Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Black Lives Matter (My perspective)

Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I wanted to discuss the issue regarding the grassroots organization, Black Lives Matter. Unfortunately there are quite a few misunderstandings, some intentionally want to misunderstand the group, others sincerely misunderstand the group. For the record, the explanation on what Black Lives Matter means has been explained ad nauseum but 'll explain it here again.

In regards to Black Lives Matter, the concept behind the movement is to highlight some social injustices with respect to Black Americans. Although BLM speaks out on issues that effect not only black Americans, and other people of color, they have also spoken out in alleged unjust killing of Zachary Hammond, a white teenager who was killed by police. Ironically in that case, not one individual for "white lives matter" or "all lives matter" spoken out for Hammond or the many other "whites" or "latinos" who have been killed by police.

The common critique of BLM is usually from the far right or conservatives who critique the movement as "racist" or hate filled due to not only its slogan but the subsequent events following the creation of the movement. I concede, like any grassroots movement comparable to contemporary feminism, many movements have been infiltrated by miscreants with an agenda. Despite this fact, many critics do not want to see this fact and tend to use deflective tactics such as "what about black on black crime?" As their main criticism.

"What about black on black crime and why aren't black speaking out on the violence in the inner city?"

I cannot speak for other states but when a 1-year old was shot in the city of Compton there was a march towards Compton city hall to speak out on the gang violence and death of a small innocent child see following link:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com...

I happened to be there walking from Lueders Park towards the Compton city Hall and indeed many groups not only from my university but also gee, Black Lives Matter, along with Latino and some Asian organizations. With very few media outlets there was hardly a national acknowledgment regarding our little march and discussion to the people on gang violence and how it effects the black and Latino community. What I personally feel in this situation is that the media spins its own narrative to influence the public and hide what is really going on in the inner city. Do blacks speak out against inner city violence? Yes, very often and sometimes it takes the help of church leaders.

But what happens regarding inner city crime and violence is that it takes more than a march or a pastor at a pulpit to speak to the choir. To mitigate inner city violence requires a plethora of resources and other avenues of help. We are talking about an evolution of "Ghetto Psychopathology" which alas cannot be cured by a simple march by blacks or anyone.

In paraphrasing Jesse Williams' speech members who critique the outcry of injustice done upon them by using their own intra-community afflictions without the desire to help need not critique anything at all. I also find it highly offensive for anyone to critique anything without offering a solution to a problem. For example, many people who critique Black Lives Matter by pointing out the gang violence in Chicago but cannot offer a solution are those who have a racial bias because they do not want to acknowledge social injustices that happen to African-Americans. In essence, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. We speak out against injustice whether its being stopped and frisked or stopped by cops walking down the street. If we challenge authority who is illegally questioning us with no probable cause, we are starting trouble. If we remain quiet and become stagnant in action, we allow our own injustice.

After being profiled myself several times (even stopped once in my hospital scrubs walking back to work from Chase bank) I realize that there needs to be police reform and I believe Black Lives Matter is symptomatic of what has been happening for decades. Since the times of my grand-parents there have always been an evolution of mistrust between the black community and law enforcement. This has not happened today, nor during the time of Michael Brown, but the 30's 40's 50's and 60's. Unfortunately in the United States, law enforcement with respect to people of color has not had a great track record.

However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 3:56:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Great post. I agree with you completely. But I'm getting kind of frustrated (mostly bored) by repeating this to everyone.
President of DDO
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 4:09:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Do you consider KKK members whom used violence to be representative of the KKK even though the KKK might disavow, shun, or disagree with said actions done in the name of the KKK's ideals?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 5:36:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 4:09:41 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Do you consider KKK members whom used violence to be representative of the KKK even though the KKK might disavow, shun, or disagree with said actions done in the name of the KKK's ideals?

As far as I know, they are not opposed to violence. They have openly threatened violence (recently) in the name of traditionalism or defense, such as making sure traffic is clear and people are safe during recent heated racial protests. However they claim that they are no longer about white supremacy.

If the leaders and majority of members disavow violence, and do not engage in violence plus call to end it, then no I would not consider the minority to represent the entire KKK group.
President of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 5:40:29 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 3:56:16 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Great post. I agree with you completely. But I'm getting kind of frustrated (mostly bored) by repeating this to everyone.

Been saying this for months here. All I get in response is I'm blaming white people for everything and/or I hate white people.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 6:32:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
I wanted to discuss the issue regarding the grassroots organization, Black Lives Matter. Unfortunately there are quite a few misunderstandings, some intentionally want to misunderstand the group, others sincerely misunderstand the group. For the record, the explanation on what Black Lives Matter means has been explained ad nauseum but 'll explain it here again.

