The Problem with Black Lives Matter

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.

Bro, you got me wrong.

"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."

If you stop for a second you will see that you CANNOT "show" that someone has racist views without them doing an "action" that expresses those views. I'm not interested in changing how everyone thinks or feels. That's not possible. We have been down ALL roads before. So please understand this. I have personally been involved in black empowerment and all my (personal) solutions are about economics. I am personally not a fan of marches. However, there is only so much that can be done when you have an external force constantly on the neck of your community, constantly threatening your life. So I understand the protests and hearts of the protesters and I am actually surprised that people are finally responding and finally seeing what we've been saying was there the whole time. But it's like white society literally looked at us like we were crazy or liars; like we would ALL (millions) lie about how bad the police were in our community. Now you see, not only a man get murdered in broad daylight, but also even how elderly protesters are getting pushed. Come on... And if they do that to an elderly white man, just imagine what they would do to a young black man at night when they can all get together and tell the same story and its their word against his. Just imagine that. Because they lied and said the old man tripped. And clearly you can see he was pushed. Clearly, cops were aiming at reporters and hitting cameramen. So who's lying? Who?

I was emotional when a cop thought I was robbing my own church when my father and I went in response to the alarm going off because we lived close by. I was emotional when the cop put his knee on my back and handcuffed me on the pavement like I was some kind of animal. It hurt. And I definitely would have gotten arrested if my father hadn't shown up. But that was a long time ago. When I was more recently given home detention where I could have easily lost my job and income, even though I should have been out on bail, I was pissed, but not in the same way. I had already made up my mind that the answer was that we needed to build our own economy because we would not be equal until our money was.

I know that a lot of racists aren't going to change. I know that isolated white communities often produce racists because they never have real (regular) experiences with black people. Therefore, they can be a sort of fictional construct crafted by the media and their perception in pop culture. They don't like rap music. Hey, I don't like most of it either. I listen to reggae. I'm not stereotypical in any way. I now live in a predominantly white neighborhood but still have at least a few black families on my street. All my neighbors seem nice. America can be nice.

I over heard a drunk guy saying something racist, more than likely directed at me, but hey... that's his OPINION. You are entitled to that. If you secretly hate black people, seems like a waste of mental energy, but that's fine if that's your choice and its not infringing upon my rights, liberty, or my pursuit of happiness. Now when my kids get told to go back to the cotton fields and other overtly racist garbage at their school, yeah it upsets me that they have to go through that, but that's their parents speaking, and their more isolated community speaking.

(cont'd)

And yes some of those kids might grow up and apply to be police officers. I don't want them to be denied because of what they said when they were 14. But if they have to take some kind of bias test involving threat level detection from black people, if they fail, then no, I don't want them serving in a community where black people can be victimized by their representation of law and order. They're there to protect and serve. If they act like a gang then the gang needs to be policed. And it seems like there was a time in which officers were afraid of Internal Affairs. That no longer seems to be the case.

In that case you need non-combat trained civilians who are armed with psychology degrees and social worker, to respond to many if not most of the calls, paired with a regular police officer. That person should deal with the "talking" part of the job and decide if the threat level warrants the combat trained officer to get out of the car while they fall back and record.

At the same time police forces need to be de-militarized because guns are a form of power and when you give them tanks and assault rifles you're teaching them that this level of force is sometimes necessary. And if THAT (military) level of force is sometimes necessary (or why else would they be allowed to buy it) then lesser levels of force are more necessary in many other situations. You don't bring an assault rifle to a knife fight. It makes it into a gun fight. Giving cops certain weapons changes the mentality. The problem is that we think that because they have a badge and uniform that they are trustworthy. Black people know they're not, that they LIE, that they falsify reports, that they plant evidence, and we so often have to take bad plea deals to serve some time just so that we don't end up doing hard time for crimes we didn't commit but that society thinks we're guilty of. African Americans are also 50% more likely to be innocent than other convicted murderers and spend longer in prison.

https://research.msu.edu/innocent-african-americans-more-likely-to-be-wrongfully-convicted/

"In addition, the report, officially titled, “Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States,” found innocent black people are about 12 times more likely to be convicted of drug crimes than innocent white people."

"“Of the many costs the war on drugs inflicts on the black community, the practice of deliberately charging innocent defendants with fabricated crimes may be the most shameful,” said University of Michigan Law Professor Samuel Gross, the author of “Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States” and senior editor of the National Registry of Exonerations."

