The Problem with Black Lives Matter

OB1Shinobi wrote: This was a pretty cool video by a channel im beginning to love. Its called “Can Black Lives Matter and Law Enforcement Co-exist?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6rDvbQ-mz4&t=217s

Great video. And I've seen other videos before from this same channel. A lot of good stuff.


When they invoked MLK I think he does represent a lot of people who feel the same way and I think this is often why many people don't understand the whole BLM mindset. They are looking through a lens of how things "should be" rather than seeing how things are. And they don't really have to see how things are and no one can make them. So when it comes to the way others should react they can invoke MLK but when it comes to their own conscious or unconscious bias, this same guy starts talking about crime statistics.

But wait! I don't remember any statistics in MLK's dream. It was all content of character. The only reason to bring up crime stats is to justify prejudicial treatment of minorities. If you're going to invoke MLK then you should be acting like those statistics do not exist and whoever you are stopping is equally innocent until proven guilty. Isn't justice supposed to be blind for the sake of fairness and equality? But some of the same people who claim not to see color, often see color when it is convenient to do so; or when they get scared as if being scared makes it okay.

It is that same element of fear that makes a police officer dangerous to anyone (of any race/gender/ethnicity) they are stopping and/or chasing. However, if an officer is predisposed to fear of certain types of people this may not show up on a test he has to take in order to wear a badge. And as far as statistics, there are statistics too which tells us what happens to blacks four times more often. And it isn't simply about "this cop is a racist" but rather how much an officer is influenced by racism itself (talking about the whole construct and its support by society). How much is that cop aware of crime statistics? How much does that officer equate black people with poverty and the desperate behaviors poverty can produce? How many black stereotypes has this officer heard and is subconsciously influenced by? How many jokes about black people has this officer heard and chuckled if not laughed at? How much does an officer understand that the thug persona is often a mask used to help young black men survive and cope with their own fear?

It's not simply about what color you but how much you are affected by racial issues and how much you understand the people you are policing whether they are White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian.

That's why it makes sense that the police should come from the communities they are policing. No, that wouldn't fix everything. But at least it would be better. I don't want to be policed by guys who have never had an extended conversation with a black person. Has he lived MLK's dream in his personal life? If so, then we should be able to tell from his social media. There should be at least one black person who can vouch for him or her. That, I would be okay with. But if someone from that person's personal life could file a report and say they overheard something then no, I would feel safer if that officer was moved to a white community. It's not necessarily about a person's color. It's about their experiences and how they contribute to their implicit and explicit biases.

And as much as we can all talk about MLK and his dream there are still black communities and white communities and public schools funded by the tax dollars of the communities they're in. So I hear that... and it's good, but we also have to consider where we currently are as a society so that we can figure out how to get to where we want to be. Because we are not there yet. This is not the mountain top.

Cops fear criminals and criminals fear cops. They're all armed to the teeth, further justifying that fear. It has got nothing to do with race, statistical discrepancies are not a product of outright racism, but a byproduct of historical racism.

Cops go after criminals. Criminals are likely from a poor or cop-hating background. People are poor or hate law enforcement because of injustices. Historically, major injustices were committed in perfect legality against large groups of people over multiple generations, often on the basis of their skin colour, national origin.

States/cities could easily create a new class of cop, unarmed, dressed in high visibility gear, and create a new class of crime to legally protect these special officers and severely punish anyone who harms them. And perhaps stop treating the law like it's god's most sacred creation on earth.

ren wrote: Cops fear criminals and criminals fear cops. They're all armed to the teeth, further justifying that fear. It has got nothing to do with race, statistical discrepancies are not a product of outright racism, but a byproduct of historical racism.

Cops go after criminals. Criminals are likely from a poor or cop-hating background. People are poor or hate law enforcement because of injustices. Historically, major injustices were committed in perfect legality against large groups of people over multiple generations, often on the basis of their skin colour, national origin.

States/cities could easily create a new class of cop, unarmed, dressed in high visibility gear, and create a new class of crime to legally protect these special officers and severely punish anyone who harms them. And perhaps stop treating the law like it's god's most sacred creation on earth.

Saying it has nothing to do with race I think is an assumption that cannot fairly be made. Recent history has shown that it's more than just fear. I know there are racist people because I know people with racists in their families. If some of them are cops then it is what it is. They can't suddenly put racism on the shelf when they put that uniform on and you only have to listen to the Mark Fuhrman tapes to know how much racism intertwines with law enforcement. This idea that people don't bring themselves, their personality, their habits (good or bad), etc. into their jobs... just doesn't hold water. Police officers are people. And some people are racist just like some people are obese. Yes, it is true.

You may not see it because you can't see racism like you can see obesity. Racism is more like an STD. If you aren't in a position to have sexual relations with someone who's infected you may not know they have an STD and even then, you may not know unless they disclose it to you. And do they tell everyone? No. They'll tell you if they trust you or if they feel like you need to know. That's how racism is. It's not something everyone is proud of because everyone knows that society views it as ignorant and backwards thinking. This is where class warfare comes in because a lot of people don't want their culture being dictated by socially conscious, politically correct, "elites". So yes, they would like to be openly racist but they know they can't. They're not stupid. Saying something racist in public is like a crime in and of itself; a social crime. Therefore, these "criminals" simply say these things among themselves. Not every crime is done in broad daylight. Even if a drug deal is done in broad daylight its usually a very private sort of transaction. Again... that's how racism is. So if you expect every racist to show you their card, they're just not gonna.