In regards to Black Lives Matter, the concept behind the movement is to highlight some social injustices with respect to Black Americans. Although BLM speaks out on issues that effect not only black Americans, and other people of color, they have also spoken out in alleged unjust killing of Zachary Hammond, a white teenager who was killed by police. Ironically in that case, not one individual for "white lives matter" or "all lives matter" spoken out for Hammond or the many other "whites" or "latinos" who have been killed by police.

The common critique of BLM is usually from the far right or conservatives who critique the movement as "racist" or hate filled due to not only its slogan but the subsequent events following the creation of the movement. I concede, like any grassroots movement comparable to contemporary feminism, many movements have been infiltrated by miscreants with an agenda. Despite this fact, many critics do not want to see this fact and tend to use deflective tactics such as "what about black on black crime?" As their main criticism.

"What about black on black crime and why aren't black speaking out on the violence in the inner city?"

I cannot speak for other states but when a 1-year old was shot in the city of Compton there was a march towards Compton city hall to speak out on the gang violence and death of a small innocent child see following link:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com...

I happened to be there walking from Lueders Park towards the Compton city Hall and indeed many groups not only from my university but also gee, Black Lives Matter, along with Latino and some Asian organizations. With very few media outlets there was hardly a national acknowledgment regarding our little march and discussion to the people on gang violence and how it effects the black and Latino community. What I personally feel in this situation is that the media spins its own narrative to influence the public and hide what is really going on in the inner city. Do blacks speak out against inner city violence? Yes, very often and sometimes it takes the help of church leaders.

But what happens regarding inner city crime and violence is that it takes more than a march or a pastor at a pulpit to speak to the choir. To mitigate inner city violence requires a plethora of resources and other avenues of help. We are talking about an evolution of "Ghetto Psychopathology" which alas cannot be cured by a simple march by blacks or anyone.

In paraphrasing Jesse Williams' speech members who critique the outcry of injustice done upon them by using their own intra-community afflictions without the desire to help need not critique anything at all. I also find it highly offensive for anyone to critique anything without offering a solution to a problem. For example, many people who critique Black Lives Matter by pointing out the gang violence in Chicago but cannot offer a solution are those who have a racial bias because they do not want to acknowledge social injustices that happen to African-Americans. In essence, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. We speak out against injustice whether its being stopped and frisked or stopped by cops walking down the street. If we challenge authority who is illegally questioning us with no probable cause, we are starting trouble. If we remain quiet and become stagnant in action, we allow our own injustice.

After being profiled myself several times (even stopped once in my hospital scrubs walking back to work from Chase bank) I realize that there needs to be police reform and I believe Black Lives Matter is symptomatic of what has been happening for decades. Since the times of my grand-parents there have always been an evolution of mistrust between the black community and law enforcement. This has not happened today, nor during the time of Michael Brown, but the 30's 40's 50's and 60's. Unfortunately in the United States, law enforcement with respect to people of color has not had a great track record.

However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

lol
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 10:44:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 3:56:16 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Great post. I agree with you completely. But I'm getting kind of frustrated (mostly bored) by repeating this to everyone.

Indeed. I think some people need to discern the miscreants from the actual people in the grassroots movement and that requires constant repetition.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 10:49:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 4:09:41 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Do you consider KKK members whom used violence to be representative of the KKK even though the KKK might disavow, shun, or disagree with said actions done in the name of the KKK's ideals?

What does the KKK have to do with the above? If your idea is to compare the two please stop. The KKK has had decades upon decades of history of killing African-Americans just because of their phenotype. If we are top entertain this thought BLM has a steep mountain to climb to even being compared to such a group...That is, if that is where you're leading to.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 10:51:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 5:40:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/19/2016 3:56:16 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Great post. I agree with you completely. But I'm getting kind of frustrated (mostly bored) by repeating this to everyone.

Been saying this for months here. All I get in response is I'm blaming white people for everything and/or I hate white people.

It is a deflection tactic.....Just like people talk about "black on black crime" you know, I was really thinking about such a concept because there really is no "black on black crime" there is just crime it just so happens that criminal killings happen among people of the same demographic. But the people who deflect are largely those who refuse to acknowledge social injustices that effect people of color. Usually, these people have their own narrative.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 10:52:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 6:32:38 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
I wanted to discuss the issue regarding the grassroots organization, Black Lives Matter. Unfortunately there are quite a few misunderstandings, some intentionally want to misunderstand the group, others sincerely misunderstand the group. For the record, the explanation on what Black Lives Matter means has been explained ad nauseum but 'll explain it here again.

In regards to Black Lives Matter, the concept behind the movement is to highlight some social injustices with respect to Black Americans. Although BLM speaks out on issues that effect not only black Americans, and other people of color, they have also spoken out in alleged unjust killing of Zachary Hammond, a white teenager who was killed by police. Ironically in that case, not one individual for "white lives matter" or "all lives matter" spoken out for Hammond or the many other "whites" or "latinos" who have been killed by police.