We're not, as a community, as criminal as people think because of how often charges are flat out fabricated to boost numbers and make more money off our community, keeping us in and out of court. We're not several times more likely to be innocent or killed accidentally. That's racism!

Police have to stop being treated like an endangered species made of porcelain. Police lives matter. So do black lives. But police are trained to protect themselves first and foremost. If they're scared they think that's cause enough to shoot. That isn't the same bar for the rest of us. So if they lie and say that they, even though they have guns, tasers, batons, handcuffs, and sometimes vests, and backup, that they were scared, that's all they need to commit and get away with murder. And juries act like their badge prevents them from lying or that the law is so sacred to police officers that they wouldn't ever commit perjury. If you're that scared then you're in the wrong line of work!

Romanticized duty or not, THEY ARE NORMAL PEOPLE.

However, many normal people in positions of power allow that power to go to their heads. I have a boss like that too. Many people do or have in the past. Power and authority get abused all the time. That's why we have multiple levels of power and authority. But when the higher level almost always uses their power, not as a check and balance, but like an OG protecting his corner boys, then the system doesn't work. You may see a cop disappear after one too many complaints but he is probably simply working in a different precinct now. And they can regularly clean up their own records of misconduct. This is not normal. If you work at McDonald's and get caught spitting in the food they don't move you to a different store. You get fired.

Workplace laws don't mean a d-mn if no one reports you or if the one person who might think for a second about reporting you realizes that other people will lie and say it didn't happen and that they will be picked on and bullied for ratting out their fellow cop. That's why the whole bad apples argument falls on deaf ears. Because everyone else around them enables it and allows it to continue. Again... it's all about improper behavior. If you listen to the Mark Fuhrman tapes this is not just idle talk from a racist, but rather how his racism informed his performance. Racists don't just muse about racist ideas intellectually when they have a badge. They look for opportunities. And if they're hostile towards whites because their normal disposition is already that bad? Then when a black person looks at him wrong on the wrong day, that's all it takes. And if we can prevent terrorist plots, why not this? Why not domestic terrorism against black and brown people?

So yes, profiling no, but testing, yes. Testing, retraining, bringing in civilian leadership, defunding (doesn't mean taking all money away), changing the rules of engagement, banning choke holds and pressure that cuts off circulation, etc. Why did they think they were allowed to pepper spray protesters because of something the protester said that wasn't a threat? In other words, legal use of first amendment rights. And once they grab you... that's when they can then claim you're "resisting arrest". Everyone saw that, right?

cont'd

But think about this. You're a black person minding your own business. Cops get a tip about a "tall black man" in the area. You happen to be a tall black man too. As soon as they see you walking they jump out, one pulls a gun and the other starts yelling commands at you. Before you can figure out what's going on (because they feel no obligation to tell you) they're grabbing you and roughing you up (if they haven't already shot you).

Your body's natural reaction is to protect itself. So guess what happens when your hands or arms move to intercept what you think might be a blow? And again, you don't know what they're responding to or what level of force they already think is needed. So your little hand or arm movement is instantly taken as provocation; as resisting. And then they immediate feel like they have to subdue you because that's what they're trained to do. Every human being has a natural in-born fight or flight response. Guess which one you're allowed to do with the police? Neither. And even if you have no weapon at all, they can still say you kept resisting and they were scared because omg, like you have the strength of 10 men, so it's like they had to kill you. It was either you or them... and their families. (not yours. just theirs)

Encounters like this happen all the time and even police cameras have funny ways of malfunctioning or being turned off right before the police so something wrong. This should be considered premeditation. The law needs to have different standards to allow police to do their jobs but the law cannot grant blanket immunity for every cop who has dreamed of being James Bond and having a license to kill.

I can and want to talk about solutions all day, but the biggest hurdle, again, isn't the solutions. It's getting people to recognize that solutions are needed. It's getting people to stop blaming black people for the way that they are policed. You have to appeal to people's morality and their humanity in order for that to happen. Some people are members of the choir and don't need that and I'm sure that's where you are. But others aren't there. They're not in the choir. They're not even in the congregation because they have mildly racist ideas about black people and think that the crime stats confirm those ideas and that police are just doing their jobs, putting down violent black people.