That said, it is true that criminals are armed to the teeth. This is why our gun laws don't make sense (to me). Because the more you arm, the more everyone else is going to arm up too. Criminals aren't going to shoot you with arrows when they know you have muskets. Criminals are not going to carry muskets when they know you have a 9 mm. The more deadly the weapon you allow people on one side to have the more people on the other side will upgrade to compete. But neither side MAKES the weapons. They just buy them and use them. Which means there is one party that always benefits from everyone's desire to upgrade. The same thing happens among nations. Nations feel like they have to acquire more missiles and bombs because of the missiles and bombs another nation has. And there is always one party that benefits; the party that makes the weapons and the people who are invested in those companies. And they are the ones who lobby against gun laws and they are the ones who don't make weapons with better security to prevent them falling into the wrong hands. Why? Because they don't want to tip the balance of power in favor of the criminals OR the non-criminals. Because then people would feel safer and therefore buy less guns.

Last but not least, I love your idea about different kinds of police officers in different uniforms. I think this is a very smart (part of the) solution. A soldier is trained to kill. So when you send in soldiers to be police you're running a risk that they will fall back on their soldier training. Then you have SWAT. They don't get sent in on domestic violence calls either. When a call is dispatched there should be a threat level associated with it. I would suggest having dedicated teams for non-violent offenses armed with non-lethal weapons; stun guns, etc. Most importantly, I would give them kevlar guards and an arm mounted shield.

You could have other teams and do something even like the combo soldiers where one had the shield and the other a sword or spear. This way you could send in the person with the shield out in front, to block and talk, while the second officer's job is to protect the first, shooting back if necessary. I think being armed with shields and non-lethals is perfectly fine and wouldn't force non-violent criminals to carry more violent or deadly weapons. A lot of these criminals would give up peacefully if they didn't fear for their lives.

I know there are already police officers who specialize in homicide or theft. I think it would be a good idea to create new specialties. And allow weapon manufacturers to create the next generation of non-lethal solutions for a new generation of non-lethal cops. Otherwise, being armed to the teeth is just going to remain normal and criminals don't use their weapons only on cops. The same way cops currently view every suspect as a deadly threat, criminals view everyone that way because everyone could have the same deadly weapon that they're carrying. So the freedom to be armed to the teeth isn't making us safer.

I love your idea about different kinds of police officers in different uniforms.

We introduced a role for police officers that specialises in helping you find good latte places. It seems to be going well.




I can tell never from reading this posts (and other stuff on the internet) If I really do just live in a completely different world, (I've had the odd run in with cops, and they are dicks as often as not, but I wouldn't say they are half a dozen shiny rocks away from ripping the earth in half.....) or if the people writing things have an agenda that might skew the facts a little....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/tvshowbiz/video-2183136/Video-LL-Cool-J-shares-powerful-rap-George-Floyd-racism.html?fbclid=IwAR0W2_yr3WjHXsbDj_LFD5KYISsERxR11TgCl-GGwglkAzRYiOEuBGhZrZA

Unfortunately, with everything going on it brings me back to this thread, back to how easy it is to attack Black Lives Matter based on misunderstandings and then use those misunderstandings as justification not to hear the message, not to commit to any action, to pretend like BLM was saying, on behalf of black people, that these injustices were only for black people to care about. It really seemed like any conclusion people could jump to in order to say "this isn't inclusive enough" was athletically jumped to. Do you recognize that not everything is about the white majority? Do you understand that the reason no one added "too" at the end was because they weren't thinking about what they needed to do in order to gain your approval? Do you think people need to ask your permission before they protest what they perceive to be happening to them?

I am just a voice crying in the wilderness

In an age of Social Justice Warriors, BLM was attacked, literally for not being politically correct enough. Because it didn't include whites in something that was impacting blacks. Whites do suffer some instances of police brutality. No one is saying they don't. But they're also the majority so we would expect them to be impacted in greater numbers; especially when they are more likely to not be afraid of the police and often hurl insults, spit, and whatever else, but in many cases are handled with kid gloves. When a minority is impacted in greater numbers than the minority then you have to ask "what is it about this group that the police tend to be more violent and more aggressive and more likely to kill?" Does it simply follow that they are policed more? Or maybe they're even policed more because police tend to patrol their areas more, looking for probable cause. Arrests = $. Fines... tickets... court appearances... all equate to money earned for their department. We all know it. The question is where would they rather take it from? Their community? Their friends and neighbors? The judge's friends and neighbors? The prosecutor's friends and neighbors? The governor's friends and neighbors? No.

The attacks against BLM is part of the problem. Trust me. Do I want to offend anyone here? Hell no! I absolutely love and respect you guys. All of you; even those I may clash with from time to time. I still think highly of them. And we can all agree to disagree. But maybe, just maybe... we can understand each other a little better. And maybe we can learn to hear each other a little better even though the conversation isn't the most comfortable or the most inclusive. I understood how great BLM was because I understood the anger and rage and fear and terror that it was restraining at the same time. Some people asked, well why couldn't BLM control each and everyone of the protesters? Why were some people out of line?

I'm sorry... truly. But most people have children who at some point get out of line even though they know they might be punished. BLM was never fully in control of anyone; nobody is. And it is a fools errand to think otherwise. That's the difficulty of organizing events like this. You think you're in control? No. You try to create the illusion of control but these are adults who have their own minds and some of them have their own agendas. Does it mean then that you don't do what you know is right because someone out there might take advantage? If I see a kid in need of help do I first stop to consider what his parents are doing and whether or not he's a good kid? No. You just help. Not because of who they are, but because of who you are. And if you don't want to help then just be honest about why. Period. Have you ever organized a protest? No? Well then you don't know the risks or how difficult it is. Do you? No, you don't. Let's be honest about that. It's not about blame or embarrassment. It's about understanding and the fact that people withhold understanding because there is something in the message or the messenger that they fundamentally don't like or don't agree with. And trust me, people see that. And they can tell. They can feel that lack of love, care, respect, and empathy. They can feel it. When you're on the giving end of that you feel nothing and that's the problem. But on the receiving end... you feel the void of where you know love should be.