The common critique of BLM is usually from the far right or conservatives who critique the movement as "racist" or hate filled due to not only its slogan but the subsequent events following the creation of the movement. I concede, like any grassroots movement comparable to contemporary feminism, many movements have been infiltrated by miscreants with an agenda. Despite this fact, many critics do not want to see this fact and tend to use deflective tactics such as "what about black on black crime?" As their main criticism.

"What about black on black crime and why aren't black speaking out on the violence in the inner city?"

I cannot speak for other states but when a 1-year old was shot in the city of Compton there was a march towards Compton city hall to speak out on the gang violence and death of a small innocent child see following link:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com...

I happened to be there walking from Lueders Park towards the Compton city Hall and indeed many groups not only from my university but also gee, Black Lives Matter, along with Latino and some Asian organizations. With very few media outlets there was hardly a national acknowledgment regarding our little march and discussion to the people on gang violence and how it effects the black and Latino community. What I personally feel in this situation is that the media spins its own narrative to influence the public and hide what is really going on in the inner city. Do blacks speak out against inner city violence? Yes, very often and sometimes it takes the help of church leaders.

But what happens regarding inner city crime and violence is that it takes more than a march or a pastor at a pulpit to speak to the choir. To mitigate inner city violence requires a plethora of resources and other avenues of help. We are talking about an evolution of "Ghetto Psychopathology" which alas cannot be cured by a simple march by blacks or anyone.

In paraphrasing Jesse Williams' speech members who critique the outcry of injustice done upon them by using their own intra-community afflictions without the desire to help need not critique anything at all. I also find it highly offensive for anyone to critique anything without offering a solution to a problem. For example, many people who critique Black Lives Matter by pointing out the gang violence in Chicago but cannot offer a solution are those who have a racial bias because they do not want to acknowledge social injustices that happen to African-Americans. In essence, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. We speak out against injustice whether its being stopped and frisked or stopped by cops walking down the street. If we challenge authority who is illegally questioning us with no probable cause, we are starting trouble. If we remain quiet and become stagnant in action, we allow our own injustice.

After being profiled myself several times (even stopped once in my hospital scrubs walking back to work from Chase bank) I realize that there needs to be police reform and I believe Black Lives Matter is symptomatic of what has been happening for decades. Since the times of my grand-parents there have always been an evolution of mistrust between the black community and law enforcement. This has not happened today, nor during the time of Michael Brown, but the 30's 40's 50's and 60's. Unfortunately in the United States, law enforcement with respect to people of color has not had a great track record.

However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

lol

Glad to see your intellectual response....

#SilenceisGolden
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 12:52:36 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 10:51:35 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/19/2016 5:40:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/19/2016 3:56:16 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Great post. I agree with you completely. But I'm getting kind of frustrated (mostly bored) by repeating this to everyone.

Been saying this for months here. All I get in response is I'm blaming white people for everything and/or I hate white people.

It is a deflection tactic.....Just like people talk about "black on black crime" you know, I was really thinking about such a concept because there really is no "black on black crime" there is just crime it just so happens that criminal killings happen among people of the same demographic. But the people who deflect are largely those who refuse to acknowledge social injustices that effect people of color. Usually, these people have their own narrative.

Of course there's also white on white crime (and asian on asian, etc). And of course it'd be absolutely insane for me to try to dismiss the import of a case where a racist black guy killing a white person by saying "Well, what about white on white crime? Whites kill each other far more than blacks kill whites"

Yet, somehow, that's a standard move here in discussions like this.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 1:23:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.
Maybe. Though excluding [troublesome members x] is a copout.

But I agree that complaining about BLM being racist or whatever is pointless on many, many levels (whether that is the case or not aside.)
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 11:05:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 10:49:22 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/19/2016 4:09:41 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Do you consider KKK members whom used violence to be representative of the KKK even though the KKK might disavow, shun, or disagree with said actions done in the name of the KKK's ideals?

What does the KKK have to do with the above? If your idea is to compare the two please stop. The KKK has had decades upon decades of history of killing African-Americans just because of their phenotype.

And BLM has a quasi history of killing cops in less than a few years of its inception. But, of course, you have already engineered that escape hatch: they were not True BLM supporters if they engage in violence.

If we are top entertain this thought BLM has a steep mountain to climb to even being compared to such a group...That is, if that is where you're leading to.

I noticed you didn't actually answer the question, and deflected the question as you would prefer it answered.

