Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I Dislike BLM

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 4:23:20 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I actually fully support BLM's basic purported aim, which is to hold police accountable for misconduct. I support extensive grand jury reforms and heavier oversight. My main problem with BLM is that everything that they do seems to contravene their so-called aims. Basically, I'm going to break down the two main reasons why they are staggeringly incompetent as a mass movement, and need to die off if something better is going to take their place.

1. Catharsis over efficacy ('feels over reals').

The hallmark of any brutally effective mass movement is self-control. At the very least, self-control within leadership, though self-control within the ranks is often very useful. Examples of effective mass movements include the abolitionists, the early civil rights movement, the temperance movement, the Indian Nationalist movement, and the woman's suffrage movement. What all of the Western ones had in common were strong Christian roots, which focus on the old Stoic virtues and enjoy a strengthening effect because of this.

Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion. Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'. Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic. Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'

This isn't to say that black people in particular are unable to exercise self-control. This is mostly a generational thing across races, and it's behind a lot of mass movement fails (Occupy Wallstreet being the biggest one). Children are often taught to treat emotions as something sacrosanct instead of tools. But it is useless for the captain and crew of a vessel to discuss plans about where to sail and what to do if none of them are capable of grabbing the wheel and steering a steady course. In some ways, all of the other vices spring from this.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM. This movement started when the libertarian streak on the right, anti-authoritarian to the bone, was feverish with resentment towards oversteps by law enforcement. These were substantial natural allies, with access to white society at large and currency online. Speaking of online, the internet is another bastion of 'fvck the establishment', anti drug war rhetoric. But flash forward a few years, and these natural allies are lined up in steely-eyed opposition to BLM. What happened!?

Two things happened. The first one was BLM, the second was the alt-right and vaguely aligned forces. The former planted the wedge, and the latter drove it home with such sudden, shocking precision that any sort of alliance is nigh impossible at this point.

Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
By brushing off criticism, relying on borderline censorious (sometimes outright) tactics, and refusing to engage with opposing views honestly, BLM incited a visceral rejection among the suburbanite 'free thinker' demographic which is so central to these communities. This not only lost them the support of this group, it also lost them intellectual legitimacy. At this point, BLM is seen as cultish and unwilling to defend its points in open debate. The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

b. Know your audience.
Probably the second most stupid move when it comes to mass movement building that I've ever seen have been those involving high-viewer programming. The two big examples would be Beyonce's Super Bowl Show and Kendrick Lamar's Grammy performance. I'm not saying that these were bad performances; they in some ways tackled different themes in interesting ways, and were founded on real, salient points. But do you know who saw them? Vaguely sympathetic old and middle aged white people with little to know understanding of racial politics or history. I tried to explain it to them, I really did, but what they all came away with was 'wow, black people are really ridiculous in this country, I can see why people are annoyed.' These people, I later noticed, shut down when faced with stories of police brutality. The anti-cop imagery by what are accepted as cultural icons in the black people had on some level convinced them that black people were hostile to police.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.

c. Know your enemy
The Bernie Sanders thing. What. The. Fvck. This is the first most stupid thing that I've ever seen in ploitics. To those who weren't allied by default, it sent a clear message: no matter how much you throw your support behind us, we will never really consider you allies. We will call you racist, no matter how much you support us. To those who already support BLM among the upper crust left, and don't have to (mostly these people are affluent and powerful and don't have skin in the game) this was a direct slap in the face.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect. Stop using Michael Brown as a poster boy, he's terrible for that purpose. I will never understand why 'Michael Brown' is a more common battle cry than 'Tamir Rice'. Because when you compare a huge young man who assaulted a convenience store owner and stole on camera, and then is alleged to have rushed a cop, to a young boy who there is video footage of being shot in a ridiculously improper manner (basically murdered through gross incompetence), the rallying point should be crystal clear. Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel, he was a criminal who didn't deserve to be shot.

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

The alt right smelled the blood in the water, and moved in for the kill. They systematically poached people who were natural allies to BLM by presenting themselves as the rational, civilized alternative once BLM abdicated the field.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 4:58:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
.


Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion. Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'. Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic. Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'

This isn't to say that black people in particular are unable to exercise self-control. This is mostly a generational thing across races, and it's behind a lot of mass movement fails (Occupy Wallstreet being the biggest one). Children are often taught to treat emotions as something sacrosanct instead of tools. But it is useless for the captain and crew of a vessel to discuss plans about where to sail and what to do if none of them are capable of grabbing the wheel and steering a steady course. In some ways, all of the other vices spring from this.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM. This movement started when the libertarian streak on the right, anti-authoritarian to the bone, was feverish with resentment towards oversteps by law enforcement. These were substantial natural allies, with access to white society at large and currency online. Speaking of online, the internet is another bastion of 'fvck the establishment', anti drug war rhetoric. But flash forward a few years, and these natural allies are lined up in steely-eyed opposition to BLM. What happened!?

Two things happened. The first one was BLM, the second was the alt-right and vaguely aligned forces. The former planted the wedge, and the latter drove it home with such sudden, shocking precision that any sort of alliance is nigh impossible at this point.

Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
By brushing off criticism, relying on borderline censorious (sometimes outright) tactics, and refusing to engage with opposing views honestly, BLM incited a visceral rejection among the suburbanite 'free thinker' demographic which is so central to these communities. This not only lost them the support of this group, it also lost them intellectual legitimacy. At this point, BLM is seen as cultish and unwilling to defend its points in open debate. The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

b. Know your audience.
Probably the second most stupid move when it comes to mass movement building that I've ever seen have been those involving high-viewer programming. The two big examples would be Beyonce's Super Bowl Show and Kendrick Lamar's Grammy performance. I'm not saying that these were bad performances; they in some ways tackled different themes in interesting ways, and were founded on real, salient points. But do you know who saw them? Vaguely sympathetic old and middle aged white people with little to know understanding of racial politics or history. I tried to explain it to them, I really did, but what they all came away with was 'wow, black people are really ridiculous in this country, I can see why people are annoyed.' These people, I later noticed, shut down when faced with stories of police brutality. The anti-cop imagery by what are accepted as cultural icons in the black people had on some level convinced them that black people were hostile to police.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.

c. Know your enemy
The Bernie Sanders thing. What. The. Fvck. This is the first most stupid thing that I've ever seen in ploitics. To those who weren't allied by default, it sent a clear message: no matter how much you throw your support behind us, we will never really consider you allies. We will call you racist, no matter how much you support us. To those who already support BLM among the upper crust left, and don't have to (mostly these people are affluent and powerful and don't have skin in the game) this was a direct slap in the face.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect. Stop using Michael Brown as a poster boy, he's terrible for that purpose. I will never understand why 'Michael Brown' is a more common battle cry than 'Tamir Rice'. Because when you compare a huge young man who assaulted a convenience store owner and stole on camera, and then is alleged to have rushed a cop, to a young boy who there is video footage of being shot in a ridiculously improper manner (basically murdered through gross incompetence), the rallying point should be crystal clear. Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel, he was a criminal who didn't deserve to be shot.

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

The alt right smelled the blood in the water, and moved in for the kill. They systematically poached people who were natural allies to BLM by presenting themselves as the ratio
I agree. BLM act like immature brats-blocking highway, harassing people disrupting events.They don't use logic and facts they use bully and intimidation tactics. They're more like high school bullies than adults. And if you disagree with them they won't engage with you they'll dox you or yell at you. They think they have the right to disrupt other people's events to spread their message (like the Bernie Sanders rally)

The DOJs own report said that the shooting of Micheal Brown was justified. If BLM wants to be taken seriously they have to stop ignoring that fact and acknowledge that they were wrong about him.

They also have to acknowledge the high crime rate in the black community. Black men are more likely to commit violent crimes and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with police. Uf you want to solve the problem you have to stop denying its root.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 5:19:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 4:58:28 AM, Dilara wrote:

They also have to acknowledge the high crime rate in the black community. Black men are more likely to commit violent crimes and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with police. Uf you want to solve the problem you have to stop denying its root.

I really wish people would stop regurgitating this point. At best, it's far less clear cut than people think it is, and at worse, it's just outright false.

"A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI"s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

http://journals.plos.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 5:49:14 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Only have time for this one before bed.

At 7/21/2016 4:23:20 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

1. Catharsis over efficacy ('feels over reals').

The hallmark of any brutally effective mass movement is self-control. At the very least, self-control within leadership, though self-control within the ranks is often very useful. Examples of effective mass movements include the abolitionists, the early civil rights movement, the temperance movement, the Indian Nationalist movement, and the woman's suffrage movement. What all of the Western ones had in common were strong Christian roots, which focus on the old Stoic virtues and enjoy a strengthening effect because of this.

Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion.

Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'.

I see plenty of arguments for cause and effect but the bigger issue here is this strikes me as an incredibly large strawman. And I'm actually surprised you of all people would do this.

The argument I see here most of the time is that a) respectability politics doesn't work and b) a moral argument against the practice of it. You can disagree with a) and b) all you want but it seems literally ridiculous to boil it down to people saying "it's too hard" (although that in itself might be another argument against it if one could not reasonably expect people to live up to it's strictures one can't reasonably fault them for not doing so). Because then you haven't "boiled it down" so much as completely changed their argument.

Personally speaking, I'm not against respectability politics because it's "too hard" - most black people (especially entering the professional workforce) are actually pretty well versed in how to code switch into something that is "acceptable" - and it's quite easy to do. I'm against it because a) and b).

Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic.

And part of optics is making appeals to emotion (which aren't inherently fallacious).

Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'


No, that's not what they're essentially saying. They're essentially saying it's unreasonable given x, y, z none of which reduce down to "we lack the discipline to make use of it".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 5:56:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 5:49:14 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Only have time for this one before bed.

At 7/21/2016 4:23:20 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

1. Catharsis over efficacy ('feels over reals').

The hallmark of any brutally effective mass movement is self-control. At the very least, self-control within leadership, though self-control within the ranks is often very useful. Examples of effective mass movements include the abolitionists, the early civil rights movement, the temperance movement, the Indian Nationalist movement, and the woman's suffrage movement. What all of the Western ones had in common were strong Christian roots, which focus on the old Stoic virtues and enjoy a strengthening effect because of this.

Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion.


Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'.

I see plenty of arguments for cause and effect but the bigger issue here is this strikes me as an incredibly large strawman. And I'm actually surprised you of all people would do this.

The argument I see here most of the time is that a) respectability politics doesn't work and b) a moral argument against the practice of it. You can disagree with a) and b) all you want but it seems literally ridiculous to boil it down to people saying "it's too hard" (although that in itself might be another argument against it if one could not reasonably expect people to live up to it's strictures one can't reasonably fault them for not doing so). Because then you haven't "boiled it down" so much as completely changed their argument.

