The Problem with Black Lives Matter

I'm watching this discussion carefully.

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

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

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

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

Brother Adder,

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

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

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

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

Do you understand?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'human life matters'

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

That's not good enough.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

So there's that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are you trying to protect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, here is a compelling speech by an impressive individual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

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

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