The Problem with Black Lives Matter

More
24 Jun 2017 13:57 - 24 Jun 2017 14:03 #288495 by ZealotX
I assume this is OK even though they were blocking traffic.

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


I assume the Boston Tea Party was okay

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


(I think maybe they just forgot to buy the tea)

As previously stated, BLM as an organization does NOT support threatening the police, destroying property, attacking white people, etc. What the media does is try to attach whatever happens to the organization as if it asked those people to do those things. If you are at a peaceful protest (like Standing Rock) and someone decides to throw a bottle at the police, do you leave and never come back? Do you stop protesting? Do you roll over and let the pipeline continue because some idiot did something during the protest that you disagree with? If that's the case, all the company would have to do is pay one person to throw a bottle and it would all be over.

There has been a smear campaign against BLM from the beginning for the simple fact that people don't like the message. They associate whatever individual actions they can find or whatever tiny group they can find to destroy the reputation of thousands. And that's exactly what racists do. Since the protest started I've heard more whites than ever, outspoken about black on black crime. Relevance?!?! None. THAT is NOT okay. Talking about how black people are intellectually inferior is NOT okay. Talking about how black people need to first clean up our own neighborhoods is NOT okay. Guess what? Collateral damage is NOT okay. Threatening to kill a terrorist's entire family on the campaign trail is NOT okay. Trying to spin the message of BLM as if they're saying white lives don't matter is NOT okay. Protesting BLM by saying All lives matter when you kill people all over the world and destroy families over marijuana is NOT okay. Killing a child because you think he has a gun is NOT okay. Stalking a black kid wearing a hoodie against the advice of the police is NOT okay. Getting away with killing him is NOT okay. Killing a black man in front of a 4 yr old is NOT okay, simply because he told you he had a gun is NOT okay.

Bottom line? There's a lot of "stuff" that's NOT okay. You don't have to apologize for every white person, nor does BLM have to apologize and somehow prevent every individual black person who is reacting to all of the things that are NOT okay that they know about and you that you "don't have to understand". Maybe if you did understand they wouldn't feel like no one is listening and no one cares; therefore the only solution is violence and bloodshed. People think that terrorists are created when we accidentally kill civilians (just like they do). And that may be true. We also create more terrorists when we talk about killing or discriminating against Muslims. But primarily these issues exist because we do not listen and we do not understand. And because our presence impacts their lives, out of frustration and fear, they will attack. What do we do? We call them terrorists and blame everything on them. We blame THEIR actions. We use their actions to JUSTIFY our response.

And in doing so we become their terrorists just as they become ours. And they use our actions to justify their response.

Pigs in a blanket? If you don't care why they feel so enraged against the police, THAT'S WHY they are so enraged in the first place. Many people only care and are only concerned when it's happening to THEM; when it affects THEM. They care when it's THEIR KID being told they can't sit here. We had a lady become a hero in this country for the simple fact that she refused to give up her seat to a white person. We can all agree that wrong is wrong and denying someone a seat period is wrong. There's no question about this. But the larger issue is how do we change it? It's NOT okay to say "Your people were systematically abused for 400 years but one of you stepped on my shoe once". I hate to break it to you, but there is NO equivalency. None.

Currently there are 9 kids at my house (biologically I only have 2). They're constantly telling on each other; as kids do. But if I never cared why one kid did something to another or what caused it or what the other said or did first, it would be pure chaos and everyone would be upset and unhappy. I'm not excusing any wrong doing, but I am saying it is important to understand the cause so you can treat it and stop blaming the victim for everything they do and everything they become as a result. You think that little 4 yr old who saw her mother's fiance get shot right in front of her is going to grow up to have a perfectly healthy view of the police? Do you think she wont be scared (and scarred) for life? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We are reacting to each other and that gets people emotionally heated. Expecting BLM to somehow control the emotions and actions of every person that comes to a protest is not realistic.