And so a lot of black people internalize that feeling and it creates more separation and distance and anxiety. They're not victims. They're angry. They're angry because every time they get abused, they get told that they need to get over it, pull themselves up by their boot straps, and stop playing the victim or the race card. They're told this by people with little to no experience being abused because of their race by someone in a position of power or authority. They're told this by people who created the TSA to deal with a singular terrorist event that the majority doesn't want repeated and yet... these events... George Floyd being only the most recent, seems to happen far too often and rarely are their consequences. Their killers usually literally get away with murder and us knowing that... the black community knowing that... creates a sense of terror. Because in a situation with an officer you don't know, you don't know how they're going to see you. Are you a thug in their eyes? Or are you a college professor? Are you a corner boy? Or are you an engineer? Do you have a car they can't afford because you earned it? Or is it because they think you stole it? You don't know what you are in their eyes. So every encounter becomes a roll of the dice. What kind of person am I dealing with? Is it an officer of the law? Or a crooked cop? As you profile me, I'm profiling you. That street goes both ways.

Except that, If I'm scared of you I can't shoot first and ask questions later. I can't shoot you in the back. I can't execute you while my friends are holding you down. Except I don't have power given to me by the state. I'm happy for everyone who doesn't have to go through life worrying about whether they or someone in their family will meet the wrong badge on the wrong day. That's good for you and so I'm happy for you. But the same people who are supposed to protect me... might be the only ones in this whole world who want to kill me.

By using a star wars reference I hope no one thinks it is any less serious but think about how many storm troopers died on the death star. They were obviously the military arm of the state. They had the authority given to them to do everything that they did. But because of corruption they were used in ways that a "few bad apples" made the whole orchard look bad and so how many people felt good when the death star exploded? That's when the heroes had won; not because they were trying to kill as many soldiers as possible but because the death star was a literally a planet killing threat to the galaxy. But... hold on. Who was the death star being used against? Those who went along with the emperor? Or those who resisted? Those who rebelled?

I submit that at any moment, any of those storm troopers could have protested and perhaps detonated the death star themselves. Why didn't they? What was it that caused them to go along with the program and what happened in the mind of Finn, that he could not? Conscience? Is that all it takes? An awakening of conscience? In many cases the minority is oppressed while the majority goes along with it because its not affecting them. They don't feel it. We need to break free of that mindset. Ever stopped to consider that if it's happening to a black person it's happening to you because you're also a person? If it's happening to a black person have you ever stopped to consider that its happening to you because you're also (for those who are) a US citizen? So what is it, let's really pause and think, what is it that would make you feel like what happens to black people ISN'T happening to you? What would make you feel that you're NOT included? Because you're not black?

But isn't that... racist?

selah.

I'm watching this discussion carefully.

I don't think it's racist, just unnecessarily discriminatory (not in the social 'rights' sense, but in the technical 'difference' sense). If you want all folk to recognize the universality of the crime, then focusing on the target groups unique attributes does not help with that universality. Which is why the 'human life matters' concept tried to point out that it was Police brutality as the inappropriate action, which meant the reason for that action could stand clear for what it was; racism. For blurred meaning/lines don't help, but.... at the end of the day it's just a different way of saying the same thing, which some people think might have worked better, and some disagree.

Because lets face it, its not really white people getting the most racism from Police, so clearly distinguishing racist Officers would in theory address the problem.... while also allowing those who have trouble letting go of it (due to upbringing or whatever) to focus on appropriate action despite their racism. Because if there is no Police brutality or discriminatory behaviour, then the problem is resolved regardless of what beliefs the Officer might have. Obviously an ideal world wouldn't have any racism.... but people aren't usually professional enough to process proper checks and hold their coworkers to account. If only the leaders actually led, rather then trying to sound like it.

Adder wrote: I don't think it's racist, just unnecessarily discriminatory (not in the social 'rights' sense, but in the technical 'difference' sense). If you want all folk to recognize the universality of the crime, then focusing on the target groups unique attributes does not help with that universality. Which is why the 'human life matters' concept tried to point out that it was Police brutality as the inappropriate action, which meant the reason for that action could stand clear for what it was; racism. For blurred meaning/lines don't help, but.... at the end of the day it's just a different way of saying the same thing, which some people think might have worked better, and some disagree.

Because lets face it, its not really white people getting the most racism from Police, so clearly distinguishing racist Officers would in theory address the problem.... while also allowing those who have trouble letting go of it (due to upbringing or whatever) to focus on appropriate action despite their racism. Because if there is no Police brutality or discriminatory behaviour, then the problem is resolved regardless of what beliefs the Officer might have. Obviously an ideal world wouldn't have any racism.... but people aren't usually professional enough to process proper checks and hold their coworkers to account. If only the leaders actually led, rather then trying to sound like it.

Brother Adder,

If we only say "the victim was a human", and remove the context of race, what you are asking us to do is ignore racism and pretend it doesn't exist.

Oh what a world it would be (although humans would find other things to separate themselves to feel superior-like wealth/class) if the PERPETRATORS of racism could do that!