I don't see how the most common (moral outrage) argument boils down to anything other than 'it's too hard' in a lot of cases. The most common arguments that I've, personally, come up to against respectability politics is that it's wrong to expect black people to be calm in the case of oppression. I hold that it's not wrong if it helps to end oppression by manipulating the people engaging in oppression.

Personally speaking, I'm not against respectability politics because it's "too hard" - most black people (especially entering the professional workforce) are actually pretty well versed in how to code switch into something that is "acceptable" - and it's quite easy to do. I'm against it because a) and b).

Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic.

And part of optics is making appeals to emotion (which aren't inherently fallacious).

I agree.

Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'


No, that's not what they're essentially saying. They're essentially saying it's unreasonable given x, y, z none of which reduce down to "we lack the discipline to make use of it".

The only other argument that you've made is that it's ineffective, but I can't see how that holds water. History has a clear record of it strengthening mass movements.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 6:54:20 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 4:23:20 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I actually fully support BLM's basic purported aim, which is to hold police accountable for misconduct. I support extensive grand jury reforms and heavier oversight.
Literally that's all we ask for.

1. Catharsis over efficacy ('feels over reals').


Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion. Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'. Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic. Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'

Yeah i don't know about this. This country never listens to logic and reason. Most people here believe the planet is 6000 years old and that a bearded baby moonwalked across the ocean or what have you. Furthermore the idea that every black lives matter protest turns into a riot is absolutely false. I'd say 90% of protest even the ones I've been to down here on Crenshaw Blvd have been absolutely peaceful.

Emotions are just the only way to speak to people. What's "I have a dream" but a big emotional plea?

But you have seen anger in the black community. Correct. We are mad as hell. And we're not supposed to be? Respectability politics is straight bull because we aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM. This movement started when the libertarian streak on the right, anti-authoritarian to the bone, was feverish with resentment towards oversteps by law enforcement. These were substantial natural allies, with access to white society at large and currency online. Speaking of online, the internet is another bastion of 'fvck the establishment', anti drug war rhetoric. But flash forward a few years, and these natural allies are lined up in steely-eyed opposition to BLM. What happened!?

I don't actually understand this. BLM actually has a ton of support. Just not from the right. You're absolutely right in that they should be natural allies but the right is composed of the sons and daughters of those who opposed the civil rights movement. Yes they hate the goverment but i guarantee you they hate us a lot more. I know i know, "republicans are racist" is an old card but look at Donald Trump and his followers.

But we have a lot of allies, within other racial communites and the gay community. I'm sure you know this but two of the founding members of Black lives matter are queer and BLM is very inclusive of gay and trans.
Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
By brushing off criticism, relying on borderline censorious (sometimes outright) tactics, and refusing to engage with opposing views honestly, BLM incited a visceral rejection among the suburbanite 'free thinker' demographic which is so central to these communities. This not only lost them the support of this group, it also lost them intellectual legitimacy. At this point, BLM is seen as cultish and unwilling to defend its points in open debate. The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

I've seen members of BLM of Fox news literally all the time. Would you like some links?

b. Know your audience.
You just said we shouldnt preach to the choir and now this? Why wouldn't we use big national stages like the Super Bowl or the grammys to bring awareness to our cause? If we only did it at the BET awards wouldn't that be preaching to the choir? I honestly don't understand.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.
please elaborate.

c. Know your enemy
The Bernie Sanders thing. What. The. Fvck. This is the first most stupid thing that I've ever seen in ploitics. To those who weren't allied by default, it sent a clear message: no matter how much you throw your support behind us, we will never really consider you allies. We will call you racist, no matter how much you support us. To those who already support BLM among the upper crust left, and don't have to (mostly these people are affluent and powerful and don't have skin in the game) this was a direct slap in the face.
Actually i agree. That was actually a very controversial move within the BLM community.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect. Stop using Michael Brown as a poster boy, he's terrible for that purpose. I will never understand why 'Michael Brown' is a more common battle cry than 'Tamir Rice'. Because when you compare a huge young man who assaulted a convenience store owner and stole on camera, and then is alleged to have rushed a cop, to a young boy who there is video footage of being shot in a ridiculously improper manner (basically murdered through gross incompetence), the rallying point should be crystal clear. Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel, he was a criminal who didn't deserve to be shot.

He is hardly the only person who's name we rally behind. But for every person there's also some victim blaming that happens. Tamir rice shouldn't have had a toy gun. John Crawford shouldn't have had a toy gun. Even though he was in an open carry state. Sean bell shouldnt't have been drunk. I bought up Philando castiles name on this site and a member called him a thug because he had minor traffic violations

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

Dude yet again per capita numbers are skewed when it's a fact that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police so of course we look more violent. Even if your numbers are correct, wouldnt you look into the other factors that lead to crime or do you believe dark skin makes you more prone to criminal acts?
#BlackLivesMatter
Reigon
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 12:09:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
This video explains why I don't support BLM: Larry Elder provides facts and pin points the actual issue Black Fathers Matter.

https://www.facebook.com...

I'm sure there are a very small fraction of legitimate issues within the justice system but the frustration they're gravitating towards is completely irrelevant .
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 12:32:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 5:19:49 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:58:28 AM, Dilara wrote:

They also have to acknowledge the high crime rate in the black community. Black men are more likely to commit violent crimes and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with police. Uf you want to solve the problem you have to stop denying its root.

