The Problem with Black Lives Matter

But I think your explaining your emotional reaction to a statement more then trying to understand how I explained why its used. You bought up seeing it as a human problem in your post, and I was just drawing the connection between what you posted and that is is exactly what that phrase means!

In another way to explain it.... have you ever considered it could be more counterproductive to call out racist behaviour as 'racism', then instead calling it 'human rights discrimination'? The difference is that the scope of the racist behaviour is expanded to include all people explicitly, rather then relying on old loaded terms in a culture of mixed opinions and appealing to some ideal. If the ideal can be packaged in newer more useful and 'universal' terms, then in theory it can more easily be adopted by more people. The end result after all is the wide ranging cessation of race related discrimination, and the ideal is the fastest way to reach it. I'm just pointing out that the clinging to of the language of the old victim mentality is not necessarily the best path forward. Unless of course your looking for a cathartic process, but I don't really think its the appropriate vehicle for catharsis for the above stated reasons and also that things like that might need a more delicate supportive environment as released pain can be a violent and painful personal experience which might not directly relate to the wider issues.

The other benefit of this sort of approach is that it also addresses other forms of discrimination which are destroying peoples lives. From my point of view its about trying to find ways to actually move the stalemate forward, then just make the pain so widespread that we all hope it magically goes away. You 'thought police' style of approach isn't working simply because people lie, and the more sociopathic one is the better they are at lying. It needs to be about the behaviours, and the behaviours of discrimination are all shared... so you will see progress faster if you focus on the 'discrimination of human rights' angle rather then the 'racist' angle IMO.

Basically wrong is wrong, its as wrong as it can be, and it shouldn't need the weight of Black history in America to define why its a worse type of wrong. If the same thing happened to anyone it should be viewed as criminal... which I believe was your point when you said imagine that it happened to yourself, imagine it happened to a human.. so I'm just agreeing and pointing out that from my vantage as an outside to US race issue (but no an outsider to the anti-discrimination issue) that new perspectives might be more useful, since no progress seems to be being made. It's the clinging to the pain which keeps the wound alive unfortunately. Sometimes its the only way to hang on, but usually a solution is waiting to be found if one looks hard enough. Talking is a way to explore different perspectives in this regard, but arguing is clinging to defending old ones. I'm not really interested in arguing so much, which is why its important to change the language, so people don't feel defensive while the problem gets addressed. Like holding down a patient, or distracting a child from a immunization needle LOL. Outsmart them to get what you want, it usually is easier.

"If the ideal can be packaged in newer more useful and 'universal' terms, then in theory it can more easily be adopted by more people."


Brother Adder, I think this is the disconnect. And having been part of the "Resistance" so to speak and having personal experiences with racists, with police, and with the criminal justice system that convinced me that systematic racism exists, and in some places is the norm... let me tell you this in all sincerity, all respect, all kindness, all love.

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT? I want you to think about this.

When I suggested... SUGGESTED... that white people not say "I don't see color" because even though whites tend to interpret this statement in a positive way, it can be irritating to black people who do not see "color" as a problem; as something to pretend not to see. And therefore when people say this we don't necessarily even believe that person and so it is a statement counter productive to its intent. I had practically the same conversation with a very well meaning white woman who has mixed children and she understood and took the correction. But it's like others don't care because they feel like why do they need to "protect" black people from getting offended by their words. I heard this, even on this website.

So there's that.

When black people are being killed, why is it our job to demand justice in a way that protects whites from getting offended? Do you see where I'm coming from? More importantly, can you FEEL where I'm coming from? What if you in a different country, let's say somewhere that the white population is only 3% and it's 85% orange. And let's say that 1 in 3 white women in that country fall victim to rape while for orange women it's 1 in 15 and orange men it's 1 in 100. And then when you complain and say that white women are being targeted, let's say that the majority who you are complaining to don't like your complaint because you're bringing up race. They want you to leave race out of it. And when you do that they tell you the percentage of women being raped is very low but rape does happen in every country so what do you expect them to do about it? You're lucky if they know one person who has been raped (again, this is a hypothetical country with an orange majority).

