The Problem with Black Lives Matter

ZealotX wrote: The ability to assign wrongdoing to BLM seems to be common practice for many whites.

Except that it's not. There are just as many blacks speaking out against BLM as there are any other race. Go to youtube and type "Blacks against Black Lives Matter" and enjoy.

Heck. There is a large number of blacks against the common rhetoric of there own communities.

Trisskar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The ability to assign wrongdoing to BLM seems to be common practice for many whites.

Except that it's not. There are just as many blacks speaking out against BLM as there are any other race. Go to youtube and type "Blacks against Black Lives Matter" and enjoy.

Heck. There is a large number of blacks against the common rhetoric of there own communities.

"Just as many"? Source please.

Some YouTube videos don't represent the opinions of a very diverse group of millions that share a race, just as some white people who join the KKK don't represent all whites. Anytime you search for a specific result on YouTube or Google, you'll always find it. We can't make generalizations that way. It isn't evidence.

Trisskar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The ability to assign wrongdoing to BLM seems to be common practice for many whites.

Except that it's not. There are just as many blacks speaking out against BLM as there are any other race. Go to youtube and type "Blacks against Black Lives Matter" and enjoy.

Heck. There is a large number of blacks against the common rhetoric of there own communities.

That's not accurate. The problem is that there is a response to the response to the response. In other words, BLM is a response to the racism within police culture. There are even police officers who agree with this so how is there a question? Right?

So BLM is a response. Then white people respond to BLM. Why? Because many white's feel like it is an indictment against the way they think about black people. Not even an out of the closet racist wants to be called a racist. I guess it's a little too on the nose. People get offended at the implication, even if they're offended on behalf of police officers. They don't want to believe the thousands of black people that say there is a problem. They would rather agree with the police and find any cause or justification to do so. The other day I watched a video of a black cop getting verbally destroyed by a white girl who was probably on drugs or something. Absolutely no respect. White officers sometimes beat black people if they simply feel disrespected. Many whites don't want to see things like this so they'd rather believe it isn't real. So in their reactions they talk about everything from black on black crime to how much of a scary criminal the victim was. And for many black people this is incredibly insensitive and hateful.

Then there's another response. Because while the first response is directly at BLM, whether by the TV media or radio personalities, then you have people responding to the direct response. They either agree with it or they disagree. But what's true is that "people tend to see what they desire to see". So they tend to agree with the talking heads they usually agree with. And the talking heads know the effect they have on society. That's why they're there, spreading their opinions like viruses. And so what they do is give you statistics as evidence to support their thesis about BLM. The statistics they use are sometimes false and sometimes real, depending on their argument. For instance, there is an IQ argument that arose as part of the response to BLM. IQ. Why are we even talking about the IQ of a race of people? I'm not going to go into what my defense was (I was responding on Stefan Molyneux's channel) but I actually mounted a defense against the IQ argument. But for everyone saying no, there are hundreds nodding yes. Do you think those people would chose an equally qualified black person over a white person for a position? Let's be honest. The direct response to BLM was inherently racist. I will make this point to the end of days if need be.

The secondary response to that response was more so about the merits of evidence laid out by the direct response. This is almost what we're doing here now except what we're doing is a response to the response to the response, questioning the merit of the ideas laid out in the video in the OP. And people are also blending in what they have heard about BLM from other sources; other responses. So being twice removed or so, this isn't a racist response but rather one that is qualifying whether or not the response we're responding to is racist and invalid. Again, the original post was in disagreement with the video.

Now the fact that there are black people who are speaking against BLM is not mindblowing. There are a lot of black people who grow up in white suburbs and have mostly white friends. They don't have the typical "black experience" so they don't understand the response to racist cops because they've never had that experience and feel like they're being spoken for too because they're black. The fact that they feel the need to say anything is already suspect. Not only that, but they have to fit in and they might feel threatened by this whole thing potentially turning their white friends against black people in general so they want to come and say "well no, all black people are not like that". Which is not a false statement. Black people are not a monolith. But we are treated by many (if not most) as a monolith. And therefore if one of us steals, we all steal. If one of us is willing to riot, then we must all be willing to riot. Their response to the response is based on how they (non-standard black) want to be treated. The fact that they have to do this means that they believe its even necessary to point out differences between them and other black people. Why would you need to do this if all your friends treat you by the content of your own character?