But if the perpetrators of racism SEE that person as black, and someone out there sees that black man die from a knee to his neck, and says "that's awesome, one less piece of s---" then that's RACIST. And you cannot address racism while pretending there is no racism. You cannot get rid of racism with the only ones who care about race are the victims and perpetrators.

Guess what? And I say this with all due respect and with love. Some people are sexist. Some people have been culturally programmed to think men are superior and therefore treat women as inferiors. You cannot take that battered wife's gender out of the equation. If you say, "oh he's just a jerk", you are missing the fact that he's only a "jerk" to women. And guess what, my brother. What happens when no other man can say he's a jerk because they never experienced that so-called jerk being a jerk to them? Does it mean he's not a jerk? How is he held accountable then? How can he be held accountable if every male is able to defend him and say he's not a jerk because he never treated them the same way?

Do you understand?

Instead of trying to take race out of it, you need to pretend you are that race... put yourself in the shoes of a black man. Live in those shoes. Ask why you're being treated differently than your white counterpart? Ask why, you're being stopped and your white counterpart isn't. Ask why, even though you make a good living and are far from poverty, you are suspected of being a criminal? Ask why, when YOU go to a park and see a white woman with her dog off the leash and you are a known bird watcher in Central Park, ask why you cannot ask her to put her dog on the leash without her threatening to call the police and TELLING YOU that she will lie to them and say you were trying to assault her or possibly kill her, because she knows by doing that YOU might get shot.

Imagine you're a university professor arrested entering your own home because someone called the police on you. There are things that happen because of the color of the person's skin that WOULD NOT HAPPEN if their skin was the "right" color.

There is story after story for you to read and ask, what if YOU were black. I know a few white mothers who have black children and they are outraged too because that could have been their child who was murdered in broad daylight by police over a single fake $20 bill that he may not have known was fake.

Empathy is not, "let me make you into me, or take away what makes you different." Empathy is feeling what that person feels, to the extent that you can, as if what was happening to them, is happening to you. And what I asked in the last post, which wasn't directed at anyone so it wasn't personal, is why does that seem so hard for people? Yes, George Floyd was black. But he was also a man, also a human, also a US citizen. Every person on earth is at least one of these things. So why does it seem so difficult?

Everyone should understand that in no way am I trying to cast blame on anyone who is not directly involved in one of these MANY stories of racism. Some people feel blamed. But if you weren't a slave owner, slave trader, black face wearing minstrel, etc. If you treat people equally and don't think your race is superior, then there is no blame that I am sending your way. We are all responsible to FIX things for the future; to make a more perfect union, to love each other, to help each other, to support each other. The more we ignore each other's struggles the further we get from the lofty goals that we set for our society. I wasn't there in the past so I couldn't have done anything in the past to make the future better. But I am here now and I can have conversations and I can write my congressman and I can raise awareness in the hopes of adding to political pressure. I can try to make people think about these issues and the importance of them so that when a friend says something racist they'll know how to respond. I can only dream.

But if you try to reduce racists to simply "not nice people" then you can easily acquit them of almost any charge resulting from their actual racist tendencies because plenty of people (who all happen to be white...) as in "a jury of his peers" could easily say he or she has never been that way towards them. And this is often how cops are acquitted because their friends back them up. And if their white friends don't take racism seriously then it makes it easier for them to make excuses for the racist and make it easier for the racist to operate. And without consequences there is no correction for his racism.

So unless your desire (and I say this purely in a hypothetical sense) is to protect racists and racism, I don't know how what you propose makes any sense. At least not to me.

'human life matters'

When I see this... I'm sorry. But this is the most DUH statement ever. The only people who need to hear that human life matters happen to be people who see black people as "SUB human". The black man was once thought to be 3/5 human. So you need specificity. But we're not interested in convincing racists that they're wrong. They simply need to have real consequences for executing their beliefs on people. And they're not executing their racists beliefs on whites. So no one needs to tell them white lives matter. They already think their lives matter and think their lives matter more than black lives. And to another degree many cops protect themselves over ALL else. But you can't expect to give every officer basic morality after they get on the job. If someone takes a test with 99 questions and they get 10 wrong, while you can say "oh you got some answers wrong" it would be much more effective if you specifically showed them which questions they got wrong so they could learn how to get it right. Or at least understand why they failed. But instead we're treating cops like racism is just one thing that got wrong but they're still passing.

That's not good enough.

But I think your explaining your emotional reaction to a statement more then trying to understand how I explained why its used. You bought up seeing it as a human problem in your post, and I was just drawing the connection between what you posted and that is is exactly what that phrase means!

In another way to explain it.... have you ever considered it could be more counterproductive to call out racist behaviour as 'racism', then instead calling it 'human rights discrimination'? The difference is that the scope of the racist behaviour is expanded to include all people explicitly, rather then relying on old loaded terms in a culture of mixed opinions and appealing to some ideal. If the ideal can be packaged in newer more useful and 'universal' terms, then in theory it can more easily be adopted by more people. The end result after all is the wide ranging cessation of race related discrimination, and the ideal is the fastest way to reach it. I'm just pointing out that the clinging to of the language of the old victim mentality is not necessarily the best path forward. Unless of course your looking for a cathartic process, but I don't really think its the appropriate vehicle for catharsis for the above stated reasons and also that things like that might need a more delicate supportive environment as released pain can be a violent and painful personal experience which might not directly relate to the wider issues.