I really wish people would stop regurgitating this point. At best, it's far less clear cut than people think it is, and at worse, it's just outright false.

"A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI"s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

http://journals.plos.org...

I am going to reply to this 1) because you completely missed the point 2) because you have a #BLM in your sig.

The point was that Blacks commit more crime. This is not to say they commit more crime because they are black. It is just statistically true people committing the majority of crime happen to be black. It is logical to assume that they are going to have more interaction with the cops.

It was said that blacks committing crime is the root problem. We need to figure why crime is so high in the black community.

I hate this statistical Charlie foxtrot about who gets shot more by the police. Absolute idiocy, "I have it worse than you, therefore... BS BS BS"

Unjust shootings of Blacks account for <4% of black homicides. GTFOH! Figure out or even acknowledge the other 90%, which is black on black. I don't have a magic 8 ball but I am willing to bet there is a direct relationship between the 90% and 4%.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 3:20:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 6:54:20 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:23:20 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I actually fully support BLM's basic purported aim, which is to hold police accountable for misconduct. I support extensive grand jury reforms and heavier oversight.
Literally that's all we ask for.

1. Catharsis over efficacy ('feels over reals').

Yeah i don't know about this. This country never listens to logic and reason. Most people here believe the planet is 6000 years old and that a bearded baby moonwalked across the ocean or what have you. Furthermore the idea that every black lives matter protest turns into a riot is absolutely false. I'd say 90% of protest even the ones I've been to down here on Crenshaw Blvd have been absolutely peaceful.

I haven't claimed that they have. And the fact that people are emotional is why self-control is important. If your opponent lacks self-control, and you possess it, it means that you can predict your opponent's reactions and position yourself for maximum gains.

Emotions are just the only way to speak to people. What's "I have a dream" but a big emotional plea?

Would it have been effective without respectability politics, though? Would any white people have listened to it? I don't think so.

But you have seen anger in the black community. Correct. We are mad as hell. And we're not supposed to be? Respectability politics is straight bull because we aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

Anger is a natural response. Harness it, make it useful. Don't allow it to rule your decisions. Do I expect perfection? No. But I don't expect the leaders of the movement to make excuses for the rank and file who sabotage it by lashing out.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM.

I don't actually understand this. BLM actually has a ton of support. Just not from the right.

Maybe where you are. I live in a moderately liberal, Obama-supporting, super-white suburb. BLM is almost universally despised. Bernie supporters often aren't fans due to that little spat at his rally. The 'new atheist' types typically absolutely hate them, and a lot of gay people found the rally move to be absurd.

You're absolutely right in that they should be natural allies but the right is composed of the sons and daughters of those who opposed the civil rights movement. Yes they hate the goverment but i guarantee you they hate us a lot more. I know i know, "republicans are racist" is an old card but look at Donald Trump and his followers.

You must not know many Republicans. My grandparents had been Republicans for their entire lives. They were vehemently anti-racist in the 50s and 60s, and for their entire life. My great uncle is a union man and a democrat, and is completely and utterly racist. Neither of them support Trump. I'm a Donald Trump supporter. I'm not particularly racist. I've seen people accuse Romani of being a racist for supporting Trump, which is pretty hilarious for obvious reasons. This is lazy thinking.

But we have a lot of allies, within other racial communites and the gay community. I'm sure you know this but two of the founding members of Black lives matter are queer and BLM is very inclusive of gay and trans.

The gay community is pretty split at this point, though that is more the fault of modern feminism than it is BLM. The only blunder that I can think of that can be laid at BLM's was the Toronto Pride incident, which was also phenomenally stupid.

Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

I've seen members of BLM of Fox news literally all the time. Would you like some links?

Lol, Fox news isn't the opposition. It's a dog and pony show. I mean show up and debate, as in actually hammer out the facts for at least a full half hour, with an intellectual figure within the opposition. This is exceedingly rare when compared to the usual MO, which is to ban people who disagree with them from speaking on any platform possible.

b. Know your audience.
You just said we shouldnt preach to the choir and now this? Why wouldn't we use big national stages like the Super Bowl or the grammys to bring awareness to our cause? If we only did it at the BET awards wouldn't that be preaching to the choir? I honestly don't understand.

No, the message should be tailored to the audience.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.
please elaborate.

Those performances required an intimate understanding of race relations to interpret and break down. They were disseminated large scale to people who don't possess that understanding, so the performers just looked crazy and hostile to people who may have otherwise been more receptive to a softer approach.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect.

He is hardly the only person who's name we rally behind. But for every person there's also some victim blaming that happens. Tamir rice shouldn't have had a toy gun. John Crawford shouldn't have had a toy gun. Even though he was in an open carry state. Sean bell shouldnt't have been drunk. I bought up Philando castiles name on this site and a member called him a thug because he had minor traffic violations

Yes, but all cases aren't equal. BLM should focus disproportionately on the cases which are easy to defend, which are the most outrageous. They do not. They seem to flit from case to case and spin each one as far towards 'innocent victim brutally killed unarmed' as possible. When things like the convenience store tape leak, this makes them look dishonest, and makes the cops look like the victims of a smear campaign.

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

Dude yet again per capita numbers are skewed when it's a fact that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police so of course we look more violent.

Do you have any support for that claim?

