The Problem with Black Lives Matter

Rosalyn J wrote: Yes, I am suggesting that the characterization of BLM as violent is due to our proclivity to document violence, activating language.

I haven't said anything about the characterization of BLM as racist, but I will now.

It feels, to me as a Black person, that when the argument Black Lives Matter is countered with All Lives Matter, it belittles my experience and my struggle. Society can SAY All Lives Matter, but what is put put in place? What do the systems say. BLM is the consequence of years of trying to come to the table, years of trying to get our voice heard and years of not being listened to.

So now our furry can be dismissed because we are not inclusive enough? We are not calm enough?

Be grateful you get away with it for now. Feminists got what they wanted using this method because they had pussy power and the blokes didn't see it coming, thought that nice things would happen if they themselves were nice. How mistaken they were, It has proven catastrophic, I don't think these days people are going to fall for it again.

So I'd tell BLM to keep heading that way if they want to discover what's 1000 times worse than trump, whose election into power is a direct result of BLM and feminism.

My opinion of BLM:
Before BLM: cops are trigger-happy cunts, after BLM: Hmm looks to me like they may have had genuine reasons to shoot first and ask questions later.

My wife is black my kids are tanned, I have every reason in the world to want an end to BLM, they are a threat to my family's continued existence. BLM's "me me me but not you" approach only serves to create enemies they once did not have. It belittles everyone else's experiences and their struggles, and everyone who isn't black is not a minority. Feminists could because they attacked a minority on whom they could exercise pussy power, an abuse of nature they are starting to pay for by no longer getting any respect. BLM has no chance whatsoever with this kind of rhetoric, unless they significantly correct their ways things are going to be increasingly brutal for blacks in america.

Brick wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

Brick wrote: I was under the impression that the point of BLM was to remind everyone that 'Black Lives Matter Too' ie, just as much as a the lives of white people, so why is it that when a black person is shot by a cop, or murdered, or mugged etc etc noone bats an eye-lid and yet when the same thing happens to a white person everyone loses their mind? I thought BLM was supposed to highlight the double standard and demand equality (hence my comparison to feminism)?

My complaint was that the movement has, to a degree, been Hijacked (much like feminism was in the past), so now when a BLM march happens over a particular event, and someone stands up and says, 'yes, you're right. This is wrong. All lives matter equally and should be treated equally' they get berated by a mob of bigots that are somehow offended by that statement, rather than a bunch of people saying 'yes, thank you, this is exactly what we've been trying to point out'.

I agree with you but I also disagree, and this will be confusing, but here's why:

"Black Lives Matter Too" is syntactically more correct. It was even on the BLM website as part of the explanation for why BLM exists. However, the hijacking of which you speak, wasn't simply performed by morons and idiots, but also by smart people who understand politics and social engineering.

NO ONE stands up and says "yes, you're right. this is wrong. All lives matter and should be treated equally". I know that's how it should be and how it happens in people's minds, but that's not real. No, someone had an epiphany about how to "deal with" the BLM movement using public criticism. Those people influence other people to think "there's something wrong with these BLM people." "These BLM people are racist!" Why? Because one of the unwritten rules of US society is that you do NOT call white people out on their racism. Am I saying all whites are racists? Absolutely not. But if someone here wanted to "race-bait" they would twist my words to make it sound like I was accusing all whites of being racists which is false or "alternative facts". These falsehoods are what the "alt-right" thrives on. White people who are actual racists do NOT want other white people to be inclusive or to even care about black people. Just as the term "nigger" existed, so did "nigger lover" which was also extremely bad. So again... these white people who are saying ALL LIVES MATTER are saying it in OPPOSITION. But since it is a fair statement to make in general and it is syntactically correct it causes logical whites who disagree with the racists, to agree logically, with the statement the racists put out there in OPPOSITION. And that's what was designed to happen.

Black Lives Matter was a slogan that whites also chanted and also supported because it was bigger than whose black and whose white. Saying ALL LIVES MATTER was created to disrupt that harmony (not unity but harmony) and create a counter movement against the Black Lives Matter movement. Two movements of the same size will cancel each other out. The problem is that a black movement cannot equal the size of a white movement because of the population and economic differences. So even getting "some" whites to advance this "alt-slogan" was enough to diminish the public awareness and credibility of the BLM movement. When you know your political opponent is going to trash you in the media you throw mud too. But if you know your political opponent is going to tell the truth about you then you discredit them. Why put a black sheriff on TV to criticize the Black Lives Matter movement if you weren't politically attacking it? It was skillfully done and this is what made the BLM movement lose steam. Because it was an attack it will always be an attack. ALL LIVES DO MATTER. But I shouldn't have to say this unless someone else is saying/suggesting I'm not. Black Lives Matter Too, but I shouldn't have to say the "too" unless someone else is saying/suggesting I'm not already implying it. And who would do that except for someone who already views me as an opponent?

ren wrote: My wife is black my kids are tanned, I have every reason in the world to want an end to BLM, they are a threat to my family's continued existence. BLM's "me me me but not you" approach only serves to create enemies they once did not have.

unfortunately, this is proof of what I was saying about ALL LIVES MATTER being a skillful political attack against the movement.