So then they spend time trying to convince you that what you see happening isn't really happening because its not happening to orange people and therefore people in general. Because if you remove race then its only happening to a smaller percentage of the population. There's no protection given to white women in this scenario because you're not "allowed" to protect only white women or figure out how to end the targeting of women who happen to be white.

If a serial killer has a type then you try to track that serial killer down by trying to figure who his next victims might be. If you're just like "oh serial killers just like to kill people universally", no they don't. People who molest children typically don't molest adults. So if you take the age of the victim out of it and say that's ageism and we have to be universal, then how are you supposed to protect the people/kids who are being targeted?

Most crimes have a clear MOTIVE. You don't just look at the crime, but also what motivated it. This is why hate crimes exist. Sure, you're allowed to hate whoever you want. But if you murder someone who happens to be homosexual, because you hate homosexuals, then that is very relevant to the case. You didn't just kill a person. You targeted them first. And if there are a bunch of people targeting the same group, that is also relevant. And if there is an organized effort to target that group that is extremely relevant. Because if you don't know then how can you protect them? If say they're not being targeted because they're homosexual then how are all these homosexual victims connected to the killer? It's not smart. But I've never met anyone who thought this way about any other group of people. If a person hates foreigners, there's a word for that. It's called xenophobia. If a person discriminates against women that's sexism. So why should we not use the word racism? Why can't we call it what it is? Why do we have to worry about offending people who claim they're not racist? Do people not see gender? Of course they do. Unless you're bisexual you care whether or not you're hitting on a woman or a man. And if you don't care and its a transsexual, then you deserve to at least know that before you enter into a relationship where you may come into contact with the same genitalia that you have. Even if they call themselves female that doesn't mean everyone has to desire that person equally or be equally attracted to all women. All these differences do not make all these people, in any way, less than. These are simply differences and differences are not necessarily good or bad. They're just different.

So why should a homosexual in 2020 be in the closet and hide who they are? And if it's not wrong why would we take it out of our lexicon? There's nothing wrong with being white and nothing wrong with being black. So why try and take that out when it's convenient?

There's an SNL sketch that I think is hilarious. It's a sketch of a newsroom reporting on crimes, showing how criminals or suspects are often identified by race. But sometimes they're not. And in a lot of those cases, if race isn't mentioned or their picture isn't shown on TV then it was a white person. And I was in a conversation with representatives from the media and they admitted this was a problem. So when describing a crime, the race of that person isn't relevant. It's not really relevant to say that a person should look for black pedestrians or white pedestrians before making a turn. They're just pedestrians. White and black people walk across streets. But if someone hates whites then race is relevant to that discussion.

If a person hates black people then race is relevant to that discussion. But that's when it is brought up by the other side. If someone hates me for the color of my skin then it's not me bringing up my color. It's them. And I'm not going to ignore it and try to describe what they're doing without race in the context. That's simply not reality. Why are we afraid to identify people as racist? Because if you want to take race out of it then that would mean no one could be called racist. Is that the point? Is that who needs protection? Do racists need protection by giving their racism anonymity?

Who are you trying to protect?

"He's not a child molester, he's just handsy". Really? Is that accurate? Is that going to protect children from this person? If he's caught should be put on just an "offenders" list, but not a "sex offenders" list?

I don't understand your logic. If it makes sense to you please help me to see how it is making sense to you. I want to understand you.

First of all I wanted to post this because I thought it was awesome: https://kotaku.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-adds-black-lives-matter-me-1843919594

I have critiques of BLM. I have critiques about the popular perceptions of racism and race relations in the USA. The message that I believe is the most important right now is “The Problem With Law Enforcement In America and How Do We Fix It?”