As a reminder: "Do you consider KKK members whom used violence to be representative of the KKK even though the KKK might disavow, shun, or disagree with said actions done in the name of the KKK's ideals?".
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 11:54:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Good post, though it could have done have done without the no true scotsman at the end.

Really, the reason I went off BLM is because of what they became. So many of them are extremsits now, entire marches are shouting "we want dead cops" in response to police brutality, instead of calling out the individual ones responsible.

Their original intentions seemed virtuous, but like any political movement it seems nowadays, the extremist bracnhes are the ones controlling the conversation.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 1:00:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
I wanted to discuss the issue regarding the grassroots organization, Black Lives Matter. Unfortunately there are quite a few misunderstandings, some intentionally want to misunderstand the group, others sincerely misunderstand the group.

You are already off to a bad start by characterizing those who disagree with you as "misunderstanding" the group. That's the kind of thing that automatically makes people dislike you, and look down on you, while dismissing what you have to say. The fact that you have a perspective that is inconsistent with what other people think does not mean that they are "misunderstanding" anything. It means that you have a different perspective (read:opinion) than someone else. Your opinion is not a fact.

For the record, the explanation on what Black Lives Matter means has been explained ad nauseum but 'll explain it here again.

This, again, consistent with the above, is the kind of thing that is going to make people regard you with a level of contempt that will prevent them from ever being open to your "perspective."

In regards to Black Lives Matter, the concept behind the movement is to highlight some social injustices with respect to Black Americans. Although BLM speaks out on issues that effect not only black Americans, and other people of color, they have also spoken out in alleged unjust killing of Zachary Hammond, a white teenager who was killed by police. Ironically in that case, not one individual for "white lives matter" or "all lives matter" spoken out for Hammond or the many other "whites" or "latinos" who have been killed by police.

The common critique of BLM is usually from the far right or conservatives who critique the movement as "racist" or hate filled due to not only its slogan but the subsequent events following the creation of the movement.

Do you know what the word "critique" means? It means a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory. What you're talking about isn't really a critique. It's a criticism. Criticism does not mean the same thing as "critique."

That is also a shallow characterization of why many people object to BLM. The reasons, to use your words, that people take issue with them have been outlined "ad nauseum." And yet here you're not even scratching the surface.

I concede, like any grassroots movement comparable to contemporary feminism, many movements have been infiltrated by miscreants with an agenda. Despite this fact, many critics do not want to see this fact and tend to use deflective tactics such as "what about black on black crime?" As their main criticism.

To the extent that you are now talking about "criticism" you are now using language correctly, which is good. However, you're off base in your characterization of why people take issue with BLM. It's not nearly as simple as you're outlining.

The issue, simply, is what must be done to remediate hood-culture; or black culture, or whatever you want to call it. (Try to spare me the reaction of calling me a racist. I don't care.)

The rampant violence in black communities is why cops are more likely to shoot black men in particular than anyone who belongs to any other racial group. Cops feel more threatened in the hood than they do elsewhere. That's not racist, either. It's reality. That problem's existence is the reason why black men get shot more by the cops.

I also find it highly offensive for anyone to critique anything without offering a solution to a problem.

If you are offended by the lack of "a solution" to the problem of cops shooting black men more than other people, then you must not be paying attention. The solution is to reduce black-on-black violence. Without reducing black on black violence, there will never be a reduction in how black communities are policed.

For example, many people who critique Black Lives Matter by pointing out the gang violence in Chicago but cannot offer a solution are those who have a racial bias because they do not want to acknowledge social injustices that happen to African-Americans.

This is a non-sequitur. Whether or not there have been "injustices" that happen to blacks, which I do not concede because the point is more complicated than that, has no bearing on whether the means and methods BLM uses to advance their narrative of social justice is an appropriate one. The issue with BLM, which you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, has far less to do with their message than with their means of conveying that message.

In essence, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. We speak out against injustice whether its being stopped and frisked or stopped by cops walking down the street. If we challenge authority who is illegally questioning us with no probable cause, we are starting trouble. If we remain quiet and become stagnant in action, we allow our own injustice.

This is a futile effort at self victimization which, frankly, has no currency with me. Build your community and clean your own house before you complain about the neighbors.

Every problem you are complaining about emanates from the stereotypes that exist as a result of black on black violence or hood culture. Whether the stereotype is fair or not isn't a worthwhile question because it doesn't get you anywhere (hint: even if you think it's unfair, that's still what people think, so you have to change it).

The primary injustice confronting the black community is of its own making, in any case, and, all the other complaints, generally, result from what blacks cause themselves. For example, see the south side of Chicago.

After being profiled myself several times (even stopped once in my hospital scrubs walking back to work from Chase bank) I realize that there needs to be police reform and I believe Black Lives Matter is symptomatic of what has been happening for decades.