BLM is not in any way a threat to you or your family. You've been lied to by those who were already enemies of BLM before the organization ever existed.

ZealotX wrote: 2. It is possible to be racist subconsciously or be manipulated by a person who is racist.

im not sure what you meant with "or be manipulated by a person who is racist" so i cant respond to that part, but i have something of an objection to the idea of "unconscious racism." is it possible that you mean "ingrained racism"? like if someone goes to prison and lives in strict racial segregation for some number of years and then returns to society, theyve still got that ingrained sense of racial competition...?

comfort comes from familiarity; human beings are naturally uncomfortable with things that are unfamiliar. we become comfortable with something once we have spent enough time with it that we can feel safe. for the majority of people, the people of their own racial group are immediately more familiar. its normal to be uncomfortable with people from other races if you havent spent a lot of time with people from other races, especially since racism is such a hot issue. being uncomfortable with people who are different and that you are unfamiliar with is not quite the same thing as being a racist.

actual real racism is an overt belief in racial superiority or inferiority of one race relative to another.
thats not unconscious.

ZealotX wrote: 3. Reverse racism doesn't exist. The reaction is not the same as the action that caused it.

i dont know your context for this statement so could you tell me what the word "racism" means to you?
is racism something that only white people are capable of, in your opinion?

ZealotX wrote: 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.

if this is in response to the "all lives matter" point then fair enough, especially since the group actually has the word "black" in its name, however
1) they want white people to help support the movement,
2) when youre building a group whose essential premise is justified by the assertion that racism is a problem, you undermine yourself by being racially exclusive. it suggests to observers that you actually are just fine with racism, so long as its only affecting some other race.

ZealotX wrote: 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.

i agree with this as a matter of historical fact. yes police have targeted blacks more than other races. im with you.
but one of my complaints with the BLM movement is that they dont recognize the degree to which police brutality in its modern form, is to a great degree an issue of the culture being "police vs everyone else", and not merely "racist white police vs innocent black people"


"Police Kill Too Many People—White and Black"
https://time.com/4404987/police-violence/

ZealotX wrote: 8. A lot of racist whites join the police force in an effort to subdue and mistreat black people

maybe this is true but can you prove it? do you have some evidence other than your intuition?
mostly what i see these days is people going from the military to police force after they get back from the wars... then acting towards citizens with the same mindset that they had towards the iraqis: that of an occupying force.

cops and steroids (you say racism, i say steroids)

"steroids may be behind the aggressive behavior of US police"
https://www.mintpressnews.com/steroids-may-behind-aggressive-behavior-us-police/219984/

ZealotX wrote: 9. Most of the stories of blacks getting beaten and murdered by police are never counted and not publicly heard or disseminated

the same can be said for almost all cases of whites being killed by police... but not only does BLM ignore the full scope of police brutality, to make it even worse they seem to only want to riot and set things on fire when the cops kill someone who was asking for it- yes, asking for it.
call me a racist cracker if you want to but when someone grabs a cops gun it is perfectly reasonable when that person gets shot. fighting with the police when they go to arrest you gets you shot. im white and i know this. the cops would shoot me too if i punched one of them in the face or pointed a gun (or something that looked like a gun) at them or didnt put down a gun that i was holding.

so if BLM would stay focused on shootings where theres actually a case to be made that it wasnt justifiable, that would help a lot.
"Black Lives Matter Is Pushing Our Cities Back to the Brink"
https://www.nationalreview.com/article/438992/milwaukee-riot-black-lives-matter-police-homicide-rate-khalif-rainey

ZealotX wrote: 11. Some, not all, policing evolved out of the slave catchers and some of that mentality still exists

well this could be true but again, any evidence besides rumor and intuition?

13. There is also an economic component in targeting minorities[/quote]
minorities are a lot more vulnerable for a number of reasons but the economic incentive is simply to generate funds for the local municipalities and to pack the prisons full of fresh bodies. its a lot bigger than race but race is a big part of it, mostly because racial minorities are more accessible and justifiable targets

"Empty Cages Collective: what is the prison industrial complex?"
https://www.prisonabolition.org/what-is-the-prison-industrial-complex/

ZealotX wrote: There are always 2 sides in a conflict. In this case people should at least try to understand both sides before they take one, especially if them taking a side leads to insensitive comments being posted on the internet. The conflict is deeper than just police brutality. Many black people feel like the police are more of an occupying force that is at war with them. During the Civil Rights movement it was the police that used hoses and dogs on people who were peacefully protesting. Why? What if they had been white? During the Civil Rights movements there were lynchings and symbolic crosses burned on black people's lawns. And there were assassinations. Why? What if they were white? During the Civil Rights movement black people were crying out in protest, with one voice, about a problem that affected them BECAUSE NO ONE WAS FIXING THE PROBLEM. If you think they wanted to be out there, risking/losing their jobs, risking their health and safety, marching until their legs hurt, running from dogs, and getting beaten in the streets by the police because it was fun... then you do not yet possess either the critical information or the critical thinking or the empathy necessary to judge.

i think theres more than two sides but yeah i agree

ZealotX wrote: And when there are 2 sides in a conflict and you see people who should be on your side, jump on the opposite side and attack you... if you're fighting against something that is 90% about RACISTS and 10% about violence because that the violence in this cases is a SYMPTOM of racism and white supremacy... then it is almost impossible for a white person jumping on the side of these RACISTS to look like they're not racists too.

im on the side that says "all bigotry is bad no matter who it is coming from and no matter who it is directed towards. people should be judged as individuals not by their group associations"

im completely opposed to any other position, and how that might look to anyone else is secondary: its the position i believe is right.