I dont believe that now is the time to talk about whats wrong with BLM. I think right now, in this moment, we should be saying “All Lives Cant Matter Until Black Lives Mater”

I got a lot to say that youre not gonna like but i love you and i want your life to be respected.

Also, here is a compelling speech by an impressive individual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbj0oZYucKs

I'm sure there's all sorts of good feels and top notch people involved.

Purely emotional response, but when I see all the BLM or related activities, the efforts that various corporations are making to note their support, the issues and discussions being raised....All I see is "American Lives Matter"

On one hand, All Lives Matter, probably....

On the other hand, the USA has a remarkable history of turning on allies and being shamelessly self serving. The USA has treated both enemies and allies with contempt, that's their prerogative I suppose, but to expect to reach out and find compassion when the nation implodes?

Well, it might take a bit to melt my....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L55XO3P-oIo




What, did you "citizens" think you were special? That "Oh, my country might treats others like garbage, but it would never do that to me?"

I've got a bridge for sale...if you're interested.....



Edit: I thought the above sounded a bit uncharitable, so please don't take it too harshly, I offer it as...perspective, as to the problems within the state, and why some areas within that state have such deep and complex issues.

ZealotX wrote: I don't understand your logic. If it makes sense to you please help me to see how it is making sense to you. I want to understand you.

I'm not pretending to be trying to protect, instead the protecting is the product... the result. I'm coming at this from the process of changing the way things work to progress things, not the emotive demanding expecting change to occur. Change management demands more then perfunctory idealism as effort needs to be enduring and effective. Do you expect protesting can continue until there is no longer a racist person in the US? It's just unrealistic to expect some types of change to be instantaneous.... it needs to progress from A to Z. That's the only difference I can see between your approach and mine, you seem to be defending a narrative of worth and rights, where I'm so beyond that it's not even included. If you can get past the type of discrimination, then you can instead focus on the discrimination - because discrimination tends to be the same action no matter the type. As unfortunately it's not a leap for some to move past their bigotry on a path to what we think should be obvious... and also different people are at different places to begin that. It's not black and white obviously, as different sorts of actions have different sorts of effects, but the narrative of race is really irrelevant to the actions against discrimination beyond understanding how its occurring so not to miss it... much like the extent of suffering from discrimination matters less to me then the fact that it exists at all! I'm talking about cutting the head off so the body dies, while you seem to be talking about the wrestling the body because its there. Either way the thing still wriggles long after it should be a goner. But perhaps like you, I don't seem to understand how you weigh your logic, so feel free to clarify.

Bro, I'm still struggling trying to understand what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that there is a way to counter discrimination in all forms without mentioning the actual forms.

If I invited you to dinner and asked what you had an appetite for, and you said "food." I'd be like "okay, that's implied, but what kind of food?" and we'd be locked in an endless back and forth between a vague generality and seeking specifics. And I would eventually get irritated even though you were being honest and well meaning.

What's your favorite food? Let's hypothetically say your favorite food was pizza. If you ask for food every time you're hungry you may NEVER get pizza. Do you see?

If I want pizza I go to a place that serves pizza. If I want a particular issue addressed? I talk about that particular issue. Because if you say America has no discrimination problem, you could say that if you considered how many things no one discriminates against. Police departments could say, "hey look how many people we didn't pull over, how many people we didn't shoot, tickets we didn't write, etc."

In fact the only way we've been able to get close to highlight the need for something specific to be done against racism is because we've had numbers... statistics... that qualify that argument. I'm sure police departments already have written documents they have to agree to that mention how they aren't supposed to discriminate. But how do you, when lives are at stake, prevent this from happening?

I guess what I'm not understanding is how you propose to combat discrimination without having specific types.

"If you can get past the type of discrimination, then you can instead focus on the discrimination - because discrimination tends to be the same action no matter the type."

