The Problem with Black Lives Matter

I'm at work and so can't actually watch the video, I'll watch it later and actually comment on what is said in the video then.

But I would say that the main thing wrong with 'Black Lives Matter' is that it's only half a sentence, it's missing 'too', or 'just as much as white lives' from the end of it. Because at the moment there are examples of people saying things like 'all lives matter', and having to apologise, retract those statements, and say 'black lives matter' instead.

I understand why the movement/organisation came about, its very important. It upsets me a little that there's a need for it, that in this day and age, people need reminding that black (or any) lives do in fact matter. But I do think that the movement has been hijacked and thus got a bit of a bad reputation (a little like what happened to feminism in the late 80's/early 90's). I hope it can get away from that reputation and get back to what 'black lives matter' was originally about (a little like what feminism is doing now).

In my own personal persuit of focus knowledge and wisdom I find my self ... Simplifying things ... For my self that is.

If I as a Jedi believe in the Force and all inherent things then the value on life isn't revealed by the focus of the time but ... By the choice I have pre decided ... All life matters. In this light many difrent things can be seen. For me, this and practice , intent is shown. Every person who has asked me personally about this movement has been shocked and upset because the attention isn't ... Did I read that ,,, ISNT on them. Once I adapted the Jedi way of all things are called and valued it kind of made ... Other argument Kinna look like attention seekers and hair splitters.
Regardless of what subject or topic I encourage every Jedi here by patch or by code to have these ideas ready when they come because , they will come . All life is sacred to me. I share a big huge freakin circle when I say that. To a Jedi all life is.
So that being said does it matter the label we place ... Some times ... For me now , no! Call your self what you like , come sit in my seat and have a rest. Share and live and ask and love and hate and grow.

You ...so matter !

i actually am ok, philosophically, with BLM

pragmatically however, i have critiques


BLM is nested within an overall SJW culture that makes a virtue of being a victim, refuses personal responsibility, eschews critical thinking and rational dialogue, and ignores key facts and details of every issue they tout on about

that is the SJW culture, generally speaking

as for BLM specifically, they hijack and misrepresent the issue of police brutality,(which is incredibly complicated and affects all citizens) they endorse violence (even though they claim otherwise), engaging in and defending rioting and civil anarchy, and allow members to promote blatantly racist and socially divisive ideology, which is the same thing as promoting racism. they treat all shootings of black people by police the same regardless of the circumstances when clearly some of the shootings are justified, and though their very name suggests that protecting the lives of black people is their primary aim, they actually ignore the issues that cause the vast majority of black deaths

3:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sImGjr1sTA&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8sImGjr1sTA&has_verified=1

this kid makes some good points with a little bit less snark than the video that Rosalyn posted (and he's not white, so you can trust him)

8:43
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4urHZkHLAYk

or this one
6:10 (language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06RfSRQLiWs

Brick wrote: But I would say that the main thing wrong with 'Black Lives Matter' is that it's only half a sentence, it's missing 'too', or 'just as much as white lives' from the end of it.

If "all lives mattered," people wouldn't have to specify that black lives do. Your comment is well-meaning in spirit (I hope), but displays a very dangerous misunderstanding of the situation at hand.

by and large, white people stopped tolerating this kind of nonsense from other white people a long time ago

(open season on crackers and cops)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Qmoiugz7Q&spfreload=10&bpctr=1496756921

if a white man posted this kind of content it would be an avalanche of other white people to denounce him. and i would be one of them.

"what do we want?
DEAD COPS!!
when do we want it?
NOW!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqQXmnMr_w8

Larry Elder

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

How many views/likes on youtube would a peaceful protest get?

Rosalyn J wrote: How many views/likes on youtube would a peaceful protest get?

Are you saying that violent protests are more effective and thus warranted?

As strong of a tool as social media is, I would argue against designing a protest to gain social popularity by any means to gain views or likes. Argumentum Ad Populum is one of the logical fallacies and just because the mob riles and cheers for something does not make it right or even good.