Mace Windu didn't represent the Jedi Council when he was about to strike down Sidious. He had just watched Sidious kill several Jedi and he knew what he was capable of. Anakin, because HE was emotional, ascribed this action/behavior to the Jedi as a whole and turned against them. But did the council discuss murdering Palpatine if they had the opportunity? No. Do you think BLM sat down in a council and conspired to start riots and provoke the police with hateful rhetoric? Do you really think that's what happened?

When it's the police people defend them saying "oh well its just a few bad apples."

When it's BLM these same people say "its the movement". Do you see the hypocrisy? Do you see the double standard? You don't "need" to understand but if you wanted to understand you would understand that is RACISM. Racism is part of our criminal justice system. It's a part of the laws. It's a part of the culture of the police. We have ex-police officers that tell us this. We have at least one ex-police officer who is white, telling us how minorities are targeted. We have "Stop & Frisk" which was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it unfairly targeted black and Hispanic young men. How many cops carried this out? But it's not happening to you so you don't need to understand. You don't need to feel any outrage or do go out of your way to make any kind of difference. Let's just sit here and meditate racism away and black people should just go away and suffer in silence. After all, its only a few bad apples against a rotten bunch.
Last edit: 24 Jun 2017 14:03 by ZealotX.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
24 Jun 2017 14:01 #288496 by ZealotX
Oh and I'm glad you had the amazing opportunity to go to such an international school. Most of us didn't get that opportunity and didn't get the memo that diversity has become the accepted norm.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
24 Jun 2017 14:21 - 24 Jun 2017 14:22 #288499 by steamboat28

Trisskar wrote: It is NOT ok to start riots...

"I think we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?"
Last edit: 24 Jun 2017 14:22 by steamboat28.
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Arisaig
  • Arisaig's Avatar
  • Guest
24 Jun 2017 14:34 #288502 by Arisaig
Replied by Arisaig on topic The Problem with Black Lives Matter

steamboat28 wrote:

Trisskar wrote: It is NOT ok to start riots...

"I think we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?"


Riots are illegal. Protests are not. If one feels like their voice is unheard they can protest. Rioting solves nothing, and has been proven to be counteractive to the point. Violent protest (riots) are less likely to succeed and are more or less an excuse to rage and smash stuff. A proper peaceful protests (alliteration for you right there ;) ) are more likely to succeed and not land one behind bars.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
24 Jun 2017 15:51 #288507 by Trisskar

ZealotX wrote: Bottom line? There's a lot of "stuff" that's NOT okay.


Exactly so. Much of what you posted i am not denying or disagreeing with. But what I feel you are not grasping is the difference between

Working towards a positive and better future

vs

Adding to the problem


Just because the world around you is doing "Not Ok" things - Doesn't give you justifiable reasons to behave in similar action.

We blame THEIR actions. We use their actions to JUSTIFY our response.


Exactly. And I am saying that is an incorrect manner of action.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
24 Jun 2017 16:20 #288508 by Trisskar
And to add (I missed this second post sorry!)

ZealotX wrote: Oh and I'm glad you had the amazing opportunity to go to such an international school. Most of us didn't get that opportunity and didn't get the memo that diversity has become the accepted norm.


This opportunity wasn't a matter of "Accepted Norm" but a choice my parents made between the school options. They choose to put all of there effort into providing me, there child, with a unique experience rather than "Following the sheep" as it were.

I believe it was Kobos who said

In general the growth of the next generation of children being exposed to more racially opened parents is in fact going to help the problems


Which I agree with. If more parents were to strive towards setting good, positive and accepting roles for there children to modulate, many of our greater problems will slowly resolve through good, positive leadership.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
27 Jun 2017 14:19 #288784 by ZealotX

Trisskar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Bottom line? There's a lot of "stuff" that's NOT okay.


Exactly so. Much of what you posted i am not denying or disagreeing with. But what I feel you are not grasping is the difference between

Working towards a positive and better future

vs

Adding to the problem


Just because the world around you is doing "Not Ok" things - Doesn't give you justifiable reasons to behave in similar action.