No... I don't believe this is true. Let's take job hunting or compensation for example. 3 people go in for an interview. 1 male, 2 females. If the male gets the job, it could have been sexism at play but how would you know? Maybe the woman reminds the employer of his ex-wife. She may not even know she's been discriminated against without statistics showing just how much he tends to hire males over females. And there are biases that go into hiring decisions that aren't simply restricted to qualifications. So to actually combat this and root it out you MUST look at hiring practices through a lens of gender. And if you add race and ethnicity on top of that, it is the only way to expose unfair practices against different groups. Same with housing. How do you know you're being discriminated against if no one talks about the type of discrimination and highlights any numbers that show a pattern?

The other thing is that I think some people may have a limited view of the problem. Yes, the police shouldn't shoot unarmed people but is that all they're doing wrong? I say it actually starts before that; starting with the presumption of innocence. Whether shot or not, an officer of the law should not go around assuming guilt based on someone's race. This doesn't happen as much when the officers police the communities in which they grew up, or departments that have regular social interactions with their communities. George Floyd is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be addressed.

That problem is like a disease. Your doctor can't say "you have a disease, here's some Tylenol". The type of disease you have matters because it requires a specific treatment. Same thing with racism. It's not about changing how everyone thinks until there are no more racists. It's about removing known racists from positions of power and influence where they are speaking and acting on behalf of our system of government. I really don't care if there is a racist dog catcher. I don't even own a dog. I don't care if there's a racist Walmart Janitor or a tire salesman. Is it too much to ask that they don't get guns, badges, robes, etc? I don't want radical Muslim extremists as flight attendants. I mean, because at some point you're just kind of asking for it. You get where I'm coming from?

But I'm not talking about racially profiling future police. I just want them to get fired if shown to have racist views on the basis that the community should have a reasonable expectation that they will be policed equally and fairly, maintaining the presumption of innocence. A lot of officers have complaints that go ignored and are expunged and they get moved around like child molesting priests used to do. If that were to happen you'd have less racism in policing and less people getting killed. And I would argue that a racist mind is evidence of a very narrow mind. So if one is racist they may not be a good judge of character or make other judgments and decisions in general that a police officer needs to be able to make. And it's the same with teachers. I don't want racist teachers, either.

Solutions for these problems aren't really that difficult. The main problem is simply that people don't want to face the problem itself. Instead, they debate you as if you're crazy and just making everything up. If you see a problem, I'm glad. But you are one person. We need more people to see a problem before change is possible. Why? Because the number of people who see a problem amounts to political pressure. That, is the purpose of all this. You may or may not be tired of it, and you may or may not assume that everyone is on the same page, but they're not. And to be perfectly honest there is a racist narrative being pushed that works against everyone being on the same page. Calling Floyd a violent criminal, calling BLM a terrorist group, etc. are all tactics to enable racism. This narrative often begins as propaganda to challenge the credibility of people and organizations trying to make the world better. And then as the propaganda is heard multiple times and accepted, that's when non-racists whites start questioning the name Black Lives Matter as not being inclusive enough; a total distraction from what it is they are protesting. People become so critical of the group that they make any changes the group demands. And that's ultimately how racism endures.

I dont believe that now is the time to talk about whats wrong with BLM. I think right now, in this moment, we should be saying “All Lives Cant Matter Until Black Lives Mater”

When was it the right time? As far as I'm concerned there are thousands of cases of racism and racially motivated police brutality and that has been the whole focus of Black Lives Matter. They were never sitting around thinking "how can we piss off white folk by not including them in our name?" Never once did they say "Only Black Lives Matter" so why should they have to say "Black Lives Matter Too"? We don't think of race when it comes to the inherent worth of all life. That's why it was always implied that black lives matter TOO. Being able to attack BLM of petty nonsense is not by accident. Black Lives Matter is a statement to the police. They are the ones who seem to have a problem with black lives. They, for those who are white, obviously don't need to be told that white lives matter. They already treat their own life as valuable as they train to protect themselves and each other. That's why some of the behavior we see from them is always passed off as self-protection and cops saying "I was scared for my life". And they seem to be more scared of black people so black people are more likely to get shot.