One thing that I would hope all Jedi agree on, and maybe they don’t, is that the ends do not justify the means. The future will judge us not only by the outcome of the war but the manner in which we conduct ourselves. And they rightly should.

Our actions do not define us as Jedi only when people are watching or by the outcome of what we have accomplished but by how we live every day and what we do every day. That is the advice I would give anyone.

No

I am saying, people point their cameras at fights and firey language in the same way that they slow their car down to look at an accident

Of course well I was typing this a bunch of replies appeared......anyways hopefully we can maintain this dialogue with respect.

Rosalyn, I would love of have more of your opinion also. I will just list out my experience, my opinion and hopefully some of my perspective here and see what it adds. Agreement or disagreement poor choice of wording if it occurs is not out of disrespect or intentional bias apologies in advanced if that occurs in this discourse.

I was in Ferguson MO on the first few days of protests (as well as living just south of the area in a not to much better neighborhood), I and my Gf were pretty well connected through the legit protesters; as well as some other the zealot SJW folks. I tended to be on the more anti-corporate (no I do not hate all corporations just certain ones) St. Louis is home to Monsanto, Monsanto owns a lot of corporations; some that do some pretty horrible things particularly when it comes to fixing their mistakes (don't hate the people or the corporations but asking for accountability shouldn't be too much.....I digress.
The first day of protests were actually pretty somber and though civil unrest it did not really break into violence as a widespread thing that evening, at first. However, there were isolated incidents, none of which I personally observed, this was more pushed on the news than the peaceful side, this fed and accelerated the violence (I could speculate on why but there are many reasons: we should note the arrival of out of town activist at this time). Now it is important to keep in mind that the Mike Brown Case had just been being developed and that many speculations either way were still flying at the moment. Several conflicting stories, the general atmosphere during night one was a 100% different atmosphere. I talked the gf into leaving for the evening to return homw shortly after dark. The police response to the isolated incidents of violence was dramatic to say the least. Shows of power often backfire here in the US particularly with an already agitated group, I suspected tear-gas and rubber bullets to be going off that evening (On a side note I have been hit with both not pleasant, one for a job in case of accidental exposure, one because of trespassing, gf wasn't asthmatic and never exposed that caused me concern)...... Digressing again (recalling memories does that a bit to me my apologies). After night one there was a different energy to the protest there was a lot of positive and positive leaders there; however, was also the contrast with some leaders, guess who got the press?
The second night, the energy and police response towards dusk spelled trouble. I stuck around a bit later this time to see what unfolded I hoped the more level headed would take over on both sides. I went more towards the "front" if you will. Again, the police response was unnerving to say the least, apc with loaded riflemen are a little excessive (in my opinion, also from the local police department was poor planning (opinion)); where well mannered riot police and street officers would have more likely have cooled tensions. Instead the opposite happened same thing went down both sides engaged and low and behold the dudes with giant weapons won. Again, though what was covered? Because, it certainly wasn't the prayer circles going on, nor was it the suburban churches from wealthy neighborhoods handing out water and food, it wasn't the eloquent speeches some leaders gave. So again, reports of violence and only violence undid any message of unity delivered at the gatherings. I found this particularly sad because at that time the actual story as we all believed was literally this kid was gunned down in the back in a minor scuffle with a police officer. After a bit I, violence escalating I had no reason to be there anymore that night. The next few days I was on my on shift which was a 16 hour 4 day a week shift at the recycling plant so getting there was unfortunately not really much of an option. By this time though the media had shifted the movement narrative well enough to make it us vs them and as I said some of the out of town folks did bring a direct change of the experience. My gf was asked to leave one of the following days by another protester and so she did, it wasn't a polite could you please leave. I assumed what the following weekend would unfold. It went that way at the same time the narrative presented to the mass public changed on both sides repeatedly, while not much besides intimidation by both sides expanded on the ground (to be clear I am not using sides as AA vs. White in this context, more in protesters vs. police). From there the situation degraded locally. From the perspective of being there as the movement as defined was born (according to some). The first thing noticed when it coalesced, towards a national movement was duality in leadership that formed as it grew in the media and physically, this is not bad but needs to be acknowledge that the more controversial and challenging the more a media will push and support that form of leadership. This is a failing of all of us, and I have my opinion below on an over all perspective. Above was just my perspective of the events I was in, and watched develop from less than 15 miles away. It is not more valid or less valid than any others experiences or opinions and I would love to hear similar stories.