Even if your numbers are correct, wouldnt you look into the other factors that lead to crime or do you believe dark skin makes you more prone to

Obviously not, and I have. But I'm not trying to actually discuss statistics, I'm trying to discuss how using overly simplistic, bad statistics may lead to short-term shoring up of support, but that it creates chinks in you armor which the opposition will attack to devastating effects. Just looks at the feminist movement and their absurd misuse of rape statistics for an example of how bad math can sink an otherwise strong movement.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 3:44:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Out of all the points listed, the echo chamber, and inability to know the enemy (Bernie incident) are the main reasons BLM won't achieve their goals.

Lazy organization can be overlooked when we already have a lazy public, but not knowing the enemy reduces valuable support, and drastically reduces the odds of achieving social goals.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 4:07:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Literally that's all we ask for.

1. Catharsis over efficacy ('feels over reals').


Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion. Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'. Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic. Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'

Yeah i don't know about this. This country never listens to logic and reason. Most people here believe the planet is 6000 years old and that a bearded baby moonwalked across the ocean or what have you. Furthermore the idea that every black lives matter protest turns into a riot is absolutely false. I'd say 90% of protest even the ones I've been to down here on Crenshaw Blvd have been absolutely peaceful.

Emotions are just the only way to speak to people. What's "I have a dream" but a big emotional plea?

But you have seen anger in the black community. Correct. We are mad as hell. And we're not supposed to be? Respectability politics is straight bull because we aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM. This movement started when the libertarian streak on the right, anti-authoritarian to the bone, was feverish with resentment towards oversteps by law enforcement. These were substantial natural allies, with access to white society at large and currency online. Speaking of online, the internet is another bastion of 'fvck the establishment', anti drug war rhetoric. But flash forward a few years, and these natural allies are lined up in steely-eyed opposition to BLM. What happened!?

I don't actually understand this. BLM actually has a ton of support. Just not from the right. You're absolutely right in that they should be natural allies but the right is composed of the sons and daughters of those who opposed the civil rights movement. Yes they hate the goverment but i guarantee you they hate us a lot more. I know i know, "republicans are racist" is an old card but look at Donald Trump and his followers.

But we have a lot of allies, within other racial communites and the gay community. I'm sure you know this but two of the founding members of Black lives matter are queer and BLM is very inclusive of gay and trans.
Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
By brushing off criticism, relying on borderline censorious (sometimes outright) tactics, and refusing to engage with opposing views honestly, BLM incited a visceral rejection among the suburbanite 'free thinker' demographic which is so central to these communities. This not only lost them the support of this group, it also lost them intellectual legitimacy. At this point, BLM is seen as cultish and unwilling to defend its points in open debate. The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

I've seen members of BLM of Fox news literally all the time. Would you like some links?

b. Know your audience.
You just said we shouldnt preach to the choir and now this? Why wouldn't we use big national stages like the Super Bowl or the grammys to bring awareness to our cause? If we only did it at the BET awards wouldn't that be preaching to the choir? I honestly don't understand.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.
please elaborate.

c. Know your enemy
The Bernie Sanders thing. What. The. Fvck. This is the first most stupid thing that I've ever seen in ploitics. To those who weren't allied by default, it sent a clear message: no matter how much you throw your support behind us, we will never really consider you allies. We will call you racist, no matter how much you support us. To those who already support BLM among the upper crust left, and don't have to (mostly these people are affluent and powerful and don't have skin in the game) this was a direct slap in the face.
Actually i agree. That was actually a very controversial move within the BLM community.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect. Stop using Michael Brown as a poster boy, he's terrible for that purpose. I will never understand why 'Michael Brown' is a more common battle cry than 'Tamir Rice'. Because when you compare a huge young man who assaulted a convenience store owner and stole on camera, and then is alleged to have rushed a cop, to a young boy who there is video footage of being shot in a ridiculously improper manner (basically murdered through gross incompetence), the rallying point should be crystal clear. Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel, he was a criminal who didn't deserve to be shot.

He is hardly the only person who's name we rally behind. But for every person there's also some victim blaming that happens. Tamir rice shouldn't have had a toy gun. John Crawford shouldn't have had a toy gun. Even though he was in an open carry state. Sean bell shouldnt't have been drunk. I bought up Philando castiles name on this site and a member called him a thug because he had minor traffic violations

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

Dude yet again per capita numbers are skewed when it's a fact that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police so of course we look more violent. Even if your numbers are correct, wouldnt you look into the other factors that lead to crime or do you believe dark skin makes you more prone to criminal acts?

Thanks for hitting the points so others don't have to.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 4:39:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 4:12:21 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
I support putting BLM on a boat back to Africa. Hate it here? Go back home.

We are home.
#BlackLivesMatter
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 5:02:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 12:32:04 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/21/2016 5:19:49 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:58:28 AM, Dilara wrote:

They also have to acknowledge the high crime rate in the black community. Black men are more likely to commit violent crimes and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with police. Uf you want to solve the problem you have to stop denying its root.

I really wish people would stop regurgitating this point. At best, it's far less clear cut than people think it is, and at worse, it's just outright false.

"A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI"s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

http://journals.plos.org...

I am going to reply to this 1) because you completely missed the point 2) because you have a #BLM in your sig.

The point was that Blacks commit more crime. This is not to say they commit more crime because they are black. It is just statistically true people committing the majority of crime happen to be black. It is logical to assume that they are going to have more interaction with the cops.

It was said that blacks committing crime is the root problem. We need to figure why crime is so high in the black community.