And the truth is you can always find black people who hate black people. Dave Chappelle made fun of this in one of his skits about the blind black man who was a klan leader. Self hate is also a product of the dominant society and their views of minorities which can then transfer to minorities who are trying to assimilate into that dominant culture. There are black people who bleach their skin trying to assimilate, who dress a certain way to assimilate, who talk a certain way to assimilate, and who share the views of the dominant culture they want to assimilate into. Some might say this is symptomatic of Stockholm's syndrome but I think it's more about power. When a child is raped or sexually molested they often do the same to someone else because they're trying to get their power back or feel the sense of power that was taken from them. Sheriff Plummer, for example, has been exposed to not only be a fraud, but inmates are abused under his watch. One even died of thirst. How does that happen in America?

But I do have a question for you.

You said "common rhetoric"

I would like to know how you, without being black, without being privy to conversations in the black community, and without talking to enough black people to definitively say "this is what black people commonly say", how do you know what is or isn't "common rhetoric" in the black community? I'm not calling you a racist by any means. I just want to know where you get that idea from.

"So what you have to ask yourself is "are these expectations reasonable"? Do you have a reasonable expectation that an organized event that is designed to be peaceful, could not be penetrated by anyone who hates whites or who hates police or who can't dance or who can't jump? How could anyone know? How could they screen for it? Metal detectors cannot see intentions. So what is it? Is it the idea that black people must be in agreement with other black people if they're all protesting the same thing? Is it that if one black person is angry and upset and willing to act irrationally, that all black protestors have the same predilection, the same gene, the same fundamental fiber so that if a handful of them are wrong then it must be indicative of BLM as a movement?"-ZealotX

So, this is something that is not the unique to BLM protests. Also, the origins in Ferguson, MO was peaceful but a handful of people got violent. The police reacted in kind and it snowballed. I was there during the days and it remained peaceful for some time but then spiraled nightly. I also, saw similar degradation in protests against Monsanto in St Louis as it only takes a handful off jerks to send a crown into herd mentality. By the time the organizers knew what was happening regaining control is extremely unlikely. A committee of 20ish is very limited in their ability to control a few hundred people. To further that, the loose organization of these forms of movements makes it difficult to enforce when agitators arrive then also add in the people whom come out from different places and act out. This again causes herd mentality and bam its a snow ball effect.

This is all I have to add right now as I have been paying attention and will keep following. I want to commend the peacefulness of this conversation. We need to keep a dialog going and maybe we can do some good in and out of these "walls".

Having witnessed both the L.A. Riots and the O.J. Simpson verdict from the perspective of an L.A. resident, I can tell you that the "herd mentality" is an issue, and it happens on all sides. I watched people who began protesting peacefully turn to violence simply because others around them were doing it. People of all races were looting during the riots, and people from outside of Compton and Watts drove to those area specifically to join in the violence going on.

I heard white people who were outside the L.A. Courthouse peacefully expecting O.J. to be found guilty start shouting racist slurs at black people after the verdict was announced because everyone around them started doing it too. The trial was supposed to be about an individual accused of killing to other individuals, but it tuned into "us vs them" based on race on the sidewalk outside. It was weird to watch. People were obviously trying to fit in with their own tribe by mimicking the behavior of others in their group. Nobody dared to cross the line to the other side for fear of being ostracized or ganged up on. It lasted for weeks. I felt uncomfortable around people I used to get along with because their behavior had changed based only on the color of their skin, even though the trial was really about money and fame.

Interestingly enough, the same stupid crap happens here every time the Lakers win a championship. Celebration turns into lighting cars on fire. Gotta love L.A.

So it looks like (correct me if you disagree) there's several issues here that we agree on:
A.) America used to have institutionalized racism
B.) Blacks still feel prejudiced against by both the attitudes of non-blacks and the system that gives the benefit of the doubt to police
C.) Blacks feel like they are expected to change everything in B but don't have the power to do so
And the issues we disagree on:
I.) Are blacks expected to comply with a system that has been at least historically disadvantageous to them (to what extent)
II.) Can we blame a group as a whole for the actions of some of its actors (especially if it's not a well-organized one like BLM)
III.) What will make the government (and people in it) change both their way of thinking and their actions
IV.) What is a specific, quantitative end goal for BLM
V.) What should we as individuals/Jedi do?
VI.) How are police supposed to respond to semi-violence? (cue force continuum)
(Feel free to add on points of contention that have relevance)