Some of these people you wont convince because they's just plain racist to the point of hatred. But others have racist ideas out of misunderstanding, false information, propaganda, right wing pundits and talking heads. "The System" as we call it, doesn't just work against black people, but also white society too. It's constantly playing a cultural war, trying to make the majority less tolerant towards the minority. When they tell you George Floyd had a criminal record, it's not an accident. It's so you wont feel sorry for him. It's so you will see him as more of an animal that was put down. White supremacy always has a non-physical lynching that goes along with the physical lynching so that the people doing the physical lynching feel like they're doing the right thing. THIS IS THE SAME mindset, empowering the mechanisms, that were used against women in Salem during the Salem witch trials.

Think about it.

What is it that allows society to look on while an innocent woman is murdered right in front of them? You have to convince people, or at least raise enough doubt about her innocence. Establish her guilt first as an assumption and them make her prove her own innocence. But if you don't like what she is... there's really nothing she can say to convince you and it's "oh if you survive the drowning then we know you are indeed a witch". How backwards... how do you intellectually justify murder by saying, if we can kill you (as a test) then you might have been innocent? For the black man, if we're chocking you and you survive, doesn't it prove how dangerous you were that so many officers had to hold you down and one actually had to put his knee on your neck?

It's the same. You can say "I can't breathe" but there is really nothing you can say that is good enough when it's not about who you are, but "what" you are. And women were expected to support their men, calling women JUST LIKE THEM witches and lying about them being in league with Satan. Similarly black people were treated as though if we didn't support society's lynching of us that it was because we are "in league" with the criminal element; that we're all "bad apples". Funny... 40 million black people and only the police get to have a few bad apples. For racists... all 41.4 million... are bad. This is bigger than the police and yet... you will only hear me advocating against racists in positions of power. But... this can including people who get to make hiring decisions at a public company, prosecutors, judges, loan officers, landlords, etc. Against some of these, my solution is economic because we shouldn't have to depend on people in these positions. But for "public servants", elected or appointed... there has to be a standard.

We are mostly in agreement, but where I think we probably differ is that from my perspective you have to root out racism from the higher offices down to the lowest, because it can be hard to detect and prove. So you have to have sufficient processes and reporting and transparency to remove the "hood", so to speak, from white supremacy. Until you do that the racists, like hackers, will keep finding different doors and opportunities to inflict damage against the black community to keep us from equality and the American dream. But if every AMERICAN can't have that dream why should they get to have it? Meanwhile, the black community would greatly appreciate your support and if you can't support us, please, at least don't fall victim to white supremacy programmed propaganda, and attack us and our organizations trying to fight this, on their behalf. Please and thank you.

Yea, which is why I've kept explaining that ensuring the narrative shifts away from race and to discriminatory action (in this case 'Police brutality') will have a greater reach and leverage and greater change. It's not so much about education, as racist folk are not ignorant about it they are just bigoted about it... so making the narrative more relevant to more people means the bigotry looses its foundation in those who have it and can more easily be dislodged and die out within the bigot.

Adder wrote: Yea, which is why I've kept explaining that ensuring the narrative shifts away from race and to discriminatory action (in this case 'Police brutality') will have a greater reach and leverage and greater change. It's not so much about education, as racist folk are not ignorant about it they are just bigoted about it... so making the narrative more relevant to more people means the bigotry looses its foundation in those who have it and can more easily be dislodged and die out within the bigot.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. There is a bounty of evidence online that shows a deep ignorance of history with regards to race, precisely because the only ones talking about it are racists and those impacted by them. We talk to people all the time who don't think the Civil war was about slavery, don't know about when the racists switched from Democrat to Republican, think Lincoln was always in favor of freeing the slaves, etc. People think they know about racism because they heard of MLK and George Washington Carver and because they hear random things during black history month. This ignorance is so reinforced by our system of education that black students have to go looking for information about their own history because its not taught in schools. People are finally, right now, not turning away from race. And THAT is why changes are happening

You cannot fairly expect people to be subject matter experts in your particular type of suffering... it's impractical for everyone to give it the same attention you consider it deserves. If it is more about the nature of action then the reasons for the action, then you'll find that it becomes more relevant to more people because more people can relate to it from their own life and lived experiences. And no I'm not arguing for ignorance. Basically, IMO, it's also easier to normalize worldviews around common positive values then force a particular worldview to make an example of bad values.