I hate this statistical Charlie foxtrot about who gets shot more by the police. Absolute idiocy, "I have it worse than you, therefore... BS BS BS"

Unjust shootings of Blacks account for <4% of black homicides. GTFOH! Figure out or even acknowledge the other 90%, which is black on black. I don't have a magic 8 ball but I am willing to bet there is a direct relationship between the 90% and 4%.

This has nothing to do with my point. My point was that the common argument that blacks commit more crime, thus more police interactions, thus more arrests and potential for abuse - and none of this is racial - is not true. The study bears this out.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 5:52:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 5:02:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:32:04 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/21/2016 5:19:49 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:58:28 AM, Dilara wrote:

They also have to acknowledge the high crime rate in the black community. Black men are more likely to commit violent crimes and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with police. Uf you want to solve the problem you have to stop denying its root.

I really wish people would stop regurgitating this point. At best, it's far less clear cut than people think it is, and at worse, it's just outright false.

"A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI"s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

http://journals.plos.org...

I am going to reply to this 1) because you completely missed the point 2) because you have a #BLM in your sig.

The point was that Blacks commit more crime. This is not to say they commit more crime because they are black. It is just statistically true people committing the majority of crime happen to be black. It is logical to assume that they are going to have more interaction with the cops.

It was said that blacks committing crime is the root problem. We need to figure why crime is so high in the black community.

I hate this statistical Charlie foxtrot about who gets shot more by the police. Absolute idiocy, "I have it worse than you, therefore... BS BS BS"

Unjust shootings of Blacks account for <4% of black homicides. GTFOH! Figure out or even acknowledge the other 90%, which is black on black. I don't have a magic 8 ball but I am willing to bet there is a direct relationship between the 90% and 4%.

This has nothing to do with my point. My point was that the common argument that blacks commit more crime, thus more police interactions, thus more arrests and potential for abuse - and none of this is racial - is not true. The study bears this out.

More crime =/= More police interaction... hahahaha absolute idiocy. Ok so then Police must be sexist too, seeing as 97% of the prison population is male.

" analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents"
Sooo high crime area, ok. Where blacks commit the majority of crime, ok.

Was this study applied to White rural settings? I can't wait to read this gem.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 5:55:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 5:02:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:32:04 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/21/2016 5:19:49 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:58:28 AM, Dilara wrote:

They also have to acknowledge the high crime rate in the black community. Black men are more likely to commit violent crimes and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with police. Uf you want to solve the problem you have to stop denying its root.

I really wish people would stop regurgitating this point. At best, it's far less clear cut than people think it is, and at worse, it's just outright false.

"A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI"s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

http://journals.plos.org...

I am going to reply to this 1) because you completely missed the point 2) because you have a #BLM in your sig.

The point was that Blacks commit more crime. This is not to say they commit more crime because they are black. It is just statistically true people committing the majority of crime happen to be black. It is logical to assume that they are going to have more interaction with the cops.

It was said that blacks committing crime is the root problem. We need to figure why crime is so high in the black community.

I hate this statistical Charlie foxtrot about who gets shot more by the police. Absolute idiocy, "I have it worse than you, therefore... BS BS BS"

Unjust shootings of Blacks account for <4% of black homicides. GTFOH! Figure out or even acknowledge the other 90%, which is black on black. I don't have a magic 8 ball but I am willing to bet there is a direct relationship between the 90% and 4%.

This has nothing to do with my point. My point was that the common argument that blacks commit more crime, thus more police interactions, thus more arrests and potential for abuse - and none of this is racial - is not true. The study bears this out.

Why is it not racial? There's a higher amount of crime within the black community, thus there will be more blacks being a victim of police brutality. There's some potential for abuse as you mentioned, but it's an unavoidable fact that blacks WILL suffer being victims of violence from the police more likely than other racial groups if they commit more crimes on average.
KendoRe2
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 6:07:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 4:39:01 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:12:21 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
I support putting BLM on a boat back to Africa. Hate it here? Go back home.

We are home.

Move. Solves all your problems. If you insist on living somewhere you hate, then that's your fault. Be miserable then. Otherwise do something about it and leave, but stop killing people.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 6:53:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 6:07:42 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:39:01 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:12:21 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
I support putting BLM on a boat back to Africa. Hate it here? Go back home.

We are home.

Move. Solves all your problems. If you insist on living somewhere you hate, then that's your fault. Be miserable then. Otherwise do something about it and leave, but stop killing people.

Why the fvck should I? We should just quit and run away instead of fixing the problem? Why don't Trump and all his supporters move? All they complain about is how America is going down the toilet. America does NOT belong to the white man . And we will continue to exercise our goddamn first amendment right to complain about it. If you don't like it, YOU MOVE
#BlackLivesMatter
KendoRe2
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 9:15:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 6:53:27 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/21/2016 6:07:42 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:39:01 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:12:21 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
I support putting BLM on a boat back to Africa. Hate it here? Go back home.

We are home.

Move. Solves all your problems. If you insist on living somewhere you hate, then that's your fault. Be miserable then. Otherwise do something about it and leave, but stop killing people.

Why the fvck should I? We should just quit and run away instead of fixing the problem? Why don't Trump and all his supporters move? All they complain about is how America is going down the toilet. America does NOT belong to the white man . And we will continue to exercise our goddamn first amendment right to complain about it. If you don't like it, YOU MOVE

You should be arrested. BLM is a terrorist group. Put this poster in jail and throw away the key.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 11:15:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 9:15:35 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 6:53:27 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/21/2016 6:07:42 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:39:01 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:12:21 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
I support putting BLM on a boat back to Africa. Hate it here? Go back home.

