2020 Protests

And just to be clear... the reason why economics was and is the best strategy (for all those who feel like there aren't enough solutions being discussed) is because for many whites to see black people as equals it could only follow black people being self sufficient as a community. The way entitlement programs are attacked is evidence of this disrespect. Within the "Southern Strategy" of the GOP, whites are basically told that black people are taking their money and jobs, not because they have earned anything, but because they are weak/inferior and need handouts. The reality is that integration causes the money black people earn to go into a system that doesn't fairly and equally return that money into their community through investments and opportunities. The advantages for whites redistribute any advantages that would have come from black people having their own communities, their own land, etc.

Wealth creates wealth. I'm not going to get into a fight with Batman or Tony Stark because their money, in both cases, transforms into their ability to hurt you. They were both very intelligent too and would have been successful without the silver spoon but who could say how much? Who could say to what degree? Maybe it would be Bruce Wayne, police detective after 15 years on the force. Maybe Tony Stark would be working for Bill Gates or Elon Musk. Or maybe he'd have gone to public school, had teachers that didn't care and let him be a class clown, and he would only be the best mechanic in the city. Money makes a big difference. So when racists tell you that black people are inferior because of a lack of wealth... you tell them this.

BLACK PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY HAD NON-INTEGRATED COMMUNITIES THAT WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL.

(Google Black Wall Street, Tulsa)

Example: If you do all your shopping on Amazon, does Jeff Bezos invest in your local community? Or do all your "mom and pop" stores eventually close; having to compete with bigger stores and direct to consumer manufacturers that can undercut prices because they don't have to physically reside or operate in that local town or state? And if Bezos wants to take that money and invest a billion or more into Tesla rivals and compete against SpaceX for reusable rockets, invest hundreds of millions into internet infrastructure, does he have to invest in black neighborhoods? No. Does Amazon's internet infrastructure cover all of Africa? No. So there is little benefit when black people participate in the general economy. When black people do start companies they often require capital from white investors or banks and that in turn means that they benefit more than the black people who start and/or run those companies. It also entitles them to use their ownership to make decisions.

One of the greatest examples of the racial disparity in economics is a story I was told years ago by the president of Black Wall Street USA. They hosted an invent aimed at helping black owned businesses get contracts, I believe from the government but could be wrong. To avoid legal issues they had to market this as "minority". So of course, who got the biggest benefit at an event designed to help the black community?

White women. If this shocks or surprises you that's both good and bad; good that you wouldn't personally think to do that, but if you think the majority of people are the same way? Not so good. This is why the battle is uphill and "our" opponents, because I'm including you and simultaneously not painting the other side as an "enemy", but as competitors... having a desire to include you as much as possible, "our" opponents are all those who work to keep these systems in place and benefiting them rather than having a system that works fairly and equally for all. Black people were put into the game of monopoly late; after every property was already owned. Anyone who has played Monopoly before already knows what the end result of this scenario is. All you can do is hope to make it to the next paycheck, just to survive.

Back to white women. Because white women are a "minority" and they get a lot of legal and tax benefits. And white men can simply use their wives in order to get these benefits for themselves. Now you may ask yourself... "why would whites want to step into this, knowing that the point was to help black communities by helping black businesses?" And the answer is that they understand the importance of having and keeping advantages and in taking advantage of whatever opportunities they can legally qualify for. Trust me when I say that one of the worst sins of African Americans is our failure to FIND and take advantage of opportunities in the same way. So all the money that the GOP says is out there for black people... most black people don't even know about it and most of what's there is hidden behind layers of bureaucracy and red tape. By making it hard to find and obtain that money can eventually go elsewhere. So that money the GOP claims black people are getting handed to them because of identity politics? Wrong. White people are the largest beneficiaries of that money. And yes, it matters.

Am I against white women getting special attention, money, etc. etc.?