Adder wrote: You cannot fairly expect people to be subject matter experts in your particular type of suffering... it's impractical for everyone to give it the same attention you consider it deserves. If it is more about the nature of action then the reasons for the action, then you'll find that it becomes more relevant to more people because more people can relate to it from their own life and lived experiences. And no I'm not arguing for ignorance. Basically, IMO, it's also easier to normalize worldviews around common positive values then force a particular worldview to make an example of bad values.

Okay let's use Jews as an example. Jews were hated and oppressed. Did you see Schindler's List? I was moved watching that movie. I don't know about you. I definitely wasn't a subject matter expert (not sure why you think anyone is requesting that. seems odd). But I could empathize with what they were going through; because of what was happening to them. And honestly, I know TOTJO is not synonymous with Star Wars and don't want it to be but at least everyone should be familiar with the mythology and familiar with the likenesses and history the underlying story and cultures are based on. Because obviously, the nazis are woven into the fabric of Star Wars.

That being said, why did we feel for the rebels? Why didn't we side with the empire? Were we subject matter experts? Or did we just FEEL? Did we just connect with Luke and Leia and gasp at the morality or lack thereof that allowed the Empire to destroy an entire planet, looking for the rebel alliance? You didn't have to be a wookie to care about Chewbacca. You didn't have to be a robot or an ewok.

So close your eyes and pretend that you see storm troopers kneeling on the necks of cute fuzzy brown ewoks. And whatever you feel, that's what we're asking for. And like V said, in V for Vendetta,

"If you feel as I feel"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IyuK069I-w

I loved this speech; especially as it casts blame fairly upon everyone, including the citizens that have allowed the government to commit these acts of injustice. This is part of the reason African Americans often don't have closer relationships to whites. Why does it have to happen to you in order to feel it? But when a person's dog is injured or threatened... well... sometimes its easier for people to feel empathy and compassion.

V: if you are looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Jewish people were fought for, received reparations, received their own state. The allies fought for them. And trust, when anything even smells antisemitic Jews are all over it and people start passing out denunciations and condemnations left and right and you know it. We've all seen it. And it's important because as much as the allies fought to help right the wrongs of the nazis, the hatred of the nazis remains and if you let that go unchecked and unabated... history may repeat itself.

The hatred against black people is important because unlike Jews, African Americans are not wealthy and not in a position to protect themselves the way that Jews are able to protect themselves from Nazis today (The KKK hates them too). If the criminal justice system even dreamed of oppressing Jewish people, with all the Jewish people who are in positions of wealth and power, the world would stop spinning that day until the threat was taken out. In many ways, oppression against black people has never stopped and often people must be shamed into hiding their racism and at least pretend to get along. But then they put on badges and met after dark wearing white hoods so you couldn't see that they were cops and judges.

Racism has continued to this day because of the efforts to LIMIT the scope and view to just "infractions" that can be explained away by numbers and statistics. But it hasn't died because racists have power and the ability to get away with it. You have to take that power away and how do you know who to take it away from?

Someone shouldn't have to become Hitler and give the extermination order before someone lifts a finger to stop them.

Sorry, I'm not sure how that is in reply to my point, but you did quote me so..... it's not limiting the scope, its expanding the scope by including all groups suffering the same type of discrimination.

And to me Star Wars is a deep metaphorical structure, but Rebels didn't destroy the Deathstar because it was an Empire installation, they destroyed it because it had, and was attacking them. That logic might not stand up within the wider fiction, but I don't view the fiction as gospel so it needn't.

But I can play I guess.... I guess your suggesting the extent of feeling for different people was only proportionate to the awareness of that groups existence. Which I think is what your trying to say about being aware of the victim to feel for the victim. OK, but how much, and does that counter a manifest threatening action they might undertake? Being different, or part of a victimized group, or even an enemy group, does not mean all action against it is discriminatory. Lawful conduct should be proportional, distinct and necessary and race, gender, sex, ability etc really shouldn't come into it much at all if at all.....