Kobos wrote: "So what you have to ask yourself is "are these expectations reasonable"? Do you have a reasonable expectation that an organized event that is designed to be peaceful, could not be penetrated by anyone who hates whites or who hates police or who can't dance or who can't jump? How could anyone know? How could they screen for it? Metal detectors cannot see intentions. So what is it? Is it the idea that black people must be in agreement with other black people if they're all protesting the same thing? Is it that if one black person is angry and upset and willing to act irrationally, that all black protestors have the same predilection, the same gene, the same fundamental fiber so that if a handful of them are wrong then it must be indicative of BLM as a movement?"-ZealotX

So, this is something that is not the unique to BLM protests. Also, the origins in Ferguson, MO was peaceful but a handful of people got violent. The police reacted in kind and it snowballed. I was there during the days and it remained peaceful for some time but then spiraled nightly. I also, saw similar degradation in protests against Monsanto in St Louis as it only takes a handful off jerks to send a crown into herd mentality. By the time the organizers knew what was happening regaining control is extremely unlikely. A committee of 20ish is very limited in their ability to control a few hundred people. To further that, the loose organization of these forms of movements makes it difficult to enforce when agitators arrive then also add in the people whom come out from different places and act out. This again causes herd mentality and bam its a snow ball effect.

This is all I have to add right now as I have been paying attention and will keep following. I want to commend the peacefulness of this conversation. We need to keep a dialog going and maybe we can do some good in and out of these "walls".

Thank you for an excellent contribution to this discussion.

Again... I think the reason why this discussion here is as good as it is is because of the people. I commend all of you because it takes a certain level of: respect, sensitivity, consciousness, level headedness, logic, understanding, wisdom, etc. etc. to really have this discussion in a fair and meaningful way and I just want to say that you guys are all great in all of these aspects. Even those I may disagree with... you're still share these qualities which allow us to communicate in a way that I can fully express myself and no one really gives in to the "dark side" (metaphor) which would turn the conversation negative. As a result I'm very proud of this conversation and all those involved.

I want to combine a few things from both you and Senan. Both excellent contributions.

Herd mentality
Snowball effect

You're right! These things have always been a problem for the human species in the most absolute general terms one can imagine. Think about order vs chaos. Think about world religions. Think about the Jedi. Think about the distribution of authority. Think about the animals fighting to see who is the strongest; who will lead the pack/herd/flock/etc. Who's the strongest? Who's the prettiest? Who's got the most money? Who's the most famous? or infamous?



When you are a good leader, everything goes right and no one challenges you.

I'm kidding. The Lion King was actually a great example. Order was established through the greatness of Mufasa and Simba was being raised to follow in his footsteps. However, Scar wasn't interested in being a follower; being a part of the pride. He didn't care about Mufasa's excellent and righteous leadership. He wanted power. Is this story not repeated a zillion times in our culture? Is it not the basis of the Star Wars franchise which is a reflection of humanity and human events?

This is why I cannot agree with casting blame on BLM. That's like blaming Mufasa for Scar. The existence of "the dark side" is the shadow of the light. Where there is light there will be darkness. Goodness, in my opinion, is maintaining a balance and controlling your words and actions from a desire to do/be good. This prioritizes the wants and needs of others over yourself. I personally, think this is of the utmost importance because what we do shapes the environment. Like global warming/climate change. People can debate it but the science seems to agree that we're contributing to it. So what happens is that, if we don't care what happens to the planet or what the world will be like for future generations we will literally, over time, turn this planet into hell. And what is hell? A "Lake of fire". Everything we do is a cause that has an effect on the environment and all living creatures adapt to their environment. The more light we contribute to the environment the more things can grow. The more darkness we contribute the more things adapt in other ways; struggling to survive.

Black people are not a monolith and black people don't have a king that we all follow. There is no Mufasa. We wish there was. We see a lack of black leadership "in general". However, the only reason "we" (black people) see a need for "black leadership" is because there is no Mufasa that includes us to an equal and fair extent in America. In theory there shouldn't be "black leaders" because that implies there are white leaders. The perception that American leaders are white leaders is created by the environment. In the environment is there more, less, or equal opportunity for black people? Why did the hyenas follow Scar? They weren't in love with him. He simply promised them food under his regime and he was simply using them to get power.