We blame THEIR actions. We use their actions to JUSTIFY our response.


Exactly. And I am saying that is an incorrect manner of action.




Typically in long debates there is a danger in ending up in loops. It's no different from walking in the jungle and losing direction. You can end up going in circles. In this case the added danger in this is that the person you're speaking to can take what you're currently saying outside the context of everything you've previously said and while you are focused on saying new things, those new things could cause you to be misunderstood. So in an effort to avoid that, I'd like to point you to a previous post to provide some context and restate a few points. If you already read then consider this me restating my positions for the record.

www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/membe...tter?start=20#286703

First, we need to, at some point, understand a few things:
1. There are varying degrees of racism.
2. It is possible to be racist subconsciously or be manipulated by a person who is racist.
3. Reverse racism doesn't exist. The reaction is not the same as the action that caused it.
4. Movements that create an unheard voice will attract those who feel like they haven't been heard
5. Movements are not a monolith and everyone in it will not totally agree on everything.
6. It's not cool to hijack another human's pain and suffering by trying to force mass inclusion. It belittles and drowns out the source of the pain.
7. Black people have had a different history with the police than whites. Period. There are whites that hate the police too but but the reason of race is unique to black people.
8. A lot of racist whites join the police force in an effort to subdue and mistreat black people
9. Most of the stories of blacks getting beaten and murdered by police are never counted and not publicly heard or disseminated
10. There is no reason to insert "white lives don't matter" into the statement "black lives matter". This is a form of transference as well as an effort to "muddy the waters"
11. Some, not all, policing evolved out of the slave catchers and some of that mentality still exists
12. Many police officers are "programmed" by a police culture to seek out black people as "the problem".
13. There is also an economic component in targeting minorities
14. Police violence in general is not the central issue or theme of BLM, but rather the RACIST targeting of unreasonable police violence and aggression.
15. The BLM organization cannot police every expression of anger or frustration on the part of every single person that wants to participate
16. The reasons for someone participating in a protest are not always in line with the organization's design leading people who take advantage of protests who are not truly BLM members or supporters but rather subversives with a different ideology and agenda. Confusing and conflating this with BLM is typically done in an effort to destroy BLM because a person is hostile to it because of the 2 sides of the conflict they find themselves more on the opposite side.


From here I'd like to tackle, once again, this notion of adding to the problem. I'd also like to inject the spirit and consciousness of this video for the record as it pertains to views of hate and how to correct them.



Now, I think we can agree that this has been a very civil discussion. We are, after all, civilized people. And more than that, I think everyone who has posted on this thread has displayed a high level of intelligence, including emotional intelligence and empathy. These are the people that black people wish they were interacting with on a daily basis because even if you can't fully "get it" you can at least be conscious of that fact and be sensitive and empathetic to the degree in which you are capable. This is all most black people are even asking for. But it seems like society (in general) turns a blind eye when a majority of individuals aren't directly affected. It becomes easy to then become a back seat driver, critical of everything including the emotional responses of people who are going through something that you've never truly experienced.

I brought up the Boston Tea Party because that was a famous riot. It was illegal. And it happened because of an emotional outrage. That outrage eventually led to war. We could sit here and say "oh that wasn't okay". We could say that killing someone is never okay. However, if someone is trying to kill you or your family then how quickly does killing become okay? call it a necessary evil. And even then people could criticize your use of deadly force. Well maybe there was something else you could have done. I mean... how did you know this intruder was going to kill anyone in your house? You could have allowed them to take whatever they wanted and called the police after they left. Again, we are civilized people having a civilized discussion.

And yet the societies that claim to be the most civil also go to war when they believe it to be in the best interest of their people. And they kill people. And there's "collateral damage" far greater than all the riots that have ever taken place in this country. One could argue that Americans have consistently made the problems of the world worse through the use of force. And yet we always feel justified when we're attacked.