Sure yes, when I said subject matter expert it was an exaggeration but how many times has a 'awareness of the history of black slavery' been thrown around to cite 'white ignorance' on this matter! I'm on the other side of the world and I've seen footage of it quite a bit. Knowledge is relative to experience and prior knowledge, which is more often then not going to be higher on both counts for African Americans then the rest. But there'd be levels of awareness; starting from the most simple of knowing African Americans exist, moving up to does one know they were victims of slavery, and then increasing in complexity through the historical details and contemporary manifestations of it among them and the rest of the community as a result. It really should require very much awareness at all to know enough to know racism is wrong, so the problem of racists seems to be not in the awareness but in the personification of the suffering, hence my point..... for IMO you don't achieve that by making other people suffer.

This is part of the reason African Americans often don't have closer relationships to whites. Why does it have to happen to you in order to feel it?

Huh? I don't quite get what you mean.... 'whites' don't need to experience something to feel something. That would be a bizarrely racist thought to have let alone say, so feel free to clarify if you like. I could presume that its part of your apparent point about what I'm calling 'awareness', but then it would seem that you might be arguing for making 'white' people suffer discrimination to end discrimination from 'white' people.

To be honest I'm sort of tired of the whole labels, people are not white or black. You can always find people who are mostly more of one then the other, but its all mixed. Racists make a point of it, because it serves their bigotry, but for everyone else its just people. If a community has a culture which they associate to a 'race', then that is fine... but it serves no purpose to think everyone else thinks that way. I'd rather just judge people on their actions, not their appearance... and no that does not mean I don't see color.

Oh, did I forget the Jews.... to me I identified with the human suffering of them, not the Jew suffering. Same way I identify with the suffering of black people etc. Doesn't take much subject matter knowledge at all, basically none for me since I (and most people I know) extend my empathy beyond humans.

Adder:

And to me Star Wars is a deep metaphorical structure, but Rebels didn't destroy the Deathstar because it was an Empire installation, they destroyed it because it had, and was attacking them. That logic might not stand up within the wider fiction, but I don't view the fiction as gospel so it needn't.

Um... sorry. Can't agree there. According to one of my favorite movies we saw how the plans for the Death Star got to the rebellion in the first place and how people fought and died just so that Luke knew where to fire those two proton torpedoes. Of course this is not about Star Wars trivia. The point is that the Death Star was recognized as a threat because of what it was and represented and whose hands that power was in. As soon as the empire was established all the power that used to be represented by the PEOPLE (we the people) was usurped and coopted by authoritarianism. And this often takes the form of making people so afraid that they believe that whatever you are doing to protect them is justified. The rebels; however, knew what was happening and what it was turning into. That's why they started as the resistance and later became the rebels. Similarly, we as a society, should always resist the slide into authoritarianism and fear and hate, before we all find ourselves on the other side; getting tear gassed while asserting our first amendment rights.

If you wait until after the death star shoots you, it's too late. You can't then prosecute them for destroying a planet because they'll just be like "where is the rebel base" until they've destroyed every threat and then they'll say "we have brought peace to the galaxy".

So the point is, that if we know racists are in positions of power we need to get them out. If they want to be a gas station attendant, I'm 100% cool with that. A judge? No. I don't even mind if they make a ton of money making parts for airplanes because at least the airplanes they're working on will be used by everyone and they wouldn't have a means of targeting a racial group through that job.

Sometimes I feel like Mace Windu. It's like if you see what's happening, and that thing that's happening is not going to hesitate to destroy you and use whatever power they can not just for personal corruption but for corrupting the whole social order, why not try and stop it? In the case of Palpatine it really was too late to go through regular government channels because he had already taken them over.

Adder:

It really should require very much awareness at all to know enough to know racism is wrong, so the problem of racists seems to be not in the awareness but in the personification of the suffering, hence my point..... for IMO you don't achieve that by making other people suffer.

You may be confusing me for Jane Elliot here. In no way have I ever stated, at any time, in any location, that I wanted other people to suffer. What I want is the end of racism and white supremacy and the fair and equitable restoration of justice upon those impacted. If you rob a bank for 5 million dollars, and a court finds you guilty, can you really get upset when the money is taken back? If you're suffering as a result of being "robbed" of this money you stole... is that the same thing as the suffering of those you stole the money from?

I don't want anyone to suffer. But there has to be consequences for hurting people. Otherwise, if there are incentives to hurt people and no consequences for hurting people then people will simply continue to hurt people. Even with consequences, people hurt people. So why would they stop when there are no consequences? I don't know. Maybe you mean something different by "making people suffer". Maybe I'm taking this in the wrong context. If so, please elaborate.