This is where racism in America becomes institutional...

In theory there should be ONE herd; America for Americans. But this is a lie. If you have 1 king that makes all the decisions then the direction your country goes in is based on what he thinks is right or wrong. That concentration of power is very dangerous....but.... it depends on that person. Kings normally have advisors: priests, court, knights, etc. What we have is a system where, instead of trying to bribe the king, you're trying to bribe enough people to carry a vote and because they're not wealthy like a king it takes less money to control them. And therefore that control can be more sophisticated and more consistent since you don't need to bribe the same person for every vote.

Sure I'm talking about lawmakers but this is a problem throughout our system. It's called corruption. So if you look at the judicial branch instead of the legislative do you really think there's no corruption there? The only real question is whether or not there is power there. If there's power there then there is corruption there. Because if you do not cultivate highly moral people... you will have corruption. How much corruption dominates depends on the level of discipline. Jedi, if nothing else, are people who believe in discipline to control their own power. This isn't self-serving but rather that which serves the greater good. TO ME... The Sith are those who, whether consciously or not, are willing to f*ck over everyone else in order to gain whatever power they seek. Again, they may not see it that way because they don't necessarily want to see the consequences and you can narrow your field of vision to exclude the lives and well being of others. That's when you start losing things like empathy and morality.

So is there a question that there is corruption in the Judicial system? If the answer is yes then what form does it take? Think about it.

I was bullied in middle school by a big white kid. At that time I was a skinny black kid. "us vs them". Was it racist? probably not. I don't think I was chosen by this kid because I was black, because the school was mostly black. I think I was chosen because I was skinny and different. And that was enough. So maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he got in trouble at home and his dad yelled at him and it hurt him inside. Maybe people thought, because he was so big, he could take the hurt they unwittingly inflicted on him? But when he saw me he saw someone he could take it out on. He saw someone who couldn't fight back, and even if he did, wasn't nearly in the same weight class. It would be like a heavyweight fighting a lightweight. Even if he wasn't the greatest fighter his size meant he didn't have to be in order to win. I was someone who he could win against even if he was a loser elsewhere in life.

"us vs them"

Now I'm a big black guy. 6'2 250lbs. I'm the nicest guy in the world but I intimidate people who don't know me. Now imagine that bully becomes a cop. Far fetched? Not all. You have to consider what type of individuals seek out this profession. What kind of people desire to be police officers? Do they want justice? Do they want the authority? Whatever their reasons for joining they all have a little racial bias. As Senan said, when white people (and I assume they weren't dressed in all white with hoods) heard the verdict, how did they react? Whether they controlled it every other time or not, they were racists who weren't actively discriminating (or didn't have the power to do so). But in the safety of a group they felt empowered to use their words to inflict emotional damage on the black people in earshot for something THEY were completely innocent of.

Now if a random group of white people could do that, what happens when you put badges on them? They're still in a group. But now you've empowered that group with the authority of the state. This is again, one the reasons why I said earlier that a lot of racists and KKK members simply became the police. And often if you took the hoods off you would see they were already cops and other public officials-which is why they had to wear masks to hide their identities in the first place. What happens when your leader is Scar? What happens when the alpha males are the guys who are looking for the slightest reason to shoot black people because they already feel like black people shouldn't be here and that they are overwhelmingly criminals. And if you're racist then you are much more likely to be exposed to racist propaganda (herd communications).

And when black people see this and white people are flippant about it and support the cops, the feeling of not being true americans in the same sense is reinforced. The feelings of inequality are reinforced. The feeling that we need our own leaders, our own schools, our own land, maybe even our own state, are reinforced. And that's in the minds of the logical. In the minds of the irrational, who are driven by emotions, these feelings turn to hatred and jealousy. These feelings pervert the person and turn them into a vehicle for hate. The hatred of the KKK is received by them in full and they express it the only way they can. More hate. It becomes easy for them to think in absolutes; to think that all whites are the same. It becomes easy for them to think all white people are evil and that they hate us because in reality... the way they see other black people treated is "evil". If you are on the other side you're more likely to see it as evil. If you're on the same side you're more like to see it as "a mistake", "self defense", etc. You look for possible reasons and justifications because otherwise it doesn't makes sense to you. If you're on the other side and you've seen much more of this and you've witnessed it and you've experienced it yourself, how many cops do you need to prove it to you? At a certain point you stop trying to figure it out. The answer is that white people (in general) hate us and they're out to get us.