No matter how you personally feel, you cannot control the U.S. Military, can you? The U.S. Military is funded through your tax dollars and its actions can be systematically traced back to your voting record as a citizen of the United States. But you have no direct control over what millions of other people in this country do; not with their time, their money, their guns, etc. As a citizen of the United States you never told kids to shoot up a school. As a European citizen you never told a white kid to go shoot up a black church.

So now, let's continue in the vein of civil and intelligent discourse.

If you cannot be personally blamed for things other citizens of the United States do, why are we blaming Black Lives Matter for all the things individual protestors do? If you cannot control white people to keep them from shooting up black churches how can black people control other black people and keep them from vandalizing businesses? Are we psychically linked and know what individuals are planning and have the resources to stop them? Does BLM have its own NSA to read all the facebook posts and tweets and all communications of every person who they didn't even know was going to show up to a peaceful rally? Are there BLM private police, BLM military, BLM secret services? Do you imagine that there are secret meetings in the basements of Chinese restaurants where top BLM officials are telling people to instigate violence at their peaceful demonstration?

How exactly do you imagine BLM would be able to stop people from doing what they want?

If you cannot give me a rational explanation as to HOW BLM is supposed to protect the intent of their planned and organized events then how much sense does it make to blame BLM and say THEY (BLM) are making it worse or adding to the problem?

What problem are they adding to?

Are they adding to the problem of racism? If so, how so? Are they adding to the problem of white supremacy? If so, how so?

What is "the problem"?

Is it the perception of Europeans?

If so, do you think every single black person who feels completely provoked by how we are collectively treated, cares about how white people perceive them? Let me tell you the truth. They (Those who DGAF) fully believe and have the perception that Europeans HATE them and that's why they do what they do to us collectively. But how many Europeans are actively trying to change that perception? How many care enough to do so? But black people are the ones expected to care about how we are perceived so that whites wont hate us. The expectation, one which is ridiculously incorrect, is that black people are the ones with the problem. And this comes from a misunderstanding of racism and white supremacy. It comes from a misunderstanding of the the victim to the point where you can blame and shame the victim, thinking that at the same time you're not defending her rapist.

Think about that.

Let's say a woman is taken to the male college dorm by a friend. While she's there, she gets brutally gang raped by 4 guys on the football team.

How much do you talk about what she was wearing? How much do you talk about how she may have been intoxicated? How much do you focus on her interactions with them and what she may have said or whether she was alone in the "wrong" room? How much? And do you understand that for each one of these you are blaming the victim and defending her rapists? If a woman is raped it doesn't matter what she said or did. It matters who did it and how it was wrong. Why do we allow ourselves to get distracted by the woman in the red dress?

Black people were mistreated for over 400 years in this country. I'm not saying that gives us a right to break the law. But whenever we break the law we're treated like we're the only ones who EVER break the laws. That's amazing! White people can afford good lawyers who allow them to break laws all the time. The corruption in this country is so easily seen and so pervasive that people voted for someone on the off chance that he would somehow "destroy" the system. Our president as broken many laws and people voted for him, knowing this, to be their primary representative in the world. They thought his populism and the "movement" was more important than the man and his bad acts. Did republicans reject him because he defrauded students at Trump University which wasn't even a university? It became a partisan issue whether he was good or bad, even though he was verbally assassinating his own character. But like he said, he could shoot someone and not lose his support.

But if BLM cannot do the impossible, and police the frustrations of every individual black person, then we should elect the founders president and vice president of the United States!

NO?! BLM shouldn't exist because they're "adding to the problem"?