The other benefit of this sort of approach is that it also addresses other forms of discrimination which are destroying peoples lives. From my point of view its about trying to find ways to actually move the stalemate forward, then just make the pain so widespread that we all hope it magically goes away. You 'thought police' style of approach isn't working simply because people lie, and the more sociopathic one is the better they are at lying. It needs to be about the behaviours, and the behaviours of discrimination are all shared... so you will see progress faster if you focus on the 'discrimination of human rights' angle rather then the 'racist' angle IMO.

Basically wrong is wrong, its as wrong as it can be, and it shouldn't need the weight of Black history in America to define why its a worse type of wrong. If the same thing happened to anyone it should be viewed as criminal... which I believe was your point when you said imagine that it happened to yourself, imagine it happened to a human.. so I'm just agreeing and pointing out that from my vantage as an outside to US race issue (but no an outsider to the anti-discrimination issue) that new perspectives might be more useful, since no progress seems to be being made. It's the clinging to the pain which keeps the wound alive unfortunately. Sometimes its the only way to hang on, but usually a solution is waiting to be found if one looks hard enough. Talking is a way to explore different perspectives in this regard, but arguing is clinging to defending old ones. I'm not really interested in arguing so much, which is why its important to change the language, so people don't feel defensive while the problem gets addressed. Like holding down a patient, or distracting a child from a immunization needle LOL. Outsmart them to get what you want, it usually is easier.

"If the ideal can be packaged in newer more useful and 'universal' terms, then in theory it can more easily be adopted by more people."


Brother Adder, I think this is the disconnect. And having been part of the "Resistance" so to speak and having personal experiences with racists, with police, and with the criminal justice system that convinced me that systematic racism exists, and in some places is the norm... let me tell you this in all sincerity, all respect, all kindness, all love.

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT? I want you to think about this.

When I suggested... SUGGESTED... that white people not say "I don't see color" because even though whites tend to interpret this statement in a positive way, it can be irritating to black people who do not see "color" as a problem; as something to pretend not to see. And therefore when people say this we don't necessarily even believe that person and so it is a statement counter productive to its intent. I had practically the same conversation with a very well meaning white woman who has mixed children and she understood and took the correction. But it's like others don't care because they feel like why do they need to "protect" black people from getting offended by their words. I heard this, even on this website.

So there's that.

When black people are being killed, why is it our job to demand justice in a way that protects whites from getting offended? Do you see where I'm coming from? More importantly, can you FEEL where I'm coming from? What if you in a different country, let's say somewhere that the white population is only 3% and it's 85% orange. And let's say that 1 in 3 white women in that country fall victim to rape while for orange women it's 1 in 15 and orange men it's 1 in 100. And then when you complain and say that white women are being targeted, let's say that the majority who you are complaining to don't like your complaint because you're bringing up race. They want you to leave race out of it. And when you do that they tell you the percentage of women being raped is very low but rape does happen in every country so what do you expect them to do about it? You're lucky if they know one person who has been raped (again, this is a hypothetical country with an orange majority).

So then they spend time trying to convince you that what you see happening isn't really happening because its not happening to orange people and therefore people in general. Because if you remove race then its only happening to a smaller percentage of the population. There's no protection given to white women in this scenario because you're not "allowed" to protect only white women or figure out how to end the targeting of women who happen to be white.

If a serial killer has a type then you try to track that serial killer down by trying to figure who his next victims might be. If you're just like "oh serial killers just like to kill people universally", no they don't. People who molest children typically don't molest adults. So if you take the age of the victim out of it and say that's ageism and we have to be universal, then how are you supposed to protect the people/kids who are being targeted?

Most crimes have a clear MOTIVE. You don't just look at the crime, but also what motivated it. This is why hate crimes exist. Sure, you're allowed to hate whoever you want. But if you murder someone who happens to be homosexual, because you hate homosexuals, then that is very relevant to the case. You didn't just kill a person. You targeted them first. And if there are a bunch of people targeting the same group, that is also relevant. And if there is an organized effort to target that group that is extremely relevant. Because if you don't know then how can you protect them? If say they're not being targeted because they're homosexual then how are all these homosexual victims connected to the killer? It's not smart. But I've never met anyone who thought this way about any other group of people. If a person hates foreigners, there's a word for that. It's called xenophobia. If a person discriminates against women that's sexism. So why should we not use the word racism? Why can't we call it what it is? Why do we have to worry about offending people who claim they're not racist? Do people not see gender? Of course they do. Unless you're bisexual you care whether or not you're hitting on a woman or a man. And if you don't care and its a transsexual, then you deserve to at least know that before you enter into a relationship where you may come into contact with the same genitalia that you have. Even if they call themselves female that doesn't mean everyone has to desire that person equally or be equally attracted to all women. All these differences do not make all these people, in any way, less than. These are simply differences and differences are not necessarily good or bad. They're just different.

So why should a homosexual in 2020 be in the closet and hide who they are? And if it's not wrong why would we take it out of our lexicon? There's nothing wrong with being white and nothing wrong with being black. So why try and take that out when it's convenient?

There's an SNL sketch that I think is hilarious. It's a sketch of a newsroom reporting on crimes, showing how criminals or suspects are often identified by race. But sometimes they're not. And in a lot of those cases, if race isn't mentioned or their picture isn't shown on TV then it was a white person. And I was in a conversation with representatives from the media and they admitted this was a problem. So when describing a crime, the race of that person isn't relevant. It's not really relevant to say that a person should look for black pedestrians or white pedestrians before making a turn. They're just pedestrians. White and black people walk across streets. But if someone hates whites then race is relevant to that discussion.