I would love to show all of these emotional, irrational black people that they're wrong. I would love to argue that "oh well its really the wealthy elite". But then that argument is undercut every single time a Zimmerman gets off, a Tenseng gets off, or the countless officers who are never even charged. Did you know the officer that shot a black guy picking up a toy gun in a store, shot DEAD, got off? Why? BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT. If I did what the cop did, a 6'2 black man, to a white guy, I would be on death row. I could claim that I was scared for my life all day and no one on the jury would believe me. Juries are helping these guys get off. Prosecutors are friends with the police because the police 99.9% of the time are helping prosecutors make their cases. White jurors see the police 99.9% of the time as people sacrificing their lives to protect and serve (them). They're looking for reasons to get these guys off because they are on the same side and it's...

"us vs them"

Rex wrote: So it looks like (correct me if you disagree) there's several issues here that we agree on:
A.) America used to have institutionalized racism
B.) Blacks still feel prejudiced against by both the attitudes of non-blacks and the system that gives the benefit of the doubt to police
C.) Blacks feel like they are expected to change everything in B but don't have the power to do so
And the issues we disagree on:
I.) Are blacks expected to comply with a system that has been at least historically disadvantageous to them (to what extent)
II.) Can we blame a group as a whole for the actions of some of its actors (especially if it's not a well-organized one like BLM)
III.) What will make the government (and people in it) change both their way of thinking and their actions
IV.) What is a specific, quantitative end goal for BLM
V.) What should we as individuals/Jedi do?
VI.) How are police supposed to respond to semi-violence? (cue force continuum)
(Feel free to add on points of contention that have relevance)

A) used to?????? I think we disagree on what institutionalized racism means.
Let me use a different example. Let's say that Amazon bought ALL grocery stores. You might say "no way, we have laws against monopolizing an industry because we know that monopolies are the enemy of the free market and they crush small business which for many people is the American dream". And if you say all that I would be nodding the whole time and then remind you that this is just for fun. If Amazon owned all grocery stores then they would control how grocery stores operated. This would be good and bad. A lot of people would lose their jobs. The cost of food would rise but it would be at your door within 3 hours of your order. There would be pros and cons. Now let's say that Amazon created a culture that supported the vegan diet more than any other. Maybe they would increase the price of meat while decreasing the price of fruits and vegetables. In other words, they would discriminate. They might see this discrimination as a good thing. "We don't need no stinkin meat", they might say. And maybe they talk about how awful it is to slaughter animals and how animals are treated. All that stuff. And they would have some valid points. But that would be institutional discrimination. It wouldn't have to be stated policy of Amazon to become a cultural norm. As long as there is a mob of people who believe strongly in the vegan diet and don't mind pushing it on others, that's really all it takes. All it takes is for the biases of a group to become normalized. Once normalized then going against that becomes "wrong". Now that homosexuality has become normalized, for example, it is now wrong to denigrate people for being part of the lifestyle. I remember a time when everyone seemed to be against it and called people "fags" and such. Now, the only time you really hear that word is from gay people themselves. But do you think everyone's mind has really changed? Or is it just political correctness that doesn't allow people to talk about it? So what if a bunch of white cops think the worst things about black people but simply cannot say it out loud for political correctness? Does that mean their thoughts and feelings cannot shape the culture of the police force? All it needs to be is "normal". From there it becomes institutionalized. And when you still have laws on the books that punish black people more than whites for arguably the same offense... then it seems to support and reinforce this "us vs them" mentality that forms the basis of racism.

B & C) While I can't fault your use of "feel" I would like to interject and remind you that we're not talking about the "feelings" of one person, but literally millions. And for many of those millions it's not just a feeling but experiences. And when we share our experiences it reinforces these feelings but just saying feelings, in my opinion, undercuts the argument by making it seem like the feelings aren't legitimate. You might "feel" they aren't legitimate. (I'm not saying you do, just making a point about feelings) But these feelings has a basis in experiences that white people simply do not share and is therefore harder (not impossible) for them to understand.