It's never going to happen, until the reason for the why the profiling happens changes. So that you are aware, BLM has done nothing to improve race relations between blacks and the police, either. The cops have never been more on edge, which means, simply, that they are more likely to react than think. That puts more black lives at risk, due to BLM.

I see this as plain as day, yet BLM is blind to the reality of their actions. They are actively making things worse, and likely will continue to do so.

So that you know... I'm not saying here that I think this state of affairs is "good" or even "acceptable." I am not endorsing collective guilt (nor would I, though I know as well as anyone with a brain that that's how society works with non-white people). I'm not endorsing stereotypes, and I'm not saying I approve of HOW we got where we are. I'm telling you what reality is, because no on is willing to speak on it.

Every time anyone does speak on it, they are lambasted--namely by BLM and company--as a "racist," meaning that we're in this self-perpetuating cycle of rhetorical beau geste where ostensibly morally righteous people decry the "injustices" inflicted on blacks by society. We've been here before, to no effect. We're now here again, and nothing will change because we can't begin from a starting point consistent with reality.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 1:10:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:

And before you respond, since you can't view my profile because my post content broke the site, let me just tell you the following:

We agree on 80% of the issues. The only things we disagree about relate to the electoral college (which you support and I do not), the EU (which you oppose and I do not), Free trade and the flat tax (which you support and I do not), homeschooling (which you support and I do not), and term limits (which you support and I do not).

So realize that politically, we're not that far apart and we agree on vastly more than we disagree.
Tsar of DDO
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 2:21:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 1:10:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:

And before you respond, since you can't view my profile because my post content broke the site, let me just tell you the following:

We agree on 80% of the issues. The only things we disagree about relate to the electoral college (which you support and I do not), the EU (which you oppose and I do not), Free trade and the flat tax (which you support and I do not), homeschooling (which you support and I do not), and term limits (which you support and I do not).

So realize that politically, we're not that far apart and we agree on vastly more than we disagree.

You wrote this at 8:20? Go to sleep YYW. It's too damn early for this.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:45:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 12:52:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/19/2016 10:51:35 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/19/2016 5:40:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/19/2016 3:56:16 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Great post. I agree with you completely. But I'm getting kind of frustrated (mostly bored) by repeating this to everyone.

Been saying this for months here. All I get in response is I'm blaming white people for everything and/or I hate white people.

It is a deflection tactic.....Just like people talk about "black on black crime" you know, I was really thinking about such a concept because there really is no "black on black crime" there is just crime it just so happens that criminal killings happen among people of the same demographic. But the people who deflect are largely those who refuse to acknowledge social injustices that effect people of color. Usually, these people have their own narrative.

Of course there's also white on white crime (and asian on asian, etc). And of course it'd be absolutely insane for me to try to dismiss the import of a case where a racist black guy killing a white person by saying "Well, what about white on white crime? Whites kill each other far more than blacks kill whites"

Yet, somehow, that's a standard move here in discussions like this.

Well the reason why some defer to using "white on white" crime is because quite often people like to drown out the cry from minorities regarding injustice in their community. Quite often, discussions such as these people often tend to move goal posts foir example:

"What about white on white crime, since more whites kill each other than any group?"

"Well, there are more whites. But what about black on black crime?"

"Black on black crime happens in impoverished neighborhoods due to people being in impoverished conditions with limited resources."

"That's an excuse. You people need to change your situation."

"What about whites needing to change their situation and behave accordingly? Stop shooting up schools...."

"Only a handful of whites shoot up schools, but blacks kill each other daily, look at Chicago."

As you can see in the about hypothetical dialogue how one person can move the goal post, but neither can come to a common ground because both are always deflecting and making excuses. That is where discussions like this lead to. In my experience, some whites do not or refuse to acknowledge that there is some unfairness in the minority community. As one who grew up in one, I can confirm that there is this preconceived notion by law enforcement that everyone regardless of how you dress (even with a business suit) is a suspect. The problem with dialogue when it comes to race relations is the other persons unwillingness to listen.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:57:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 1:23:56 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.
Maybe. Though excluding [troublesome members x] is a copout.

But I agree that complaining about BLM being racist or whatever is pointless on many, many levels (whether that is the case or not aside.)

Why would it be a copout?

BLM is arguing about injustice when it comes to policing and it literally is calling for police reform. I find it counter-productive for any movement calling for justice if it condones unjust violence. Therefore, the miscreants among any comparable movement must be isolated as such.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 9:11:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 11:05:04 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 7/19/2016 10:49:22 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/19/2016 4:09:41 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.

Do you consider KKK members whom used violence to be representative of the KKK even though the KKK might disavow, shun, or disagree with said actions done in the name of the KKK's ideals?