My opinion shifts with the way in which the movement flows, but I tend to see that their is semblance of systematic racism still around us so the mindset applies and the movement valid. All lives do matter; but the original point I think I am getting at; is that we look at BLM from the wrong perspective, it ends up highlighting the wrong things. For example, to we fight the shadow of over enforcement, excessive force and police discrimination, or should we continue looking further towards the substance? There are incredible inequities between the African American and Caucasian population in most major cities, this should always be considered the main cause. I see this as unintentional from the perspectives of Caucasian people as it is more a left over from an era of more institutional racism (in my opinion is dies more and more with generations removed from it), which is why many whites feel the disgust and gave birth to the "white guilt" terminology. 75 years is not a huge amount of time applied since the major modern strides of the Civil Rights Movement in the 40's-60's. Solving what created the socioeconomic conditions which not only should breed disgust in anyone considering equality under the law a goal but in decent human rights. I also, then see a lot of the discrimination as far as pull yourself up by the bootstraps mentality (this can be applied in certain situations) or the you're not my problem mentality (sad in general), this can be applied to all races based on socioeconomic standards but it is a label that sticks as a broad brush strokes on certain groups (African Americans, Native Americans, Immigrants of almost all varieties). Then comes the perception of success and of cultural melding but we should not forget the old adage that habits die hard, which people preconceive as sample quick processes that are going to be easy nor without consequences. That sucks but social change comes at a price and also takes leadership, the shock and awe came but the organization and follow up have yet to in my opinion. So, we continue to see a movement the pushes further out from the initial perspective, reasoning and ultimately it's goal. I hope that the BLM movement can pick up some charismatic and truly peaceful leaders and it could make great strides if not the civil rights movement (all people, but applied to race here) will continue but the BLM may feed a division for a short while.

I would appreciate any input here. It is not my intention nor purpose to hurt others in posting this, if it did you have my apologies feel free to contact me and let me see if I can word it properly or better yet with counter information to change my perspective. These are only experiences and opinions, in essence ideas. Let's work together to change the ideas before they become beliefs those are much harder to effect. Force be with you, I hope this becomes a great conversation with a lot of perspective it's one us USA Jedi should have and have been having for a while.

Respectfully,
Tim

Rosalyn J wrote: No

I am saying, people point their cameras at fights and firey language in the same way that they slow their car down to look at an accident

Im still not seeing your point? What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying the evidence that BLM is a racist and violent group is slanted in some way because of human natures proclivity to only document the violence and not the peaceful aspects?

I am at work and can not watch the video as well. I will update comments tailored to the video later.

I believe, very much so, that all government organizations should be held to high standards and I believe the public has a right to ensure that they are properly represented and treated correctly by these organizations. In this, the rise of BLM in order to address police brutality and racism is a good thing, in that the intent is to raise awareness. Forget the name "BLM" and focus on the movement itself, and trust me in that I feel the BLM moniker to be poor advertising.

As a movement itself, I have extreme issues with how it is presented and executed which unfortunately has caused it to become a divisive movement. I will post references for an interview with a former Black Panther and her thoughts on, but in it she states that there is no agenda nor real organization, and that is very important because there were rules and methods employed to ensure a cohesive message was spread and the ability to deny involvement if something went south. My first real knowledge of BLM came from watching a video of students claiming to be of BLM disturbing a studying period. An organized movement with rules, an agenda, and organization would be able to deny that and help usher in strategies and methods of civil discourse and education.

