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)