What does the KKK have to do with the above? If your idea is to compare the two please stop. The KKK has had decades upon decades of history of killing African-Americans just because of their phenotype.

And BLM has a quasi history of killing cops in less than a few years of its inception. But, of course, you have already engineered that escape hatch: they were not True BLM supporters if they engage in violence.

If we are top entertain this thought BLM has a steep mountain to climb to even being compared to such a group...That is, if that is where you're leading to.


I noticed you didn't actually answer the question, and deflected the question as you would prefer it answered.

As a reminder: "Do you consider KKK members whom used violence to be representative of the KKK even though the KKK might disavow, shun, or disagree with said actions done in the name of the KKK's ideals?".

Since I'm not well skilled in the quote feature in the following I will quote you:

"And BLM has a quasi history of killing cops in less than a few years of its inception. But, of course, you have already engineered that escape hatch: they were not True BLM supporters if they engage in violence."

Specifically referring to the most recent events we know of the following of the two shooters:

1) Gavin Eugene Long belonged to sovereign citizen movement. "Online, accounts that appear to belong to Long denounced police violence against African-Americans, hawked self-published books on health and spirituality and promoted the virtues of life as an alpha male."

See: http://www.npr.org...

In addition, best conservatives and far right talking heads love to immediately blame BLM, Long stated the following:

"However, in a video Long posted to his YouTube page on July 8, he loudly and repeatedly stated he had no affiliation to any group or agenda other than his own.

"I"m not affiliated with the black business school" any of my friends, any of my associations, those are just associations, I"m not affiliated with it. Yeah, I was also a Nation of Islam member. I"m not affiliated with it," Long said. "I thought my own thoughts, I made my own decisions. I"m the one."

See:http://usuncut.com...

2) Micah Xavier Johnson, 25, of Mesquite, Texas, a military veteran who'd served in Afghanistan was not a part of black lives matter. According to the dailybeast.com "Dallas chief of police David Brown said Friday morning that the gunman, who has was unaffiliated with any group, said he wanted to kill white police officers. Before this was known, fingers were pointed in all directions over who was to blame for the massacre."

Also....

According to those that were there, it was said that "the peaceful protesters downtown say they were wrongly blamed for the massacre."

See: http://www.thedailybeast.com...

According to the Washington Post:

"At this time, there appears to have been one gunman with no known links to or inspiration from any international terrorist organization," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Friday afternoon."

Also......

"For hours after the assault, police were locked in a standoff with Johnson after he was cornered on the second floor of a building downtown. Police exchanged gunfire with him and negotiated with him, but those discussions broke down, Brown said.

In those conversations, Brown said Johnson told police that "he was upset about Black Lives Matter" and angered by the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota that dominated national news this week after officers in both places fatally shot black men. Johnson also said he was not involved with any groups and acted alone, Brown said."

See: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

"I noticed you didn't actually answer the question, and deflected the question as you would prefer it answered."

I did answer it. Perhaps not the way you wanted me to but I answered it.....I think you need to try again in linking BLM to police killings. Before you even bring up Ismaaiyl Brinsley who shot and killed those two cops, under that investigation there was no link to BLM in that case so I want concrete evidence from you, not from some blog site or right wing conservative site but from a reputable source on how can BLM be associated with the killings of police officers.
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 9:18:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Re: "black on black crime"

http://www.debate.org...

@25 second for the video.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 9:21:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Faustianjustice said:

"As a reminder: "Do you consider KKK members whom used violence to be representative of the KKK even though the KKK might disavow, shun, or disagree with said actions done in the name of the KKK's ideals?".

Answer: I cannot answer a question without considering the history of the KKK given their violent rhetoric against people of color. I cannot accept the KKK disavowing any violent acts by their members against persons of color given their bloody bhistory of hanging black men and women from trees since the time of my grand-parents and their parents and so forth. Even if the KKK denounces violence it is only a smoke screen to not attract law enforcement attention.

I submit the following based on the above question:

"The Traditionalist American Knights of the KKK"a Missouri-based branch of the American white supremacist group"have started handing out fliers around St. Louis County threatening to use "lethal force" against demonstrators if protests become violent.

"You have awakened a sleeping giant," one of the fliers reads. "The good people of St. Louis County of all races, colors and creeds will not tolerate your threats of violence against our police officers, their families and our communities."

Sounds good right? This branch of the KKK being for all people of different races, colors and creeds, right?

The article continues.......

"It"s hardly a shock that a branch of the KKK, a group that was founded on the principles of violence and racism, would seize upon such a racially charged moment to further its agenda. However, back in August, Ancona spoke out against a different KKK group, the South Carolina-based New Knights Empire, for hailing Darren Wilson as a hero and throwing a fundraiser in Missouri on behalf of the cop mere weeks after he shot and killed Michael Brown."