ZealotX wrote: And why do we have this idea that when someone in this country is met with violence by the state the correct way to deal with it is a peaceful non-threatening protest?

because we have a legal system that is predicated on the rule that we dont murder each other. i understand that the BLM position is that cops are murdering blacks, but once you decide that violence is a legitimate tool in your tool kit, youve transitioned into being a terrorist organization.
neither of us want the state to decide that it has the justification to declare martial law and thats the kindof outcome youre going to get.

ZealotX wrote: Historically, the founders of this country used violence to take this land from the Native Americans and the European governments that had legal claims. It was the destruction of property that made the Boston Tea Party famous as an event leading up to the American Revolution.

we used to cure illness with leeches

ok im not going to quote more, im neglecting something else because i keep coming back to this lol
you raise some good points and we actually have some at least slight overlap of opinion, but also definitely some areas of disagreement. i did appreciate your posts.

---

EDIT

somewhat contrary to everything i just said, this guy is a former baltimore cop who says that institutional racism is definitely real in the police forces of the usa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndg-JGmYryA

Brick wrote: 'Black Lives Matter Too'

BLM2, nice
Serves to rebrand organization from the out of control broader movement, sounds less hypocritical, is more inclusive and as a result sounds more like marginalization and victimization of that group ie 'making being a minority work for them' type of vibe, a new improved version 2.0, etc.

ZealotX wrote: 3. Reverse racism doesn't exist. The reaction is not the same as the action that caused it.

Can you clarify that for me? We don't talk about racism too much where I'm at, unless it happens.
IMO it can have a meaning, just like it also can be self refuting idea. How it's used in this context I think represents the instances where victims of discrimination use discrimination as the mechanism to counter the source of discrimination. That is generally seen as counter-productive by those who are combating discrimination using non-discriminatory means, and so from that experience that particular meaning to the phrases might have emerged. From that point of view it is valid, true and accurate, albeit it is inviting misunderstanding by using what almost sounds like double negative lol.

Adder wrote:

Brick wrote: 'Black Lives Matter Too'

BLM2, nice
Serves to rebrand organization from the out of control broader movement, sounds less hypocritical, is more inclusive and as a result sounds more like marginalization and victimization of that group ie 'making being a minority work for them' type of vibe, a new improved version 2.0, etc.

The problem is that the name was never the problem. And if they changed it there would simply be another "problem" created in order to criticize it because at the end of the day there are a lot of racists out there who simply don't like it. For example. Trump started calling Hillary Clinton "crooked Hillary", not because he actually thinks she's a crook because he's 100 times more crooked than she is and she is a saint in comparison, but because it was a political attack. Hillary Clinton couldn't rebrand herself or change her name and she was unable to outwit the attack. Unfortunately, the minds attacking BLM aren't stupid. They knew what they were doing and their attack was designed to turn whites against BLM and it worked.

Adder wrote:

ZealotX wrote: 3. Reverse racism doesn't exist. The reaction is not the same as the action that caused it.

Can you clarify that for me? We don't talk about racism too much where I'm at, unless it happens.
IMO it can have a meaning, just like it also can be self refuting idea. How it's used in this context I think represents the instances where victims of discrimination use discrimination as the mechanism to counter the source of discrimination. That is generally seen as counter-productive by those who are combating discrimination using non-discriminatory means, and so from that experience that particular meaning to the phrases might have emerged. From that point of view it is valid, true and accurate, albeit it is inviting misunderstanding by using what almost sounds like double negative lol.

Sure. First of all, racism is often conflated with prejudice. Prejudice is often based on experiences while racism is a power dynamic. Second, let's say that you don't like me because I'm taller than you. This is about as stupid as color. If you keep attacking me, calling me names, refusing to hire me, etc. because I'm taller than you and my emotional reaction is to hate you then my hatred is more about your mistreatment. I don't hate you because you're shorter than me. I hate you because you suck as a human so much to hate me over something so stupid as height. Yes, you happen to be shorter and if enough short people seemed to feel the same way as you I would be more critical of shorter people because of my experience of dealing with the mistreatment/oppression of shorter people. But my reaction isn't stupid. It's a reaction to how I'm being treated where as the treatment is not a reaction to anything. It is created from an inflated sense of self (or over reaction to one's own inferiority) that comes to believe it is superior to others.

I'm sure you can find black people who think they're superior to whites, but again, this is a reaction that wouldn't exist on its own. The problem with "Reverse racism" is that whites often use it as an example to say "See... you guys do the same thing" which allows them to continue the status quo. The status quo is the problem.