If a person hates black people then race is relevant to that discussion. But that's when it is brought up by the other side. If someone hates me for the color of my skin then it's not me bringing up my color. It's them. And I'm not going to ignore it and try to describe what they're doing without race in the context. That's simply not reality. Why are we afraid to identify people as racist? Because if you want to take race out of it then that would mean no one could be called racist. Is that the point? Is that who needs protection? Do racists need protection by giving their racism anonymity?

Who are you trying to protect?

"He's not a child molester, he's just handsy". Really? Is that accurate? Is that going to protect children from this person? If he's caught should be put on just an "offenders" list, but not a "sex offenders" list?

I don't understand your logic. If it makes sense to you please help me to see how it is making sense to you. I want to understand you.

First of all I wanted to post this because I thought it was awesome: https://kotaku.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-adds-black-lives-matter-me-1843919594

I have critiques of BLM. I have critiques about the popular perceptions of racism and race relations in the USA. The message that I believe is the most important right now is “The Problem With Law Enforcement In America and How Do We Fix It?”

I dont believe that now is the time to talk about whats wrong with BLM. I think right now, in this moment, we should be saying “All Lives Cant Matter Until Black Lives Mater”

I got a lot to say that youre not gonna like but i love you and i want your life to be respected.

Also, here is a compelling speech by an impressive individual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbj0oZYucKs

I'm sure there's all sorts of good feels and top notch people involved.

Purely emotional response, but when I see all the BLM or related activities, the efforts that various corporations are making to note their support, the issues and discussions being raised....All I see is "American Lives Matter"

On one hand, All Lives Matter, probably....

On the other hand, the USA has a remarkable history of turning on allies and being shamelessly self serving. The USA has treated both enemies and allies with contempt, that's their prerogative I suppose, but to expect to reach out and find compassion when the nation implodes?

Well, it might take a bit to melt my....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L55XO3P-oIo




What, did you "citizens" think you were special? That "Oh, my country might treats others like garbage, but it would never do that to me?"

I've got a bridge for sale...if you're interested.....



Edit: I thought the above sounded a bit uncharitable, so please don't take it too harshly, I offer it as...perspective, as to the problems within the state, and why some areas within that state have such deep and complex issues.

ZealotX wrote: I don't understand your logic. If it makes sense to you please help me to see how it is making sense to you. I want to understand you.

I'm not pretending to be trying to protect, instead the protecting is the product... the result. I'm coming at this from the process of changing the way things work to progress things, not the emotive demanding expecting change to occur. Change management demands more then perfunctory idealism as effort needs to be enduring and effective. Do you expect protesting can continue until there is no longer a racist person in the US? It's just unrealistic to expect some types of change to be instantaneous.... it needs to progress from A to Z. That's the only difference I can see between your approach and mine, you seem to be defending a narrative of worth and rights, where I'm so beyond that it's not even included. If you can get past the type of discrimination, then you can instead focus on the discrimination - because discrimination tends to be the same action no matter the type. As unfortunately it's not a leap for some to move past their bigotry on a path to what we think should be obvious... and also different people are at different places to begin that. It's not black and white obviously, as different sorts of actions have different sorts of effects, but the narrative of race is really irrelevant to the actions against discrimination beyond understanding how its occurring so not to miss it... much like the extent of suffering from discrimination matters less to me then the fact that it exists at all! I'm talking about cutting the head off so the body dies, while you seem to be talking about the wrestling the body because its there. Either way the thing still wriggles long after it should be a goner. But perhaps like you, I don't seem to understand how you weigh your logic, so feel free to clarify.

Bro, I'm still struggling trying to understand what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that there is a way to counter discrimination in all forms without mentioning the actual forms.

If I invited you to dinner and asked what you had an appetite for, and you said "food." I'd be like "okay, that's implied, but what kind of food?" and we'd be locked in an endless back and forth between a vague generality and seeking specifics. And I would eventually get irritated even though you were being honest and well meaning.

What's your favorite food? Let's hypothetically say your favorite food was pizza. If you ask for food every time you're hungry you may NEVER get pizza. Do you see?

If I want pizza I go to a place that serves pizza. If I want a particular issue addressed? I talk about that particular issue. Because if you say America has no discrimination problem, you could say that if you considered how many things no one discriminates against. Police departments could say, "hey look how many people we didn't pull over, how many people we didn't shoot, tickets we didn't write, etc."

In fact the only way we've been able to get close to highlight the need for something specific to be done against racism is because we've had numbers... statistics... that qualify that argument. I'm sure police departments already have written documents they have to agree to that mention how they aren't supposed to discriminate. But how do you, when lives are at stake, prevent this from happening?

I guess what I'm not understanding is how you propose to combat discrimination without having specific types.

"If you can get past the type of discrimination, then you can instead focus on the discrimination - because discrimination tends to be the same action no matter the type."

No... I don't believe this is true. Let's take job hunting or compensation for example. 3 people go in for an interview. 1 male, 2 females. If the male gets the job, it could have been sexism at play but how would you know? Maybe the woman reminds the employer of his ex-wife. She may not even know she's been discriminated against without statistics showing just how much he tends to hire males over females. And there are biases that go into hiring decisions that aren't simply restricted to qualifications. So to actually combat this and root it out you MUST look at hiring practices through a lens of gender. And if you add race and ethnicity on top of that, it is the only way to expose unfair practices against different groups. Same with housing. How do you know you're being discriminated against if no one talks about the type of discrimination and highlights any numbers that show a pattern?