Absolutely not! I believe we all must recognize the barriers in many industries that women face. I don't know how big the barriers are to them getting financing for their business ideas. All I know is that they are still part of a community that is more likely to support them than other minorities because their community has over 90% of America's wealth and resources. And we can recognize the fact that there is a "boys club" that sexism needs to be rooted out of. I'm all for that.

However, since "minority" puts them into the same boat, it becomes a way to minimize anything done specifically for black people to the point that nothing needs to be done for black people. Likewise, if you word things a certain way you can claim that you, as a politician, has a "black agenda" when in reality, very little of of that plan...

https://joebiden.com/blackamerica/

actually targets "black people". A lot of it talks about low income housing as if there aren't whites who will be the main ones benefitting from such efforts. But not to worry. The plan will "study it", meaning democrats will pour money into diagnosing a problem we already know exists, instead of curing it.

The point is this. When you water something down you make it less effective. There should have been separate protections for women so that the efforts to protect women didn't overlap the efforts and policies designed to protect black and brown people. This is done very much on purpose; this watering down strategy. Let me give you another example.

"All Lives Matter"

The first thing that white people (not all, but not an insignificant number) did with BLM was condemn it over the NAME. Think about it. Think about how much insensivity it takes to attack BLM over its name. Because while they were doing that do you think they were giving equal time to fighting against the very thing BLM was protesting? No. That was their way of dismissing it out right. See... you can't just understand what you're fighting for. You have to also understand what and who you are fighting against.

And now that BLM hasn't changed the name and somehow people didn't burn it down with pitch forks over it, now the current attacks is marxist and communist, two things which have absolutely NOTHING to do with police brutality. No one EVER asked or said that the founders of BLM would be asked to rewrite our constitution. So why must they pass a political purity test in order to protest against how some communities are policed?

And if you're somehow thinking "but these are valid criticisms" then you are not only missing the point, you are a victim of a type of propaganda that cares nothing about black lives or the struggle for "freedom and justice for all". If, while you're trying to raise awareness about the environment and global warming, if all I can talk about is how your shoe is untied and you look like a hobo then I do not care about your message. I'm "shooting" the messenger. BLM is just the messenger.

When people started saying "All Lives Matter" I took that as racist. Why? Because they were trying to water down and dilute the message. They weren't trying to create and raise money for some new organization with that as its name. They didn't create an organization to feature all the white voices who wanted to be included. They didn't produce a list of demands or call for bias training or anything like that. Police don't shoot white people because they're biased against white lives. Police do not shoot shoot blacks and whites equally because of racism. Period. So what's their argument? That no one should get shot? It's not realistic. They were trying to make it so that it was no longer about racism or white supremacy because they are FINE with the status quo... fine with racism... and they like white supremacy! Of course... because it benefits them. Not everyone feels the same way. Not everyone benefits equally. And not everyone's going to say they like it or that they like having that advantage. But there's nothing gained from attacking their own advantage that was baked in from the very beginning.

The truth is that racism is about competition (not someone disliking your skin color). And as much as people preach capitalism and competition they do NOT want to compete with black and brown people. Because they're afraid? No. They're not afraid because the competition between races was really kind of over before it started. They're not afraid because they understand that the fewer people they have to compete with the easier it is to win. A lottery with 5 numbers is easier to win than 7. And as long as it isn't happening to them or their family... they're fine.

I'd say (and I have already to you) that IMO most people pointing out ALM would be better than BLM were doing so only because they thought/think/believe that it would make the spread of BLM bigger and more its intent more quickly realised. The reasoning behind that belief speaks not about the perspective of the victims, but of those who might have a better insight into the minds of those people who need to change. So considering it wasn't really about changing the agenda, it was just altering the delivery, it was probably offered as a helpful suggestion. But the advantage of the society most of us in this community live is in you can do ignore that advice. I would caution though that it's probably counter-productive to attack everyone and everything which does not fall goose step into your struggles language and methods, because it might do nothing but increase the opposition to what should be a widely adopted and successful cause. I can understand the desperation though, as when something loses momentum there is a tendency to resort to violence.