So, in general I applaud people who see that there is an issue and bringing awareness of a problem, I am saddened by the methodology and lack of control chosen over it and the subsequent anger over the ineffectiveness of these methods (Such as someone standing in the middle of a busy road and getting hit by a car and being angry when the car flees an angry mob). However, I agree that the movement serves a purpose in terms of highlighting a problem in which there is injustice. Now, that won't happen over night, and mentalities take time to change, and there is still the area of police officers do have to make snap decisions that are life and death, but with the rise of body cams and the changing populace attitude, justice will be served.

There are ways to make a splash and get many likes and views, and there are ways to spread the word without blocking off airport roads and generating anger instead of compassion and understanding. The problem is there has to be a unified presence and mindset to avoid someone from souring the public perception of your message. For instance, we as Jedi work to spread Jediism and it's ways, but if someone were to start a riot in the name of Jediism, that becomes a problem. We have an easy way of saying "No no, he's just using our name, he isn't one of us" because of doctrine, codified beliefs, and membership process, but BLM does not have that protection so a good message about raising awareness of unequal treatment becomes spoiled when someone does something that isn't entirely kosher.

Vibe: Elaine Brown on Black Lives Matter
Youtube: Dartmouth College Library Protest
Youtube: Ferguson Protester Hit by Car
Youtube: UK Heathrow Airport BLM

Some action bring drama as does some ideas. Intentions are obvious some days. To me ... It seems this line and these lines are drawing people away from peace and moren to a type of personal segregation. Be cautious Jedi where you put your mind and heart because that which you think... You are . That which you store you will find.
Every life matters . Not just one. Many can share the same value. Personally ... Personally I don't subscribe to this idea that one matters over the other. Cops and people matter. May the Force y'all seek find y'all where y'all seek it !

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?

steamboat28 wrote:

Brick wrote: But I would say that the main thing wrong with 'Black Lives Matter' is that it's only half a sentence, it's missing 'too', or 'just as much as white lives' from the end of it.

If "all lives mattered," people wouldn't have to specify that black lives do. Your comment is well-meaning in spirit (I hope), but displays a very dangerous misunderstanding of the situation at hand.

I think you misunderstand the point I'm trying to convey Steam. The fact of the matter is that all lives do matter. But I understand that all lives are not currently treated equally, which is why I said that I understand why the movement exists. The problem with the title 'black lives matter' is that it can be warped by idiots or enemies of the movement to be interpreted as implying that other lives don't, which is not the argument that I believe they are trying to put forward and which leaves it open to being hijacked by bigots and morons (which is what happened to feminism for a time).

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'.

Rosalyn J wrote: 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 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.

Yes, I agree with this completely Ros. For clarity in my response above to Steam, I was not saying 'all lives matter' as a counter to 'black lives matter'. I was using it as a statement of support. Yes, black lives DO matter, and that is why they should be treated the same as other live, but they don't currently appear to be, the systems do seem to be rigged against black lives, and its disgusting in this day and age that that is the case, I support BLM in its efforts for equality in the same way I support the feminist movement.

But the way it is currently being portrayed in the media is similar to how feminists were once portrayed as a bunch of women who hate men and don't shave. It's a completely inaccurate representation of the movement as a whole. But its the small minority of members that are like that, that are spoiling the reputation of the movement as a whole (which is why I said I hope BLM manages to distance itself from that inaccurate representation, in the same way feminism has done)

For those of you familiar with my posts, this is going to sound very familiar, but to me, it once again comes down to the revolution in communication.