The article continues to highlight that this brand of the KKK is trying to be more inclusive with recruiting people of color. But alas, given the KKK's history even if one member kills someone and the entire groups disavows those actions I would still believe the KKK is a violent group given their history as a whole.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 9:30:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 9:18:57 PM, lamerde wrote:
Re: "black on black crime"

http://www.debate.org...

@25 second for the video.


The percentages aren't that similar. 93% for black-on-black vs the 84% for white-on-white. It's even worse if one takes per-capita rates into account. Blacks are more likely to kill each other than whites are, and they're more likely to kill in general.

Dunno if that can be explained by encounter rate, though. So it could just be a general murder problem.

Though I will agree that constantly bringing up black-on-black crime, where it's not relevant, is very stupid.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 9:41:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 8:57:37 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/20/2016 1:23:56 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.
Maybe. Though excluding [troublesome members x] is a copout.

But I agree that complaining about BLM being racist or whatever is pointless on many, many levels (whether that is the case or not aside.)

Why would it be a copout?
It's just a form of the No-True Scotsman. Just gives detractors more to latch onto. It's like saying the WBC can't really be Christian since they don't love their neighbors.

Realistically, any group with troublesome minorities would only disavow their behavior and leave it at that. Trying to re-define group membership so as to exclude anyone bad for PR is just dumb. Being apologetic with one's enemies = defeatism.

BLM is arguing about injustice when it comes to policing and it literally is calling for police reform. I find it counter-productive for any movement calling for justice if it condones unjust violence. Therefore, the miscreants among any comparable movement must be isolated as such.
I agree as far not condoning violence is concerned. Re-defining membership - particularly in a loosely organized and largely informal group - is a bad idea either way.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:08:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 1:00:44 PM, YYW wrote:

"You are already off to a bad start by characterizing those who disagree with you as "misunderstanding" the group. That's the kind of thing that automatically makes people dislike you, and look down on you, while dismissing what you have to say. The fact that you have a perspective that is inconsistent with what other people think does not mean that they are "misunderstanding" anything. It means that you have a different perspective (read:opinion) than someone else. Your opinion is not a fact."

My opinion is not objective truth of course, but you'll find my opinion no different than any members of BLM. It is necessary to give an accurate understanding of BLM because I am active in this movement at my university. My opinion that is "inconsistent" with other people has to do with the "other people being of a different demographic than me."

"This, again, consistent with the above, is the kind of thing that is going to make people regard you with a level of contempt that will prevent them from ever being open to your "perspective."

If they refuse to listen to my perspective that is their choice. I'm not here to gain validation by any means.

"Do you know what the word "critique" means? It means a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory. What you're talking about isn't really a critique. It's a criticism. Criticism does not mean the same thing as "critique."

That is also a shallow characterization of why many people object to BLM. The reasons, to use your words, that people take issue with them have been outlined "ad nauseum." And yet here you're not even scratching the surface."

I'm a graduate student of Neuropsychology, so I'm curious, are you also a graduate student as well and if so, is your grad degree in English? I'm not concerned with grammar nazis in this discussion considering that you are fully aware of my comments. Also, the reason I mention "ad nauseum" is because of the repetition made by myself and other memebers to define what BLM stands for.

"To the extent that you are now talking about "criticism" you are now using language correctly, which is good."

See above.

"The issue, simply, is what must be done to remediate hood-culture; or black culture, or whatever you want to call it. (Try to spare me the reaction of calling me a racist. I don't care.)"

You have yet to make a racist comment so yes I'll spare you. But let me ask what is "hood culture" and what is black culture?" When you define both then we can commence into the discussion on this particular matter.

"The rampant violence in black communities is why cops are more likely to shoot black men in particular than anyone who belongs to any other racial group. Cops feel more threatened in the hood than they do elsewhere. That's not racist, either. It's reality. That problem's existence is the reason why black men get shot more by the cops."

So because violence happens in the inner city this justifies the killings of unarmed men especially the one in recent who complied with the officer? Or what about the black man who was shot in the back and a weapon planted on him by the cop? I understand being uneasy in the inner city especially gang-infested neighborhoods but none of that justifies killing unarmed men.

"The solution is to reduce black-on-black violence. Without reducing black on black violence, there will never be a reduction in how black communities are policed."

For the record there is no such thing as black on black violence just as there is no such thing as reverse racism, there is violence and then there is racism. Blacks do not kill other blacks because they're black, they kill because of the criminal nature in certain areas and because of the overwhelming nature of gangs. The solution at least in part, is for police to actually get involved with the people that means getting involved with the gang members. This uneasy alliance can actually help because there can be an establishment of borders. The creation of resources, jobs, schools etc are all necessary to mitigate the violence.