My point, in all of this, is that the attacks on BLM are political attacks based on people, knowingly or unwittingly defending racists and racism, in order to characterize and politically attack a movement based on the actions of a few. When it's white people everyone rushes to say they're not racist and how dare you accuse them. But when it's black people somehow it's okay to characterize them all (or large groups or organizations) based on the worst behavior you can find among them. And we have done the same thing with Muslims. So this is not even a problem that only affects black people but black people have been the "default Muslims" since before it was even a thing to hate on or be fearful of Muslims. And if it doesn't matter what we say or do, Europeans find reasons and justifications not to listen, then it's only going to result in more black people who hate and fear whites just as many whites hate and fear blacks. This is what we ignore when we brutally report on the fact that a law was broken or that someone was hurt, rather than what led to that riot (and who was hurt) or what led to that act of terrorism (and who was hurt). "Adding to the problem" looks at the symptom in order to avoid having to cure the cause. And no we cannot cure the cause when all Europeans seem to want to do is criticize the movement. It would be naive to think that the public political attacks against the movement is "help". If anyone is confusing these political attacks as help then this isn't the intelligent discussion I thought it to be.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Senan
  • Senan's Avatar
  • Guest
27 Jun 2017 15:19 #288792 by Senan
Replied by Senan on topic The Problem with Black Lives Matter

Arisaig wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

Trisskar wrote: It is NOT ok to start riots...

"I think we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?"


Riots are illegal. Protests are not. If one feels like their voice is unheard they can protest. Rioting solves nothing, and has been proven to be counteractive to the point. Violent protest (riots) are less likely to succeed and are more or less an excuse to rage and smash stuff. A proper peaceful protests (alliteration for you right there ;) ) are more likely to succeed and not land one behind bars.


This is an interesting take on rioting and violent disobedience, but I think it is a blanket statement that generalizes too much. Just what is a "proper peaceful protest"? The two most often cited examples of peaceful protesters are Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Both were assassinated. Their followers were beaten, sprayed with hoses, attacked by dogs, and sometimes killed. This doesn't take anything away from their methods or the achievements that each is credited for, but it demonstrates that sometimes the reaction to peaceful protest will still be increased violence, most often instigated by the oppressor. What about "proper peaceful law enforcement"?

Sure, rioting is illegal, but what drove people to that point? And what was the outcome? Dragging a man from his car and beating him with night sticks over and over despite the fact that he is too injured to fight back is also illegal, but four cops who perpetrated this violence against Rodney King were acquitted, despite video evidence. Minorities in South Central Los Angeles had enough of systematic, racially motivated violence by the police, and they rioted. I watched it happen as a teenager and it scared the crap out of me. I wasn't afraid of black people coming to steal my stuff. I didn't suddenly fear my black friends. It scared me because it wasn't black versus white. It was black, Hispanic, Asian, and even poor white people tired of being manipulated, harassed, and brutalized by a corrupt police force. Groups like N.W.A. and songs like "F*%k the Police" and "April 29th, 1992" by Sublime don't just come out of nowhere.

As scary and senseless as the rioting in 1992 was, it was an indictment of the police, and it worked in a way that no "peaceful protest" would have. Suddenly, the L.A.P.D. was on the defensive. Officers were now afraid of entering neighborhoods they had previously policed with unlimited authority. They had to rely on the National Guard to protect them instead. They were stuck trying to justify their misguided policies and training in the face of a very angry community that also included white and Asian business owners who were pissed that the police allowed the situation to get to the point where rioting was the only recourse people thought they had and then abandoned them to fend for themselves when the crap hit the fan. Chief Daryl Gates was forced to resign and the entire L.A.P.D. underwent sweeping changes. It has since been led by a black Chief of Police and a Hispanic Chief of Police. Officers are now trained in community relations rather than how to drive a tank through someone's front door. L.A. still has a lot of problems, but the L.A.P.D. is much more transparent and involves the community on a level that allows us to address our issues with police before it comes to the point where a riot is the only way to be heard.

Just like the Boston Tea Party example used before, sometimes people have to destroy some stuff in order to get any attention at all, and whether it is legal or not, it works. The question should be why law enforcement in L.A. or the British in Boston ever allowed the public to become angry and disillusioned enough to even consider illegal action.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
27 Jun 2017 15:44 #288797 by ZealotX

Senan wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

Trisskar wrote: It is NOT ok to start riots...

"I think we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?"