The problem with that is that even if violence is being done just to get attention, it is usually considered a threat, and when threats are made people react to the potential escalation of the current status, not proportionally to the current status of it - which is what a cycle of violence is. So I think MLK had the right idea and the right language, and that approach underpins the actual progress which was made in society. It wasn't even two generations since his time, that is no time at all! While I can't imagine things would go backwards at the level of law, the conflicting of group dynamics does have with it a risk of really impacting the social psychology of the individual and as a result erodes the trust of fellow citizens that is the fabric of society. Something I think which MLK understood was how to create a better society, and by doing so, understood that is what all people want and will be attracted to if not in one generation but in a few. As much as there is to be annoyed at the suggestion of ALM, there was probably more that were in line with MLK's comments on not being judged by the color of their skin, rather than trying watering down the struggle of the Black community on the issue of Police murders. I guess that raises the spectre of what does his statement about that mean compared to concepts of color-blindness etc, but that is another topic for another topic I imagine.

But I don't think protests are bad no matter what flag people want to rally under, so long as its not too offensive or illegal. It's the shift up to rioting which will get a strong armed response and probably cause widespread support for the cause to vanish.

Thank you for your response, Adder. Forgive me if I sound particularly ranty on this issue, but the button gets no hotter for me than this. I assure you I have no anger or hostility directed towards you. So hopefully, you don't misinterpret what I'm about to say.

As I said before... and I will reiterate for effect, that this was not done in the media to make a suggestion, but rather to attack. If you want to make a suggestion to a national organization, you go to the organization to make your suggestion. It is unlikely that an organization will change it's entire name but you can try.

For example... If a user named "sithlord69" came to the site and that name made people feel a certain way, would it not be better to message this person in private than to call very public attention to it by making an announcement to the entire forum that sithlord69 should change their name to bunnyslippers77. If your intent was to get sithlord69 to change their name so as not to offend people, then you've guaranteed people will be offended by calling everyone's attention to it, no?

It is the way you go about it that changes it from a suggestion to attack. Do you see?

"All Lives Matter" was designed to sound more reasonable to people who PRETEND to be sensitive about color and some who actually are. Now why do I emphasize the word pretend? Because there is an air of fake political correctness that people use as a WEAPON in the US and we all know it. Do these same people rail against the millions of standard forms that ask a person their race or ethnic background? Do they run to FOX News and complain about all the corporations asking them about different aspects of their identity?

No.

Is everyone being shot by the police in the same proportion as black people?

No. And this no is important since it is specifically the core foundation of the message. Without this, it is no longer about racism, white supremacy, and racial bias in law enforcement. Without race being a factor, what are you asking? For the police to shoot LESS people in general? That means you don't care if they're racist as all hell as long as they're just shooting less people. Racist cops shooting less people doesn't do anything to make me feel safer.

Is an officer going to decide not to shoot someone because the police, as a national collective, are over their quota for the year?

No.

Are police officers targeting white suspects? Are white suspects being harassed and pulled over at a rate that suggests a racial bias against them?

No.

And let me point out something to which may have escaped many observers. And please forgive me for using your own words but I only do so for educational purposes and hold you in high esteem.

You said: I would caution though that it's probably counter-productive to attack everyone and everything which does not fall goose step into your struggles language and methods, because it might do nothing but increase the opposition to what should be a widely adopted and successful cause.

What's interesting here is that this is a response, I believe, to me saying I take ALM is racist. So this suggestion is perceived as an attack. That's okay. Yet everyone not agreeing from the beginning that EVERYONE should be included is something that people felt the need to vocally disagree with and COUNTER PROTEST. And ask yourself... if it was a "good suggestion" given in an innocent spirit of supportiveness and love... why then would the statement be used in counter protest or used to support the police over BLM's attempt to raise critical awareness about the police? Attacking BLM on TV was and is counter-productive.