I) Are black people expected to comply? Why is it "black people"? When individual white people fail to comply with the laws of the land, (for instance: Jared Kushner changing forms to
reflect meetings with Russians), no one says "white people are expected to comply with the law". Jared Kushner isn't a "white" offender. He's simply Jared Kushner. When you see a criminal on TV, do we note only his name? Or do we note his or her race? What if the person is mixed race? Do we notice their race then? It SEEMS TO ME... that race is particularly of interest in the commission of a CRIME. So the problem with racism is how it EXCLUDES races from being part of the "us" and INCLUDES them as being part of the "them". Instead of saying there were "individuals" who started riots at peaceful demonstrations organized by BLM the conversation is that "black people" started riots. The color of their skin shouldn't even matter. The fact that it seems to matter very much is why WE (black people) feel the need to say "BLACK LIVES MATTER". We didn't create this culture in which "black" is included in the negative sense. We didn't tell teachers to treat black students as if they were automatically dumb or automatically criminals. We didn't ask for the label nor did we invent it. You can't even call people FAT anymore on TV but you can identity someone by their race on the news. "2 people were shot. The suspect was black." This is part of the problem that I really want you guys to understand.

II) There's another well organized group. It's called The United States. If you blame the United States as a whole for the actions of some of its members then the Taliban, ISIS, and all other Muslim extremists are right and the United States is evil and must be stopped. But then again... they have members who behead people and blow other people up so Muslims are evil and should be stopped. If you fall into this trap of blame you will eventually have to see that it is a roller coaster ride that doesn't end. You cannot take a commonality of a group of people and use that common thread to blame the MAJORITY for the actions of the MINORITY. Because guess what, we're all humans. We all have 2 eyes, 2 ears, etc. Are we all guilty of genocide because some of us (humans) did it? Of course not. If a minority of American voted for Jill Stein why isn't she president instead of Donald Trump? And let's go back down to the micro-level. To expect BLM to be able to prevent the actions of a minority is irrational because it assumes something impossible; that you can control people. You can't. America has a police force, not to control people, but to apprehend people who are out of control. So the best BLM could do would be to apprehend people who are out of control but is that their responsibility? Or is apprehending people who are out of control the responsibility of the police? Chances are, if I threw on a leather coat and started fighting crime the police would throw me in jail because I do not have the authority to do that.

III) Voting is great if you are part of the MAJORITY. Therefore for issues concerning the MAJORITY voting works great. When you're a MINORITY voting is not so great. You become a "special interest group" and people in the majority use propaganda to make the majority vote against you. They call it "conservative values". It just means "we don't want to change the status quo". Black people were denied civil rights for A HUNDRED YEARS after slavery and the civil rights movement lasted for decades. When it takes THAT LONG to change something that the MAJORITY shouldn't be against... do you think that inspires black people to vote more? or to vote less? In essence, it reinforces anyone who thinks their vote doesn't matter (then there's gerrymandering and other shenanigans), and reinforces anyone who thinks the majority of whites are the same and are all racists. Logically, why else would the MAJORITY of whites be against black civil rights? I'm not saying all whites are racists. I'm saying "It's complicated". Way too complicated than to say that voting is the answer.


IV) Assimilation? (even population distribution for major cities such that all cities over 500k residents wouldn't have a disparity greater than 1σ or ~15% from the national average)
I don't understand this answer. My answer would be justice and equality which has nothing to do with assimilation or population distribution. If there's too many black people in the city whites will just move out, taking their money with them. Thus, the suburban schools and private schools are better funded and provide better education. Better education means more money. More money means a healthy economy for those suburbs. A healthy economy supports better schools, better jobs, and other opportunities. I won't say what happens to the inner cities without a healthy economy. That should be obvious. But for example, to see a movie I literally have to leave my neighborhood and go to a white suburb because there are ZERO movie theaters in my community. But don't get me wrong. I make more money than most people at my company regardless of race. I could live in those white suburbs if I wanted to, just like most black people who earn more money. And then my tax dollars would support the mostly white schools and the mostly white economy. I shouldn't have to do choose between a "better life" for my family and other black people. Truly, the whole idea of assimilation bothers us a great deal.