"This is a non-sequitur. Whether or not there have been "injustices" that happen to blacks, which I do not concede because the point is more complicated than that, has no bearing on whether the means and methods BLM uses to advance their narrative of social justice is an appropriate one. The issue with BLM, which you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, has far less to do with their message than with their means of conveying that message."

Your concern is less abaout injustice and more about "blacks staying in their lane." I personally do not see you as someone concerned, you're more so wanting blacks to stay in their lane because so far you've offered nothing less short of the following:

"Build your community and clean your own house before you complain about the neighbors."

So me as a taxpaying black man, if I happen to be unjustly accosted by cops I should shut up and worry about so-called "black on black crime" is that right?

I think the day that you look at the psychopathology and history of law enforcement and the black community I think you'll realize why there is a growing mistrust. This has nothing to do with what is happening now, but what has been developing.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:10:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 9:41:34 PM, someloser wrote:
At 7/20/2016 8:57:37 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 7/20/2016 1:23:56 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/19/2016 11:05:18 AM, Hiu wrote:
However let me say, do I condone violence, or racism, or anti-police rhetoric in the name of BLM? No. But I believe anyone that does in the name of BLM isn't really a part of the movement anyway.
Maybe. Though excluding [troublesome members x] is a copout.

But I agree that complaining about BLM being racist or whatever is pointless on many, many levels (whether that is the case or not aside.)

Why would it be a copout?
It's just a form of the No-True Scotsman. Just gives detractors more to latch onto. It's like saying the WBC can't really be Christian since they don't love their neighbors.

Realistically, any group with troublesome minorities would only disavow their behavior and leave it at that. Trying to re-define group membership so as to exclude anyone bad for PR is just dumb. Being apologetic with one's enemies = defeatism.

BLM is arguing about injustice when it comes to policing and it literally is calling for police reform. I find it counter-productive for any movement calling for justice if it condones unjust violence. Therefore, the miscreants among any comparable movement must be isolated as such.
I agree as far not condoning violence is concerned. Re-defining membership - particularly in a loosely organized and largely informal group - is a bad idea either way.

I see where you're going, but BLM has disavowed people among their ranks who act violently so I don't understand how else you'd want them to respond? What a press conference suit you?
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:18:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:10:32 PM, Hiu wrote:
I see where you're going, but BLM has disavowed people among their ranks who act violently so I don't understand how else you'd want them to respond? What a press conference suit you?
They shouldn't - largely because I can't see how they could - do anything. Simply state they oppose violence when asked and not descend into moderatism.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:50:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 11:54:44 AM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
Good post, though it could have done have done without the no true scotsman at the end.

Really, the reason I went off BLM is because of what they became. So many of them are extremsits now, entire marches are shouting "we want dead cops" in response to police brutality, instead of calling out the individual ones responsible.

Their original intentions seemed virtuous, but like any political movement it seems nowadays, the extremist bracnhes are the ones controlling the conversation.

Thanks! I think with any movement grassroots other otherwise you'll have members with extremist views which may hamper the true intent of the movement. Much like religion, divisions occur due to different interpretations of what the TRUE cause ought to be. I guess I can only speak for the experiences here at my university regarding what Black Lives Matter stand for. I must admit there are some frustrating individuals with stupid ideas. For example holding up traffic is a stupid idea. Impeding where people should go is too dangerous andit only frustrates other people.

At least with us, the movement out here is more about coordination with police as well as the community. The freedom to assemble is important and it must be conducted respectfully.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:53:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:18:31 PM, someloser wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:10:32 PM, Hiu wrote:
I see where you're going, but BLM has disavowed people among their ranks who act violently so I don't understand how else you'd want them to respond? What a press conference suit you?
They shouldn't - largely because I can't see how they could - do anything. Simply state they oppose violence when asked and not descend into moderatism.

KING: Black Lives Matter opposes police brutality, not police

"Being bothered by police brutality, speaking out against it and demanding that our nation live up to its creed of "liberty and justice for all," does not mean you hate police officers. It does not mean you want to see them massacred by assault rifles in the middle of the street."

Also it adds later in the article:

"Through the start of the summer, the clear majority of American police officers who were shot and killed were shot and killed by angry white men. Conservative outrage was nonexistent because it appears that conservatives are primarily outraged about police being killed when black people kill them."

http://www.nydailynews.com...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 11:05:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:18:31 PM, someloser wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:10:32 PM, Hiu wrote:
I see where you're going, but BLM has disavowed people among their ranks who act violently so I don't understand how else you'd want them to respond? What a press conference suit you?
They shouldn't - largely because I can't see how they could - do anything. Simply state they oppose violence when asked and not descend into moderatism.

What do you mean by moderatism?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!