I'd like you to watch a short a few short videos:

1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OanvG2clRcA&ab_channel=CBSNews

2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CBOnW6Z5VA&ab_channel=StoryfulRightsManagement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLdEAnux_-k&ab_channel=CBSNews

Clearly, you can see ALM is protesting BLM... not the police. How do you go from making a suggestion... to flat out organizing just to oppose the organization?? If your intentions were good, could you not say "well... I disagree with the name because it doesn't include me in it (since I must always be included), but let me put that aside since this issue isn't about me but rather police brutality targeting minority communities." Using this reasoning you could protest WITH BLM, not against BLM.

And once the organization KNOWS of your suggestion, WHY ON EARTH would you think it wasn't an attack to dramatically repeat the "suggestion" over and over in response? C'mon bro... OF COURSE it was an attack. It was an attack from the very beginning. You are a highly intelligent individual. I know this. You know this. Can we PLEASE not pretend this wasn't an attack?

If any one is thinking, "Why did they have to call it Black Lives Matter? I'm so mad! I hate them(blm). I should protest against them! Yeah... that'll show 'em." if you're thinking this then you have to explain to me why disagreeing over the name rises to the level that would cause you to actually protest against the protest.

Fair? Explain, why you would make a sign... get in your car... join and coordinate with other people... who you are assuming aren't racist... and actually get out of your car... walk your behind over to the protestors, stand opposite of them with your own group... and shout your "suggestion" every time they say "black lives matter". If you can explain this to me... a man of reasonable intelligence... in a way that makes me a believer... I will personally hand deliver you a medal.

3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ0BhcG4OGo&ab_channel=6abcPhiladelphia

When counter protestors are willing to re-enact... the murder of George Floyd, what's that tell you? Does it not speak to the mindsets of the people protesting BLM? Can you not see how, perhaps, the counter-protesters might be racists? I mean... normally racism isn't typically so graphically expressed. I mean... racists do not normally spell it out for you in big bold letters. There was a time, believe it or not, that they felt they had to use dog whistles so that only other racists would pick up on what they were saying.

Do you regularly protest a group because they didn't take a suggestion of yours? If you suggest Chick fila opens on Sunday would you go as far as to protest the company?

You are a very rational person who I respect. I cannot, for the life of me, see you doing such a thing. There are white people in the background of this news report holding up "black lives matter" signs. When I went to the gym last week I saw a white guy with a black lives matter t-shirt. Guess what? That made me hopeful. Because they get it and aren't afraid to show support for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn17_mpgfp4&ab_channel=ETCanada

Now are there good folk who aren't racist that think all lives matter? EVERYONE should think all lives matter! This is not something BLM has ever struggled with. So why is anyone acting as if this is something that NEEDS to be said? No, what needs to be said is specifically that black lives matter and it is well said by Ashton Kutcher. I don't buy into his analogy 100%. Because it's not about "black going first" in any kind of way. It's not like we need to do Brown Lives Matter next, and then White. No, this is a message for those who behave as though black lives do not matter TO THEM.

And we don't care about these people normally. They can re-enact the murder of George Floyd or not as they see fit. They are free to hate me as they see fit. It's a free country. We have always known those people exist and if you or anyone else is horrified at that, trust that we are not. We care when these people wear badges. We care when these people, people who quite obviously do not care about black lives, are given the authority of the state to kill us and get away with it. And we would kindly prefer if those people didn't harass us at parks, pools, parking lots, our own homes, etc. If someone is a racist that's their problem, not mine. However, if they're going around killing us then they have made it what SHOULD be a problem for everyone.

Should be. It isn't though because a lot of people don't care because black lives don't matter to them either.

