Three things you'll have troubles convincing normies, especially anyone who still thinks Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown are innocent victims of racism, because that was the media narrative from all the "balanced" news outlets like CNN:

  • Antifa exists and isn't just a fringe bunch of protestors but chronically uses personal and property violence. Yes, even after they took over Soymalia, built a wall, gunned up, and want ID/paperwork.
  • BLM is a commie front that isn't about the black men who's deaths they wave like a bloody shirt. Their founding myth and purpose are lies.
  • The name itself is morally insulting.

I'm not addressing the first.

The second is easy to demonstrate - yet I've literally had normies go and read the "about" and "what we believe" pages and, like a fish asking "what water?", not understand why I assert that. This despite the propaganda of referring to Michael Brown's "murderer", this despite the Marxist speech patterns, and more importantly, almost nothing about black men while spending paragraph after paragraph on gay / LGBTBBQ issues. Even when you show, out of their own mouths, the founders praise for Maduro and Venezuela, or that the money donated is effectively a DNS slush fund that donates little time or money to charities that help the black community, start black businesses, and so on.

I've said it before - I suck at rhetoric. And some won't be convinced by something as useless as facts;  such as CNN's bias even when you show two video clips of the same event, the CNN one butchered as they literally report the opposite of what happened.

The third though, is harder to show. It's a motte and bailey game.

The bailey is of course the almost tautalogical truth that lives, and thus black lives, matter. By the same standards, even centipede lives matter. This is what allows people to reply to criticism with "Don't you believe that black lives matter?" The motte is of course the position that white people need to be taught something so basic because of "systemic racism" and "white supremacy."

"But all we are saying is... "

Bullshit. One does not gather people into protests by the thousands to march around and simply state a tautalogical truth unless they think someone isn't aware of that fact. Their own website makes it clear that is the purpose in doing so, people who's minds they want to change. So the question is who are they trying to convince? The obvious target is the political establishment, and the white libs who see a dead body and cannot imagine any reason for it beyond "a bad person did it," or cannot imagine anyone being unjustifiably angry and demanding.

An aside - until the recent identification of Karens in the wild it's one reason BPDs get away with so much shit - you have a hard time imagining someone getting that upset if it wasn't actually important or justified.  They are more than capable of treating a small misstep as a horrible thing for leverage to obtain compliance. Race hustlers, SJWs, and BLM do the same.

We would look at who is killing whom and decide that as a demographic white people don't need to be told not to kill people in general, much less black people - if anything, it's the other way around. This can be determined just by a quick glance at the murder stats provided by Eric "We need to have a conversation about race" Holder's FBI under Obama, but also confirmed by case after case collected by people like Colin Flaherty.

Mentioning that, or that black arrests are in proportion to their involvement in crimes - largely reported by other blacks who are their most common victims - or that the same police brutality issues plague all races in fairly equal measure gets a dismissal of "yes, but we're focusing on this now"; see the cartoon below. This is applied even to the deaths like those of David Dorn, killed by the very mobs that BLM incited. "But we're not focusing on that now, it's not as important."

Thank god I haven't had anyone I personally know talking about eggs and omelets.

An interesting take. He's a bit libertardian but of note is that he takes the question of "who are you trying to convince" and looks at it from a more black nationalist perspective: that BLM is co-opting the energy and anger of blacks, and keeping them in chains while having them beg whitey for handouts and recognition when they should be dealing with and addressing their own cultural issues - which are in large part responsible for why they have so many run-ins with the cops.

Like a lot of libertards, he overlooks one thing. A lot of people like petty power. Sure, they are being enslaved to the purposes of those manipulating them, but they're being granted carte blanche to loot, burn, and beat up without consequence those who they have been primed to hate with decades of lies. They are being handed power that rewards immediate gratification at the expense of long term success.

If you've got a culture that revels in showing off and lording it over people, that's as addictive as crack.

Then there's this cartoon I've seen passed around:

Panel five has the assertion, the founding purpose of BLM, that the police and governments consider blacks uniquely expendable (and it's all whitey's fault). Leave aside how frequently the hellholes that abuse blacks are run by black mayors, with black police chiefs; in the video I linked he asks why it matters if the cop beating you up is white or black, or has a black police chief.

Panel 6 is a partial retreat to the Bailey, as if all the energy spent protesting isn't to convince someone they're immoral, and the slogan chosen just so they can make that defense. Incidentally, yes, I'd work toward a policy that saves all forests - but as we've seen, insisting blacks be treated by the same standards as whites is "racism". The next panel is the same "not what we're focusing on" when you bring up police brutality in general, murder and crime rates, the murders caused by the protests, or that the situation is "out of control" in large part because of BLMs hectoring, not because the police are disproportionally murdering blacks. Especially in the case of the deaths caused by BLM's activities, it's morally repugnant to dismiss those.  It's also fucking dishonest to dismiss police brutality against others and crime statistics as "not what we're focusing on now" when the motte is that said brutality and arrests unfairly affect the black community.

Panel 10 features a line no "conservative" or right winger would say, so that the lefty can slide in a shiv about "growing as a person." In other words "you can feel validated as a good person."

All in all a dishonest presentation of BLM, it's goals, how they're morally hectoring you and manipulating you, while being "nice" instead of angry. The carrot instead of the antifa/angry mob stick.

There are plenty of people who care more about being nice than whether or not you're justified in being upset, if you don't have the right opinions. And mean girls know all about being vicious snakes while appearing nice. Bringing up a counterpoint to any commie or BLM talking point and not backing down, no matter how polite you are, will get you accused of being horrible, angry, mean, and racist.

Like I said, it's a setup. I'm not sure where the rhetorical chink in the armor is, but we need to at least recognize the game being played. We are not obligated to be nice to those who tear down our society and history, and make no bones about demanding we comply, or else. Those calls to be nice are just calls to comply or acquiesce, or else - no matter how politely framed - and they insist you comply and demonstrate fealty by adding your voice.