The other thing is that I think some people may have a limited view of the problem. Yes, the police shouldn't shoot unarmed people but is that all they're doing wrong? I say it actually starts before that; starting with the presumption of innocence. Whether shot or not, an officer of the law should not go around assuming guilt based on someone's race. This doesn't happen as much when the officers police the communities in which they grew up, or departments that have regular social interactions with their communities. George Floyd is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be addressed.

That problem is like a disease. Your doctor can't say "you have a disease, here's some Tylenol". The type of disease you have matters because it requires a specific treatment. Same thing with racism. It's not about changing how everyone thinks until there are no more racists. It's about removing known racists from positions of power and influence where they are speaking and acting on behalf of our system of government. I really don't care if there is a racist dog catcher. I don't even own a dog. I don't care if there's a racist Walmart Janitor or a tire salesman. Is it too much to ask that they don't get guns, badges, robes, etc? I don't want radical Muslim extremists as flight attendants. I mean, because at some point you're just kind of asking for it. You get where I'm coming from?

But I'm not talking about racially profiling future police. I just want them to get fired if shown to have racist views on the basis that the community should have a reasonable expectation that they will be policed equally and fairly, maintaining the presumption of innocence. A lot of officers have complaints that go ignored and are expunged and they get moved around like child molesting priests used to do. If that were to happen you'd have less racism in policing and less people getting killed. And I would argue that a racist mind is evidence of a very narrow mind. So if one is racist they may not be a good judge of character or make other judgments and decisions in general that a police officer needs to be able to make. And it's the same with teachers. I don't want racist teachers, either.

Solutions for these problems aren't really that difficult. The main problem is simply that people don't want to face the problem itself. Instead, they debate you as if you're crazy and just making everything up. If you see a problem, I'm glad. But you are one person. We need more people to see a problem before change is possible. Why? Because the number of people who see a problem amounts to political pressure. That, is the purpose of all this. You may or may not be tired of it, and you may or may not assume that everyone is on the same page, but they're not. And to be perfectly honest there is a racist narrative being pushed that works against everyone being on the same page. Calling Floyd a violent criminal, calling BLM a terrorist group, etc. are all tactics to enable racism. This narrative often begins as propaganda to challenge the credibility of people and organizations trying to make the world better. And then as the propaganda is heard multiple times and accepted, that's when non-racists whites start questioning the name Black Lives Matter as not being inclusive enough; a total distraction from what it is they are protesting. People become so critical of the group that they make any changes the group demands. And that's ultimately how racism endures.

I dont believe that now is the time to talk about whats wrong with BLM. I think right now, in this moment, we should be saying “All Lives Cant Matter Until Black Lives Mater”

When was it the right time? As far as I'm concerned there are thousands of cases of racism and racially motivated police brutality and that has been the whole focus of Black Lives Matter. They were never sitting around thinking "how can we piss off white folk by not including them in our name?" Never once did they say "Only Black Lives Matter" so why should they have to say "Black Lives Matter Too"? We don't think of race when it comes to the inherent worth of all life. That's why it was always implied that black lives matter TOO. Being able to attack BLM of petty nonsense is not by accident. Black Lives Matter is a statement to the police. They are the ones who seem to have a problem with black lives. They, for those who are white, obviously don't need to be told that white lives matter. They already treat their own life as valuable as they train to protect themselves and each other. That's why some of the behavior we see from them is always passed off as self-protection and cops saying "I was scared for my life". And they seem to be more scared of black people so black people are more likely to get shot.

And I hate when people say "oh but black people are more likely to shoot cops". Yeah, number 1, if they have a fear for their lives then why shouldn't they shoot if that argument works just as well for the police? Why shouldn't they, at some point, think they are acting in self-defense? The difference is that cops are allowed this ridiculously low bar standard of self-defense as if every black man is 6'3, 280 lbs of muscle and as if that makes any difference to a gun. And number 2, if cops think a black person in one situation is just as much of a threat as a black person in another situation, then that's racist because they are pre-judging based on race. This is how innocent people get killed.

And I want to say this again:

Calling Floyd a violent criminal, calling BLM a terrorist group, etc. are all tactics to enable racism. This narrative often begins as propaganda to challenge the credibility of people and organizations trying to make the world better. And then as the propaganda is heard multiple times and accepted, that's when non-racists whites start questioning the name Black Lives Matter as not being inclusive enough; a total distraction from what it is they are protesting.

OB1: I think right now, in this moment, we should be saying “All Lives Cant Matter Until Black Lives Mater”

This statement right here is perfect. It is an elegant response to All Lives matter because "All lives matter" was a ridiculous assault on the BLM name. It wasn't for the purpose of greater understanding or clarity. Anyone wanting that could have merely asked. Or... gone to their website to have it fully explained. It was there.

Did people care? No. They rushed to judgment. Instead it was used as a wedge to distract and to provide cover for the police because everyone wanted to see them as America's heroes. And like the military, everyone wants to say "I support the troops" until they have PTSD and can't get enough funding for their mental health. We gotta do better and not put people on a pedestal unless they individually deserve to be there. Anyway, I'm thankful for this statement. I hope to see more of it. I hope to see greater understanding and empathy, not just for the officers but for those they hurt.

It may seem like debating the name is such a minuscule thing but it's actually a weaponized form of racism, falsely asserting that BLM is racist (too) and therefore their protest isn't valid. This is the same type/method of invalidation that happens when someone killed by police or in some racially based hate crime. People start introducing past mistakes or anything that person may have been guilty of as a way of blaming/shaming the victim for their own death. The object is to get white society to care less about the victim and to care more about the killer, and even imagine themselves as the killer, creating the idea that their fear, and the actions that result, are justified. The truth is that if we are all allowed to kill each other because we're afraid then we're simply going to create the environment in which everyone shoots first and asks questions later.