To the purpose of the message must remain crystal clear and undiluted by universal ambiguity. In no uncertain terms must we reaffirm for those hard headed and hard hearted, that the lives of black people just like the lives of whites... matter too. Anyone who doesn't get it, needs to get it instead of trying to change it into something they agree with more easily. It's not for us to agree with you. That's not a protest. It's not everyone's protest. Just like the civil rights movement wasn't everyone's protest. Everyone wasn't going through the same thing. Everyone wasn't being treated as subhuman. Everyone wasn't told to drink from a different water fountain. Everyone is not in the same boat! That's the problem! You can support these movements and protests but you can't own it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYu8Ad-xtBM&ab_channel=ETCanada

Now why did Seth Rogan brutally respond to people supporting ALM in response to his pro BLM post? Because either they didn't get it and honestly weren't trying to, or they do get it but they're racists and therefore their racial bias prevents their agreement. The post they show saying "I love seth rogen's approach to racists" is by what looks to be a white lady. Is she a psychic? How does she know they're racists? Isn't such an attack counter-productive? No... because those people are not supporters. They are detractors. They're working against the message with anti-blm propaganda. That's all it is and Seth wasn't confused, nor were plenty of his followers. And we don't reach out to them because we don't need them.

Billie Eilish's post is also noteworthy. She says "No one is saying your life doesn't matter. No one is saying your life is not hard. This is not about you. Stop making everything about you. You are not in need. You are not in danger."

Now, in context, she's talking about in danger from the police. What she means is... if you're walking down the sidewalk minding your own business there is a chance you might get mugged. It's possible. But there's very very little chance the police are going to stop you, ask you a bunch of questions, and shoot you and claim you were reaching for a pocket knife when they have guns. There's very little chance you feel danger from the police right now as we speak. Billie absolutely gets it and I applaud her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgrKSsCcBLg&ab_channel=ABC10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGLt7apJWS0&ab_channel=NowThisNews

And Lastly, I'll reiterate the point I made before because I honestly never get tired of it. ALM is not an organization that pre-existed BLM. It's not really an organization at all. ALM doesn't exist to protect all lives. Where are they with the hurricanes? Where are they with PETA? Where are they on gun control? Where are they on innocent people who are in prison? Where they at? If they only exist in the same sphere as BLM... then they are simply stealing 2/3 of the BLM name in order to create opposition; intellectually dishonest opposition, to BLM. BLM never said "only" black lives matter. And if someone mistakenly thought that... just ask. But to take that assumption and protest... nah... that takes something else. And they think they aren't drawing attention to that thing but in reality they are exposing themselves.

If you agree that "all lives matter" join the club. So do I. You're not the problem.

If you disagree with black lives matter and want to attack it publicly... then you are the problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBBdyTp8qQQ&ab_channel=TheYoungTurks

Some people may think I don't give the police a good enough chance to explain their actions and behavior. It easy to believe that the black community is biased because we're the targets. People often talk about crime as if all black people who are ever questioned by cops are either criminals or the propensity towards criminality is so high in our community that cops can just pull us over at random.

But even if we take it case by case... the more you are exposed to all the details, the more you question the police who aren't used to being questioned, the more you challenge their narrative as propaganda, the more you see things that aren't right. See... police departments all know they just have to convince a jury. If you weren't there, you're going to be given many of the same facts and story that jury will get. And if this story is just a soundbite to you, then it may be easy to assume that Kenneth Walker was a bad guy trying to have a shoot out with the police.

And the whole narrative hinges on the question, did he know.

Police are going to return fire. That's a given.

If he knew they were cops then that means he knew a firefight was about to happen and it would escalate, much like it does in GTA. This idea, that a guy thinks he's going to shoot a few cops and escape on foot is nice for a movie but rarely ever happens unless the person is so adamant about not going to jail that they're willing to commit suicide. I've seen an attempt at suicide by cop, not 30 feet away. I knew the guy. He was supposed to be on medication but most people who are supposed to take that kind of medication hate doing it because of how it makes them feel like a zombie. So even though he literally asked the cops to shoot him, they didn't. And he's still alive today.

But every police dept isn't the same. And when Kenneth Walker calls the police he clearly doesn't know who just shot his girlfriend. So if he thought it was a home invasion, maybe you have one chance to scare the invader(s) away by showing you're armed and not afraid to use it. But since they were cops they played the first part of home invader, they broke in but instead of being scared off they took it as a challenge that gave them the right to kill.