During WWII, the public received news of the war at the movie theater or from the president. It was often days or weeks after the events occurred and it was sanitized for public consumption. A lot of it was propaganda. The rise of television changed all of this during the Vietnam conflict and the Civil Rights Movement. People were seeing the horrors as they happened on the nightly news. The brutality of war became real and the violent racism in the Southern United States became obvious and undeniable. The major media companies still controlled most of the information, but the journalists of the time were respected as objective reporters of facts. They presented the evidence and allowed the viewing audience to form an opinion.

BLM and other such groups have an opportunity that movements of the past did not. The rise of internet, social media, and satellite communication allows for video evidence to go viral in mere moments and lets people see things they would not ordinarily be exposed to. This is a good thing, when used objectively as it was in the past. It becomes dangerous when it is used in an inflammatory manner as it is now. Like the car accident analogy, people are drawn to the spectacular and are more likely to look at things that are out of the ordinary. This has given rise to social media SJWs who believe they can use the most egregious examples as supporting evidence for their righteousness while ignoring any evidence that would point to the contrary. It is irresponsible and it creates echo chambers among their followers where everyone just repeats what they hear from people they agree with rather than seeking the objective truth.

Free communication of information is crucial to our advancement. Imagine if slaves had Facebook in the 1700's or the Irish had YouTube during the Great Famine. The world would have probably reacted very differently and much sooner. But, if these tools are used irresponsibly to create division and suspicion, they won't help any movement achieve the goal, including BLM. Present the evidence, all of it, and let the truth speak for itself.

Rosalyn J wrote: No

I am saying, people point their cameras at fights and firey language in the same way that they slow their car down to look at an accident

i agree that this point does have merit. the mainstream media always misrepresents movements and protests...

but the crowd WAS chanting "we want dead cops now" wasnt it?
i mean, thats a valid point too, right?

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.

this point is completely trivial next to the points that ive raised.
youre ignoring the real criticisms of the BLM movement in order to draw attention to your own personal feelings.

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

especially in regards to your choice of words "because we arent calm enough."

its one thing to respect people's right to have feelings, its another thing altogether to allow them to act out in ways that actually do hurt people. and im not talking about the "emotional violence" of someone disagreeing with you, im talking about real actual violence of rioting and attacking people and setting shit on fire.
yeah, fury needs to be kept under control, otherwise we all kill each other. no one should be allowed to sit at the grown up table if they cant control themselves like a grown up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_7HN_-hdh0

Rosalyn I am posing this simply as a question. It will be applied by all ofus as a qustion of race but this is intended to be a question of logic and peace.

Your furry, should not be dismissed, however, many more people are hearing now; is the furry to express outrage worth the alienation of the very minds you are hoping to have listen (yes, many are hearing few are listening that was on purpose)? I am white, I don't know what it is like to be black I never will. I accept that and so I accept the furry left over from generations of oppression and inequality based on race because I have no experience to compare it to. It is why I work with inner-city education volunteering when they give me the chance this is one of the keys I believe to the continuation of the civil rights movement). Most people will always grasp for an experience they can relate it to though it is not even remotely close and there in lies where any movement needs to ask. When does the fury stop, and the teaching/reforming/and unifying force beyond anger begin? Also, it doesn't help that the media portrays things the way it does nor that factual information is hard to come by unless you look in the right places.

Simply a question, not in attack and I apologize if taken that way, just a food for thought question.

Sincerely,
Tim

The replies on this thread are quick so if this is now irrelevant sorry.......

I have to weigh in on this one and I apologize in advance if any of you are offended because that is not my goal. I shouldn't even have to say this but this is what we have to do when we have these potentially sensitive conversations. I love humans regardless of race or ethnicity. We all came from the same place and the same source and we are all beautiful and all life is precious. Racism is a cruel joke, not just on black people, but also on whites. It is ugly and it allows those who feel inferior to act with an authority given by the state that makes them feel superior... and that power... corrupts them. So we're not talking about all black people or all white people. This issue is a conflict between human beings and other human beings corrupted by power. Because of the TYPE of power and the METHOD of how that corruption is exercised there is a common description that emerges on both sides. Black on one side. Police on another. This doesn't mean it is black people against the police or police against black people. It simply means that the one group of humans in this particular conflict shares a racial identity in common because that racial identity is the subject of the oppression born from this corruption of which the shared identity happens to be police officers. That doesn't mean all blacks are the victims of racism or that all police are the villains. This doesn't mean whites aren't shot by cops. It simply means they are not shot by officers because of their race or where their race is a component of the decision to beat or murder them. We have to be careful with our words because the villains have been twisting our words in order to keep us from having meaningful and positive conversations that actually threaten the culture of racism that they want to uphold.

