops are meant to be but to date haven't been very successful in restraining themselves from lashing out. There have been exceptions such as the impressive displays of restraint shown a few months ago to the heavily armed guys protesting the right to get a haircut and the KKK march in Alabama last week.

"They should just go out and vote in November."
They likely will. So long as voter suppression doesn't stop them from being able to do so. Remember though that Donald Trump got a whopping 8% of the black vote at the last election so clearly it didn't help then. Now Joe Biden is talking about increasing police budgets how exactly will voting help?

"It's not the time to talk about this now."
If not, then when? The protests against the deaths of George Floyd and others haven't ended and there has already been another police murder, this time of Rayshard Brooks, for being asleep in a Wendy's parking lot.

"It wouldn't happen if people didn't resist the police."
Tell that to the grieving family of Breonna Taylor who was shot whioe sleeping in her own bed at home by cops breaking in on a warrent for someone else who had already been taken into custody.

High Command wrote:I'd like to pose another few questions.

Don't worry it's a much shorter list this time.

What is the term for an athiest who interupts a church service to say they don't believe in god?

What is the term for an aromatherapist who interupts a surgical operation to light some candles?

What is the term for a person coming in this very thread to discredit, besmirch or otherwise not support Black Lives Matter?

So we agree that BLM is a RELIGION.

There's even a lawsuit going on in Washington DC over this very fact. BLM were allowed to paint their slogan in giant letters in the street. So a Christian group want to have the same treatment.

Let's see how it will go.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

High Command wrote:I'd like to pose another few questions.

Don't worry it's a much shorter list this time.

What is the term for an athiest who interupts a church service to say they don't believe in god?

What is the term for an aromatherapist who interupts a surgical operation to light some candles?

What is the term for a person coming in this very thread to discredit, besmirch or otherwise not support Black Lives Matter?

So we agree that BLM is a RELIGION.

There's even a lawsuit going on in Washington DC over this very fact. BLM were allowed to paint their slogan in giant letters in the street. So a Christian group want to have the same treatment.

Let's see how it will go.

Ooo! Oo! I hope the Church of Satan gets to paint theirs too!

Though... I fail to see how painting Black Lives Matter on streets (it's more than DC) makes it a religion.... If errecting a sign or something makes it a religion, then man I claim the Obelisk of Wokeness as the new totem. It's like a cross, but with less death associations.