ZealotX wrote: Bro, I'm still struggling trying to understand what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that there is a way to counter discrimination in all forms without mentioning the actual forms.

If I invited you to dinner and asked what you had an appetite for, and you said "food." I'd be like "okay, that's implied, but what kind of food?" and we'd be locked in an endless back and forth between a vague generality and seeking specifics. And I would eventually get irritated even though you were being honest and well meaning.

What's your favorite food? Let's hypothetically say your favorite food was pizza. If you ask for food every time you're hungry you may NEVER get pizza. Do you see?

Because the 'eating' is not the subjective experience of flavour and temperature, as good or bad, its the objective chewing and swallowing as proper or improper. Same with discrimination, you wanna stamp it out, but not by expecting to control what people think but rather what is proper behavior. This way more people will be sensitive to improper behaviour because they each have different exposure to it from the different types of it.... which increases the detection capacity of the population to the acts of discrimination, and adopting of its ethics.

ZealotX wrote: "If you can get past the type of discrimination, then you can instead focus on the discrimination - because discrimination tends to be the same action no matter the type."

No... I don't believe this is true. Let's take job hunting or compensation for example. 3 people go in for an interview. 1 male, 2 females. If the male gets the job, it could have been sexism at play but how would you know? Maybe the woman reminds the employer of his ex-wife. She may not even know she's been discriminated against without statistics showing just how much he tends to hire males over females. And there are biases that go into hiring decisions that aren't simply restricted to qualifications. So to actually combat this and root it out you MUST look at hiring practices through a lens of gender. And if you add race and ethnicity on top of that, it is the only way to expose unfair practices against different groups. Same with housing. How do you know you're being discriminated against if no one talks about the type of discrimination and highlights any numbers that show a pattern?

There are mechanisms which can be employed by management to detect deliberate cases of this, and minimize inadvertent ones. It's what anti-discrimination policy represents already. Whether its being done well or not is another question. But yes specific avenues of discrimination are served by focusing on the specific manifestations of discrimination.... I'm not sure how you draw the connection between those vastly different levels of analysis. As I said before, things like not seeing color are not ignoring race, they are focusing on the humanity. What each individual or scenario represents is specific to each level of interaction depth. Defining a person by any one attribute prima facie seems unnecessary and unwise if discrimination is prevalent. Much better to see a person first, then an individual second, and let the person choose how they want to define their identity then sticking labels onto a person by their appearance, IMO.

ZealotX wrote: The other thing is that I think some people may have a limited view of the problem. Yes, the police shouldn't shoot unarmed people but is that all they're doing wrong? I say it actually starts before that; starting with the presumption of innocence. Whether shot or not, an officer of the law should not go around assuming guilt based on someone's race. This doesn't happen as much when the officers police the communities in which they grew up, or departments that have regular social interactions with their communities. George Floyd is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be addressed.

That problem is like a disease. Your doctor can't say "you have a disease, here's some Tylenol". The type of disease you have matters because it requires a specific treatment. Same thing with racism. It's not about changing how everyone thinks until there are no more racists. It's about removing known racists from positions of power and influence where they are speaking and acting on behalf of our system of government. I really don't care if there is a racist dog catcher. I don't even own a dog. I don't care if there's a racist Walmart Janitor or a tire salesman. Is it too much to ask that they don't get guns, badges, robes, etc? I don't want radical Muslim extremists as flight attendants. I mean, because at some point you're just kind of asking for it. You get where I'm coming from?

Discrimination is already illegal AFAIK. What's being discussed is how best to get progress on it. You say you aren't saying its about changing how people think, but I think you are. It seems your just burying it in emotional noise. As you say following on;

ZealotX wrote: But I'm not talking about racially profiling future police. I just want them to get fired if shown to have racist views on the basis that the community should have a reasonable expectation that they will be policed equally and fairly, maintaining the presumption of innocence.

Where do you draw the line on what constitutes a 'view'? Obviously overt discriminatory beliefs and actions should already be inappropriate/illegal, for its the workplace law AFAIK. Less obvious discriminatory 'views' become harder to find... and its here where your (perhaps inadvertently) reaching over and into expecting to be able to know what peoples 'views' are, your 'views' seeming to be analogous to 'thoughts'.

ZealotX wrote: A lot of officers have complaints that go ignored and are expunged and they get moved around like child molesting priests used to do. If that were to happen you'd have less racism in policing and less people getting killed. And I would argue that a racist mind is evidence of a very narrow mind. So if one is racist they may not be a good judge of character or make other judgments and decisions in general that a police officer needs to be able to make. And it's the same with teachers. I don't want racist teachers, either.

Which is where my point has its traction - you make these people more sensitive to the inappropriateness of racism by showing them its wrong to be discriminatory, regardless of the type of discrimination.

ZealotX wrote: Solutions for these problems aren't really that difficult. The main problem is simply that people don't want to face the problem itself. Instead, they debate you as if you're crazy and just making everything up. If you see a problem, I'm glad. But you are one person. We need more people to see a problem before change is possible.

Which is why I'm saying that making the problem understandable to them in terms they are more likely to relate to will have a greater chance of having real impact on the way they think and behave more broadly. It's usually easier to get the desired result by applying a small well placed impetus then a strong badly placed one.

The problem isn't that discrimination isn't illegal. The problem is that since there's no accountability for cops, that illegality is useless because there are no consequences for them breaking those laws.