We are home.

Move. Solves all your problems. If you insist on living somewhere you hate, then that's your fault. Be miserable then. Otherwise do something about it and leave, but stop killing people.

Why the fvck should I? We should just quit and run away instead of fixing the problem? Why don't Trump and all his supporters move? All they complain about is how America is going down the toilet. America does NOT belong to the white man . And we will continue to exercise our goddamn first amendment right to complain about it. If you don't like it, YOU MOVE

You should be arrested. BLM is a terrorist group. Put this poster in jail and throw away the key.

Good post. What has the site become?
#BlackLivesMatter
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 1:30:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 6:07:42 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:39:01 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:12:21 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
I support putting BLM on a boat back to Africa. Hate it here? Go back home.

We are home.

Move. Solves all your problems. If you insist on living somewhere you hate, then that's your fault. Be miserable then. Otherwise do something about it and leave, but stop killing people.

He's a cop, lol.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 2:05:23 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 3:44:24 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Out of all the points listed, the echo chamber, and inability to know the enemy (Bernie incident) are the main reasons BLM won't achieve their goals.

The echo chamber is killing the left in general, and it's sad. And it's also hurting the right. Especially on topics like Islam and race, there is nobody on the right to have a much-needed come-to-Jesus discussion on these issues. Both are atrophying intellectually to some degree.

Lazy organization can be overlooked when we already have a lazy public, but not knowing the enemy reduces valuable support, and drastically reduces the odds of achieving social goals.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 2:13:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 4:23:20 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I actually fully support BLM's basic purported aim, which is to hold police accountable for misconduct. I support extensive grand jury reforms and heavier oversight.
I'm glad to see that you DO care about BLM and have given the movement considerable thought. I think sometimes, we who have experienced firsthand, the effects of systemic racism, dismiss logical observations of the movement by those who haven't witnessed or experienced it firsthand. Being in a family of mixed heritage, has my heart feeling divided at times. There is nothing more than I'd like to see, as both races to put aside differences and rise against injustice that permeates our lives with arbitrary treatment by those who are supposed to protect and serve.

The points you have made are valid, and I hope that anyone else who reads them, will take into consideration the aims of BLM, and begin to see that not everyone who criticizes the movement is opposed to their aims.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 3:52:03 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 5:19:49 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:58:28 AM, Dilara wrote:

They also have to acknowledge the high crime rate in the black community. Black men are more likely to commit violent crimes and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with police. If you want to solve the problem you have to stop denying its root.

I really wish people would stop regurgitating this point. At best, it's far less clear cut than people think it is, and at worse, it's just outright false.

"A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI"s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

http://journals.plos.org...

Black people commit more crime than white people per capita. https://ucr.fbi.gov... These numbers match up perfectly with the National crime victimization survey data, so they are a reflection of crime in America. Because they are more likely top commit crimes they are more likely to have violent altercations with police. How is thus not relevant?
Maybe unarmed black people are more likely to be shot by police because they are more likely to violently resist arrest.
This study shows that there is no racial bias in police shootings. http://www.nber.org...
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 3:57:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago


Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion. Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'. Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic. Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'

Yeah i don't know about this. This country never listens to logic and reason. Most people here believe the planet is 6000 years old and that a bearded baby moonwalked across the ocean or what have you. Furthermore the idea that every black lives matter protest turns into a riot is absolutely false. I'd say 90% of protest even the ones I've been to down here on Crenshaw Blvd have been absolutely peaceful.

Emotions are just the only way to speak to people. What's "I have a dream" but a big emotional plea?

But you have seen anger in the black community. Correct. We are mad as hell. And we're not supposed to be? Respectability politics is straight bull because we aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM. This movement started when the libertarian streak on the right, anti-authoritarian to the bone, was feverish with resentment towards oversteps by law enforcement. These were substantial natural allies, with access to white society at large and currency online. Speaking of online, the internet is another bastion of 'fvck the establishment', anti drug war rhetoric. But flash forward a few years, and these natural allies are lined up in steely-eyed opposition to BLM. What happened!?

I don't actually understand this. BLM actually has a ton of support. Just not from the right. You're absolutely right in that they should be natural allies but the right is composed of the sons and daughters of those who opposed the civil rights movement. Yes they hate the goverment but i guarantee you they hate us a lot more. I know i know, "republicans are racist" is an old card but look at Donald Trump and his followers.

But we have a lot of allies, within other racial communites and the gay community. I'm sure you know this but two of the founding members of Black lives matter are queer and BLM is very inclusive of gay and trans.
Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
By brushing off criticism, relying on borderline censorious (sometimes outright) tactics, and refusing to engage with opposing views honestly, BLM incited a visceral rejection among the suburbanite 'free thinker' demographic which is so central to these communities. This not only lost them the support of this group, it also lost them intellectual legitimacy. At this point, BLM is seen as cultish and unwilling to defend its points in open debate. The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

I've seen members of BLM of Fox news literally all the time. Would you like some links?

b. Know your audience.
You just said we shouldnt preach to the choir and now this? Why wouldn't we use big national stages like the Super Bowl or the grammys to bring awareness to our cause? If we only did it at the BET awards wouldn't that be preaching to the choir? I honestly don't understand.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.
please elaborate.