V) We participate in peaceful assemblies, we don't condone violence (including with your rhetoric or presence), we talk to people of different backgrounds from yourself to reduce your own ignorance, and we participate in civic duties. We do all of these things with a constructive goal in mind.
BUT WE GET ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T. Why? Because we are black and so are those individuals.

VI) I like the current general consensus on force continuum. Body Cameras.
Except that body cameras can magically "not work" at the time the cops decide to beat you. It is one thing that serves as a deterrent to police officers abusing their power. It does not solve it. It's just like how there are many news outlets that report on the president of the United States, but that doesn't stop him from abusing his power; firing the guy investigating him, attacking news organizations, threatening TV hosts, etc.

**There are many ways groups can prevent their members from misrepresenting their group, and BLM's lack of leadership seems like a method to divert responsibility/liability. A far-far-far-right group, the oath keepers, have been involved in many nearly-disastrous events, but have never been (as a group) in legal trouble because of two factors: they're incredibly selective in membership, and they are quick to denounce the actions of members contrary to their mission (even to the point of denouncing the member).

No. Again... there is no way to prevent members from misrepresenting your group if all of their actions are automatically associated with you. All you can do is apprehend people when they get out of control and that is the job of the police. You can't call it a lack of leadership. You're comparing BLM to an organization that doesn't, that I'm aware of, have public marches/protests. The reason people pay any attention to them is because of who they are. This is from their website:

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

If black people could do this there would be no need to march or protest in the first place. Who we are doesn't get the same level of respect so that's why we have to use huge numbers in order to make people take notice. The problem with numbers is that these are not all "members". If you're organizing a march you say "come to this location". The million man march didn't screen hundreds of thousands of people. And because the million man march was to promote unity and family values. It wasn't a response to something that was done to us; therefore, it didn't convey the anger and hurt feelings that a BLM rally would have. So it isn't because they were black or because BLM was unorganized. It was because there was a lot of hurt and anger and you CANNOT CONTROL PEOPLE. Not only that, but riots are a well known thing and a minority of individuals will take that opportunity to grab some free stuff, assuming that, under riot conditions, they can get away with it. Of course, you first have to create riot conditions and so there are people that go to rallies in order to try to instigate that.

As a side note, with Jane Elliot's lesson, I think that it should've been a lesson for people on both sides. If you have brown eyes and you chose to help oppress blue-eyed people, you are literally a part of the problem. The lesson is in how easy that is. If you are blue-eyed and you refuse to see the problem, you are purposefully ignoring the problem; contrapositively, if you have blue eyes and fought against Ms. Elliot, you are the problem that you most likely don't like. The real winners are the ones who understand the comparison and choose to either remove themselves from it or refrain from oppressing others.

No, with all due respect, the real winners are those who understand the point of the experiment and walk in the shoes of the other side. It really wasn't the brown-eyes doing the oppression. They were along for the ride. If they did not participate there would be no way to show the blue eyes how it feels to be oppressed based on something they have no control over. The brown eyes were the "control group" so to speak. The blue eyes needed to see them being treated better in order to understand how they were being treated. For example... if you see that you are being given half a sandwich, and everyone else is, you'd think nothing of it. But if you see that you are given half a sandwich while a group of others are getting a whole sandwich THEN your feelings of inequality would kick in. To not be part of that control group is to DENY the experience needed by those not in the control group and to DENY that they need that experience or that the experience has VALUE. It is, in fact, to pretend that racism isn't happening at all so we don't need to work on ourselves as human beings to do anything to prevent racism.

I think what we're forgetting is that:

Jedi Believe wrote: In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.
In the sanctity of the human person...
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.
In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.

I think we forget that the society in which Jedi believe doesn't exist, so we must make it ourselves. We must make a more compassionate world by being more compassionate, and we must listen to the voices of the unheard regardless of their language (including violence) to see where we may best help mend wounds.

steamboat28 wrote: I think what we're forgetting is that:

Jedi Believe wrote: In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.
In the sanctity of the human person...
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.
In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.

I think we forget that the society in which Jedi believe doesn't exist, so we must make it ourselves. We must make a more compassionate world by being more compassionate, and we must listen to the voices of the unheard regardless of their language (including violence) to see where we may best help mend wounds.

No. Just no. A Jedi has no obligation to be a punching bag taking abuse and violence on the chin because someone is mad. No one Jedi or not has to tolerate or accept violence and abuse.