And I hate when people say "oh but black people are more likely to shoot cops". Yeah, number 1, if they have a fear for their lives then why shouldn't they shoot if that argument works just as well for the police? Why shouldn't they, at some point, think they are acting in self-defense? The difference is that cops are allowed this ridiculously low bar standard of self-defense as if every black man is 6'3, 280 lbs of muscle and as if that makes any difference to a gun. And number 2, if cops think a black person in one situation is just as much of a threat as a black person in another situation, then that's racist because they are pre-judging based on race. This is how innocent people get killed.

And I want to say this again:

Calling Floyd a violent criminal, calling BLM a terrorist group, etc. are all tactics to enable racism. This narrative often begins as propaganda to challenge the credibility of people and organizations trying to make the world better. And then as the propaganda is heard multiple times and accepted, that's when non-racists whites start questioning the name Black Lives Matter as not being inclusive enough; a total distraction from what it is they are protesting.

OB1: I think right now, in this moment, we should be saying “All Lives Cant Matter Until Black Lives Mater”

This statement right here is perfect. It is an elegant response to All Lives matter because "All lives matter" was a ridiculous assault on the BLM name. It wasn't for the purpose of greater understanding or clarity. Anyone wanting that could have merely asked. Or... gone to their website to have it fully explained. It was there.

Did people care? No. They rushed to judgment. Instead it was used as a wedge to distract and to provide cover for the police because everyone wanted to see them as America's heroes. And like the military, everyone wants to say "I support the troops" until they have PTSD and can't get enough funding for their mental health. We gotta do better and not put people on a pedestal unless they individually deserve to be there. Anyway, I'm thankful for this statement. I hope to see more of it. I hope to see greater understanding and empathy, not just for the officers but for those they hurt.

It may seem like debating the name is such a minuscule thing but it's actually a weaponized form of racism, falsely asserting that BLM is racist (too) and therefore their protest isn't valid. This is the same type/method of invalidation that happens when someone killed by police or in some racially based hate crime. People start introducing past mistakes or anything that person may have been guilty of as a way of blaming/shaming the victim for their own death. The object is to get white society to care less about the victim and to care more about the killer, and even imagine themselves as the killer, creating the idea that their fear, and the actions that result, are justified. The truth is that if we are all allowed to kill each other because we're afraid then we're simply going to create the environment in which everyone shoots first and asks questions later.

ZealotX wrote: Bro, I'm still struggling trying to understand what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that there is a way to counter discrimination in all forms without mentioning the actual forms.

If I invited you to dinner and asked what you had an appetite for, and you said "food." I'd be like "okay, that's implied, but what kind of food?" and we'd be locked in an endless back and forth between a vague generality and seeking specifics. And I would eventually get irritated even though you were being honest and well meaning.

What's your favorite food? Let's hypothetically say your favorite food was pizza. If you ask for food every time you're hungry you may NEVER get pizza. Do you see?

Because the 'eating' is not the subjective experience of flavour and temperature, as good or bad, its the objective chewing and swallowing as proper or improper. Same with discrimination, you wanna stamp it out, but not by expecting to control what people think but rather what is proper behavior. This way more people will be sensitive to improper behaviour because they each have different exposure to it from the different types of it.... which increases the detection capacity of the population to the acts of discrimination, and adopting of its ethics.

ZealotX wrote: "If you can get past the type of discrimination, then you can instead focus on the discrimination - because discrimination tends to be the same action no matter the type."

No... I don't believe this is true. Let's take job hunting or compensation for example. 3 people go in for an interview. 1 male, 2 females. If the male gets the job, it could have been sexism at play but how would you know? Maybe the woman reminds the employer of his ex-wife. She may not even know she's been discriminated against without statistics showing just how much he tends to hire males over females. And there are biases that go into hiring decisions that aren't simply restricted to qualifications. So to actually combat this and root it out you MUST look at hiring practices through a lens of gender. And if you add race and ethnicity on top of that, it is the only way to expose unfair practices against different groups. Same with housing. How do you know you're being discriminated against if no one talks about the type of discrimination and highlights any numbers that show a pattern?