c. Know your enemy
The Bernie Sanders thing. What. The. Fvck. This is the first most stupid thing that I've ever seen in ploitics. To those who weren't allied by default, it sent a clear message: no matter how much you throw your support behind us, we will never really consider you allies. We will call you racist, no matter how much you support us. To those who already support BLM among the upper crust left, and don't have to (mostly these people are affluent and powerful and don't have skin in the game) this was a direct slap in the face.
Actually i agree. That was actually a very controversial move within the BLM community.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect. Stop using Michael Brown as a poster boy, he's terrible for that purpose. I will never understand why 'Michael Brown' is a more common battle cry than 'Tamir Rice'. Because when you compare a huge young man who assaulted a convenience store owner and stole on camera, and then is alleged to have rushed a cop, to a young boy who there is video footage of being shot in a ridiculously improper manner (basically murdered through gross incompetence), the rallying point should be crystal clear. Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel, he was a criminal who didn't deserve to be shot.

He is hardly the only person who's name we rally behind. But for every person there's also some victim blaming that happens. Tamir rice shouldn't have had a toy gun. John Crawford shouldn't have had a toy gun. Even though he was in an open carry state. Sean bell shouldnt't have been drunk. I bought up Philando castiles name on this site and a member called him a thug because he had minor traffic violations

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

Dude yet again per capita numbers are skewed when it's a fact that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police so of course we look more violent. Even if your numbers are correct, wouldnt you look into the other factors that lead to crime or do you believe dark skin makes you more prone to criminal acts?

black opeople do commit more crime but not because theyre black.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:00:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 4:07:34 PM, TBR wrote:
Literally that's all we ask for.

1. Catharsis over efficacy ('feels over reals').


Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion. Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'. Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic. Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'

Yeah i don't know about this. This country never listens to logic and reason. Most people here believe the planet is 6000 years old and that a bearded baby moonwalked across the ocean or what have you. Furthermore the idea that every black lives matter protest turns into a riot is absolutely false. I'd say 90% of protest even the ones I've been to down here on Crenshaw Blvd have been absolutely peaceful.

Emotions are just the only way to speak to people. What's "I have a dream" but a big emotional plea?

But you have seen anger in the black community. Correct. We are mad as hell. And we're not supposed to be? Respectability politics is straight bull because we aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM. This movement started when the libertarian streak on the right, anti-authoritarian to the bone, was feverish with resentment towards oversteps by law enforcement. These were substantial natural allies, with access to white society at large and currency online. Speaking of online, the internet is another bastion of 'fvck the establishment', anti drug war rhetoric. But flash forward a few years, and these natural allies are lined up in steely-eyed opposition to BLM. What happened!?

I don't actually understand this. BLM actually has a ton of support. Just not from the right. You're absolutely right in that they should be natural allies but the right is composed of the sons and daughters of those who opposed the civil rights movement. Yes they hate the goverment but i guarantee you they hate us a lot more. I know i know, "republicans are racist" is an old card but look at Donald Trump and his followers.

But we have a lot of allies, within other racial communites and the gay community. I'm sure you know this but two of the founding members of Black lives matter are queer and BLM is very inclusive of gay and trans.
Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
By brushing off criticism, relying on borderline censorious (sometimes outright) tactics, and refusing to engage with opposing views honestly, BLM incited a visceral rejection among the suburbanite 'free thinker' demographic which is so central to these communities. This not only lost them the support of this group, it also lost them intellectual legitimacy. At this point, BLM is seen as cultish and unwilling to defend its points in open debate. The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

I've seen members of BLM of Fox news literally all the time. Would you like some links?

b. Know your audience.
You just said we shouldnt preach to the choir and now this? Why wouldn't we use big national stages like the Super Bowl or the grammys to bring awareness to our cause? If we only did it at the BET awards wouldn't that be preaching to the choir? I honestly don't understand.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.
please elaborate.

c. Know your enemy
The Bernie Sanders thing. What. The. Fvck. This is the first most stupid thing that I've ever seen in ploitics. To those who weren't allied by default, it sent a clear message: no matter how much you throw your support behind us, we will never really consider you allies. We will call you racist, no matter how much you support us. To those who already support BLM among the upper crust left, and don't have to (mostly these people are affluent and powerful and don't have skin in the game) this was a direct slap in the face.
Actually i agree. That was actually a very controversial move within the BLM community.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect. Stop using Michael Brown as a poster boy, he's terrible for that purpose. I will never understand why 'Michael Brown' is a more common battle cry than 'Tamir Rice'. Because when you compare a huge young man who assaulted a convenience store owner and stole on camera, and then is alleged to have rushed a cop, to a young boy who there is video footage of being shot in a ridiculously improper manner (basically murdered through gross incompetence), the rallying point should be crystal clear. Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel, he was a criminal who didn't deserve to be shot.

He is hardly the only person who's name we rally behind. But for every person there's also some victim blaming that happens. Tamir rice shouldn't have had a toy gun. John Crawford shouldn't have had a toy gun. Even though he was in an open carry state. Sean bell shouldnt't have been drunk. I bought up Philando castiles name on this site and a member called him a thug because he had minor traffic violations

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

Dude yet again per capita numbers are skewed when it's a fact that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police so of course we look more violent. Even if your numbers are correct, wouldnt you look into the other factors that lead to crime or do you believe dark skin makes you more prone to criminal acts?

Thanks for hitting the points so others don't have to.

You don't like BLM either?