Had they said "This is the police. Put down your weapon." he would have then known and he could have complied. But even after his girlfriend is shot one of the officer says its unfortunate he wasn't shot too. Of course, how were they to know it was a warning shot if they couldn't see it? More than likely they just assumed that no one living there would fire a warning.

And I've had the police come to my door before. It was early in the morning. They knocked and stood to the sides so that I wouldn't see them when I looked out of the peep hole. So no, of course they didn't identify themselves. Because I didn't know who it was I even went back to my room to go back to sleep. Heard the knock again. At this point... I can definitely understand how someone with a gun might be real scared. If someone's hiding outside your door, knocking but not identifying themselves, and empty field of view could be the last thing you see. Many people aren't going to take that chance.

I didn't have a gun. Didn't even like guns. But something told me it was probably the police. Sure enough, as soon as opened the door I got arrested for a failure to appear in court. Did they know the crime I was accused of? I don't think so. The way I was handcuffed? And not showing up in court was a misunderstanding because the officer who wrote me the ticket told me that if I paid it before the court date I wouldn't have to show up in court. I literally did that. The problem is that I was in Alabama and apparently if you pay the ticket the court didn't get notified back then so it was like one hand didn't know what the other was doing. And I was still in college so still somewhat clueless about all the stupid ways you could accidently run afoul of the law. I'm not trying to make excuses, mind you. I'm just saying there are plenty of situations where regular citizens are treated like dangerous criminals over even traffic violations. What if one of the officers was trigger happy and heard a sound from inside that sounded like a click? Or what if he heard something in his own head? Who knows how lucky I was?

Point is, the police invite things like this to happen by trying to use these squad tactics like they're playing a video game. That's why I believe they didn't identify themselves or do so loudly or repeatedly so that they both knew. Because I think when they hide outside your door like that, even though they have a warrant, they're trying to surprise you and catch you off guard.

Something else:
According to USA Today "The warrant for Taylor's address was approved due to Taylor’s prior association with a suspect in a drug case."

They had a "no-knock" warrant because some judge agreed that she had a prior relationship to a suspect. So this judge thought it was okay to assume that she was still and that police could barge in at any time to search for drugs. A lot of people have, at some point, been involved in a relationship to a person who, at some point, has sold or done drugs or committed some other crime.

“No-knock warrants” are search warrants that authorize law enforcement to enter a private premise without announcing their presence. Such warrants are issued when a judge agrees that announcing law enforcement’s presence may allow suspects to destroy potential evidence or endanger police safety.

You endanger police safety by making a homeowner think the people outside their door could be a home invader with a gun who will rob them and possibly kill them. This is what happened in this case and it could have been avoided. That's why they banned the no knock warrant which assumes that the benefit of the element of surprise to law enforcement outweighs the potential for misunderstanding. And instead of blaming themselves for the misunderstanding, because a judge said they could do it, they blamed the boyfriend who has never done anything in his life as if his first crime was attempted murder on a police officer. But if he wasn't guilty of anything why would he try to have a shoot out? Unless he didn't know who it was.

So while he says he didn't know, they had a no-knock warrant which is specifically for not telling people you're cops, and when you add both of these together it sounds like the boyfriend is the one telling the truth. But, and this is something black people know, it's not about the truth. It's about what a jury will believe. Will the jury believe the black boyfriend? Or multiple cops who they don't know and cannot assume lie for each other? These stories, like "All Lives Matter" are attacks based on propaganda; based on appealing to what white's already believe about black people and then standing in solidarity behind the police because they are thought to be more credible because they're "just doing their job". We know, however, that isn't always the case and that they lie for each other when mistakes are made. And why not? If you make a mistake and someone covers for you, they know they can count on you to lie for them if they make a mistake. Meanwhile, all these lies pile up and help to reinforce the racial divide.