There are mechanisms which can be employed by management to detect deliberate cases of this, and minimize inadvertent ones. It's what anti-discrimination policy represents already. Whether its being done well or not is another question. But yes specific avenues of discrimination are served by focusing on the specific manifestations of discrimination.... I'm not sure how you draw the connection between those vastly different levels of analysis. As I said before, things like not seeing color are not ignoring race, they are focusing on the humanity. What each individual or scenario represents is specific to each level of interaction depth. Defining a person by any one attribute prima facie seems unnecessary and unwise if discrimination is prevalent. Much better to see a person first, then an individual second, and let the person choose how they want to define their identity then sticking labels onto a person by their appearance, IMO.

ZealotX wrote: The other thing is that I think some people may have a limited view of the problem. Yes, the police shouldn't shoot unarmed people but is that all they're doing wrong? I say it actually starts before that; starting with the presumption of innocence. Whether shot or not, an officer of the law should not go around assuming guilt based on someone's race. This doesn't happen as much when the officers police the communities in which they grew up, or departments that have regular social interactions with their communities. George Floyd is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be addressed.

That problem is like a disease. Your doctor can't say "you have a disease, here's some Tylenol". The type of disease you have matters because it requires a specific treatment. Same thing with racism. It's not about changing how everyone thinks until there are no more racists. It's about removing known racists from positions of power and influence where they are speaking and acting on behalf of our system of government. I really don't care if there is a racist dog catcher. I don't even own a dog. I don't care if there's a racist Walmart Janitor or a tire salesman. Is it too much to ask that they don't get guns, badges, robes, etc? I don't want radical Muslim extremists as flight attendants. I mean, because at some point you're just kind of asking for it. You get where I'm coming from?

Discrimination is already illegal AFAIK. What's being discussed is how best to get progress on it. You say you aren't saying its about changing how people think, but I think you are. It seems your just burying it in emotional noise. As you say following on;

ZealotX wrote: But I'm not talking about racially profiling future police. I just want them to get fired if shown to have racist views on the basis that the community should have a reasonable expectation that they will be policed equally and fairly, maintaining the presumption of innocence.

Where do you draw the line on what constitutes a 'view'? Obviously overt discriminatory beliefs and actions should already be inappropriate/illegal, for its the workplace law AFAIK. Less obvious discriminatory 'views' become harder to find... and its here where your (perhaps inadvertently) reaching over and into expecting to be able to know what peoples 'views' are, your 'views' seeming to be analogous to 'thoughts'.

ZealotX wrote: A lot of officers have complaints that go ignored and are expunged and they get moved around like child molesting priests used to do. If that were to happen you'd have less racism in policing and less people getting killed. And I would argue that a racist mind is evidence of a very narrow mind. So if one is racist they may not be a good judge of character or make other judgments and decisions in general that a police officer needs to be able to make. And it's the same with teachers. I don't want racist teachers, either.

Which is where my point has its traction - you make these people more sensitive to the inappropriateness of racism by showing them its wrong to be discriminatory, regardless of the type of discrimination.

ZealotX wrote: Solutions for these problems aren't really that difficult. The main problem is simply that people don't want to face the problem itself. Instead, they debate you as if you're crazy and just making everything up. If you see a problem, I'm glad. But you are one person. We need more people to see a problem before change is possible.

Which is why I'm saying that making the problem understandable to them in terms they are more likely to relate to will have a greater chance of having real impact on the way they think and behave more broadly. It's usually easier to get the desired result by applying a small well placed impetus then a strong badly placed one.

The problem isn't that discrimination isn't illegal. The problem is that since there's no accountability for cops, that illegality is useless because there are no consequences for them breaking those laws.