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.

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.

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.

But there's a problem. All cops aren't racist!

No, that's NOT a problem because it's called Black Lives Matter. Why do people feel like they need to add that? Possibly, because they assume black people don't know this?? On what basis does this assumption stand? Or is it a reaction to criticisms put out to SPIN BLM into a politically dangerous position? Did BLM ever say that black lives are threatened by ALL police officers? No, this is media/political spin meant to attack the movement with criticisms like attacking a Martin Luther King speech on account of typos and misspellings. Who would do that? So the reality is that there has been a FALSE NARRATIVE being perpetuated against BLM to malign it as "bad" so that the positive effects could be thwarted. How? Because in order for black lives to matter, they have to matter to WHITE PEOPLE. But if white people can be turned against BLM as a "movement" by politically assassinating the imperfect organization then someone's agenda is winning. Who's? Who wanted to cut the head off the snake? Who benefits if whites are able to ignore the BLM movement? Who would have benefitted the most if whites were able to fully ignore the Civil Rights Movement? Do you think that everyone who wanted to have a voice in the Civil Rights movement was entirely non-violent?

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? 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. But when its "not them"... certain whites simply cannot stand it and feel, because of common race, offended at the thought of racial issues in which they are asked to do or to be better. They're offended at the idea that racism is a white problem, not a black problem. And so any protest that suggests that they need to do something about it; that their inaction may even in fact be, in some cases, tacit approval, that they have to politically attack, not racist whites who are causing this reaction, but the reaction itself.

Do all lives matter? Yes. Do blue lives matter? Yes. No one said they didn't. No one said their value was any less. The people that introduce these distractions into the conversation are those who do not want the conversation and therefore try to derail it. As long as they aren't being targeted by police because they're white, the truth is they're okay with it. They're okay with Stop and Frisk. They're okay with a police state as long as it targets "the others".

If you were feeling sad today because your dog died... what if instead of showing empathy towards you and your personal situation, what if someone said "Hey all dogs lives matter and there are a lot of other people who lose their dogs, not just you!" What would you think about this person? Does the fact that other people lose their dogs too mean that you shouldn't be sad about your dog? Does it mean you should have a funeral for ALL the dogs that died? And if your neighbor murdered your dog because it pooped on his lawn do you have no right to be mad at your neighbor or try to sue him because the same thing happens with other dogs and other neighbors? If this sounds ridiculous to you it's because it is. #ALLLIVESMATTER and #BLUELIVESMATTER is simply an attack on the personal suffering of the black community and a condemnation of its reaction to RACISTS who wear badges and abuse their authority due to the fact that ALL lives have value, even those racists who are killing them. But no one ever stops a war and says "JAPANESE LIVES MATTER" or "NAZI LIVES MATTER". No, once there is an enemy who will not compromise they kill them with extreme violence. Where was "ALL LIVES MATTER" when America dropped the Atom bomb? How many civilians died? How many civilians died in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of "Freedom"? They're okay when it's happening to someone else and that's part of the real reason why Terrorism exists.

And finally where was ALL LIVES MATTER when the police were killing whites? Did white people collectively protest that? No? Why is it only used to counter someone else's protest? Let me give you a hint. It has nothing to do with a lack of inclusion. It is every bit a function of racism and white supremacy. Keep asking yourself one question. Who benefits?