Riots are illegal. Protests are not. If one feels like their voice is unheard they can protest. Rioting solves nothing, and has been proven to be counteractive to the point. Violent protest (riots) are less likely to succeed and are more or less an excuse to rage and smash stuff. A proper peaceful protests (alliteration for you right there ;) ) are more likely to succeed and not land one behind bars.


This is an interesting take on rioting and violent disobedience, but I think it is a blanket statement that generalizes too much. Just what is a "proper peaceful protest"? The two most often cited examples of peaceful protesters are Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Both were assassinated. Their followers were beaten, sprayed with hoses, attacked by dogs, and sometimes killed. This doesn't take anything away from their methods or the achievements that each is credited for, but it demonstrates that sometimes the reaction to peaceful protest will still be increased violence, most often instigated by the oppressor. What about "proper peaceful law enforcement"?

Sure, rioting is illegal, but what drove people to that point? And what was the outcome? Dragging a man from his car and beating him with night sticks over and over despite the fact that he is too injured to fight back is also illegal, but four cops who perpetrated this violence against Rodney King were acquitted, despite video evidence. Minorities in South Central Los Angeles had enough of systematic, racially motivated violence by the police, and they rioted. I watched it happen as a teenager and it scared the crap out of me. I wasn't afraid of black people coming to steal my stuff. I didn't suddenly fear my black friends. It scared me because it wasn't black versus white. It was black, Hispanic, Asian, and even poor white people tired of being manipulated, harassed, and brutalized by a corrupt police force. Groups like N.W.A. and songs like "F*%k the Police" and "April 29th, 1992" by Sublime don't just come out of nowhere.

As scary and senseless as the rioting in 1992 was, it was an indictment of the police, and it worked in a way that no "peaceful protest" would have. Suddenly, the L.A.P.D. was on the defensive. Officers were now afraid of entering neighborhoods they had previously policed with unlimited authority. They had to rely on the National Guard to protect them instead. They were stuck trying to justify their misguided policies and training in the face of a very angry community that also included white and Asian business owners who were pissed that the police allowed the situation to get to the point where rioting was the only recourse people thought they had and then abandoned them to fend for themselves when the crap hit the fan. Chief Daryl Gates was forced to resign and the entire L.A.P.D. underwent sweeping changes. It has since been led by a black Chief of Police and a Hispanic Chief of Police. Officers are now trained in community relations rather than how to drive a tank through someone's front door. L.A. still has a lot of problems, but the L.A.P.D. is much more transparent and involves the community on a level that allows us to address our issues with police before it comes to the point where a riot is the only way to be heard.

Just like the Boston Tea Party example used before, sometimes people have to destroy some stuff in order to get any attention at all, and whether it is legal or not, it works. The question should be why law enforcement in L.A. or the British in Boston ever allowed the public to become angry and disillusioned enough to even consider illegal action.


holy crap this was good post. I'll add only one this.

If no protest ever disobeyed any laws we would still be serving kings and queens and America would lorded over by a tyrannical dictator.

I submit as evidence:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_War

Sometimes people feel the need to fight; the need to revolt, the need for revolution. In most cases I think it comes after not being heard and not being treated fairly. But we live in a world that is more free today because of all the people who died fighting for it. The idea that one should never fight is ridiculous, especially when the person who says that is a descendant of those who also rioted, revolted, and fought for freedom.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
27 Jun 2017 17:12 #288800 by Trisskar

ZealotX wrote: The idea that one should never fight is ridiculous,


No one is saying we should never fight. I know for a fact that I never said as much.

I should also point out that

especially when the person who says that is a descendant of those who also rioted, revolted, and fought for freedom.


This goes for ALL races. Hinting towards a singular "Descendant" Isn't going to lend credence to anyone. There is not a single "Descendant" in the human race that hasn't faught for one's rights - right or wrong.


However there is a difference between fighting both unlawfully and without tact. And fighting in the defense of one's rights.

As a Jedi. It is especially important that we understand these differences and Understand "Time and Place"
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: RexZero