The Problem with Black Lives Matter

Trisskar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The idea that one should never fight is ridiculous,

No one is saying we should never fight. I know for a fact that I never said as much.

I should also point out that

especially when the person who says that is a descendant of those who also rioted, revolted, and fought for freedom.

This goes for ALL races. Hinting towards a singular "Descendant" Isn't going to lend credence to anyone. There is not a single "Descendant" in the human race that hasn't faught for one's rights - right or wrong.


However there is a difference between fighting both unlawfully and without tact. And fighting in the defense of one's rights.

As a Jedi. It is especially important that we understand these differences and Understand "Time and Place"

You make good points, Trisskar. Nobody is innocent when we start talking about history.

I should also point out that while I was defending the need to riot or revolt at times, I also know that there are a lot of opportunists who use these moments as an excuse to break the law for their own gain. It is a distinction between righteous revolt and just plain old looting to get free stuff when the chance arises. Nobody used the BOston Tea Party to steal tea for themselves, which is what makes the Patriots different than the people looting Walmart. I certainly don't condone looting or destruction of property simply for selfish means, and regretfully, a lot of focus gets put on these criminals rather than the underlying motivation for the upheaval in the first place and the people who have a legitimate gripe.

I used the L.A. Riots as an example, so I should point out that there were also a lot of peaceful protests that took place outside of City Hall and police stations throughout the city, but they were overshadowed by the violent ones. Rodney King himself came forward and asked people for peace with his famous soundbite "can't we all just get along?" and many black religious leaders pleaded with the community to stop the violence and have a productive conversation with law enforcement. Both methods can be effective, and there is a time and place for both. Occasionally the time and place will overlap and we will need both.

Trisskar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The idea that one should never fight is ridiculous,

No one is saying we should never fight. I know for a fact that I never said as much.

I should also point out that

especially when the person who says that is a descendant of those who also rioted, revolted, and fought for freedom.

This goes for ALL races. Hinting towards a singular "Descendant" Isn't going to lend credence to anyone. There is not a single "Descendant" in the human race that hasn't fought for one's rights - right or wrong.


However there is a difference between fighting both unlawfully and without tact. And fighting in the defense of one's rights.

As a Jedi. It is especially important that we understand these differences and Understand "Time and Place"

What is the proper "time and place" when your rights are being violated? And fighting with tact, relative to who or what? Did the Native Americans fight lawfully with tact? Or is the very nature of war one that has little regard for such things? Should we line up with muskets and shoot straight forward? Is it lawful to simply conquer people and take their lands? Is it tactful to treat your slaves like they aren't human? I have to be honest with you. I am generally a law abiding person but if there is a law I find to be unjust and written by unjust individuals, I do not have any respect for said law. Why? Because laws aren't necessarily universal. Laws aren't necessarily moral. Laws are whatever those in power desire to impose on those without power.

In the bible's 10 commandments, probably the most popular legislation on the planet, it demands that the Israelites not have any other gods. Do you know what happened if they did?

Death.

When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai (according to the bible) with the 2 tablets of stone(the first time), the people were in the process of worshipping the Golden Calf. God had a conversation with Moses in which he expressed a desire to simply wipe out all the Israelites save for Moses and a few others. So what happened? Moses ordered people to murder each other based on "the law" of God. And Aaron became the high priest and that mantle was to be passed down through his family. So not only were the people kept under a tyrannical rule where they did not have freedom of religion, but the law gave the power of the religion to the bloodline of Moses even though Aaron clearly lied about the Golden calf "walking out of the fire".

Laws can be corrupt because they are man made and men can be corrupt given enough power.

For the Jedi, there was a legal order that called for their execution. Order 66. And the military, acting as police, went along with that order because it was legal. Jedi Lives Matter. Jedi were hunted down and murdered; armed or unarmed. There was a "time and place" to confront the Emperor; true. But the only remaining Jedi was on the side of the rebellion and was instrumental in training Luke to defeat the force that was "lawfully" in office. The Jedi weren't fighting for Palpatine's unilateral and malicious control of the government. They fought for democracy; for the weak and for those who were victims of tyrants and crime lords. If there was a Jedi watching the police beat an unarmed black man, wouldn't he intervene?

For many people there is NO TIME or PLACE when it comes to a threat to your survival. If racism isn't a threat to you it would be natural to think that victims of it should fill out all the proper paperwork, go down to the right bureaucratic agency, and register complaints in triplicate. And when we're told to work within the law, and we do, and time and time again, the officer who murders one of us walks.... or the guy uses a hoodie as an excuse... or the cops shoot a kid in a matter of seconds because they think he has a gun when it's just a toy... when a guy has a licensed firearm and informs the officer (because no one who is planning to shoot an officer tells him in advance that they have a gun)... when a campus cop shoots a black driver who is driving away with no physical threat... when Mark Fuhrman talks about all the racist injustice he's seen and done... when there are laws on the books that treat one crime differently than another because the harsher penalty is aimed specifically at black people... when time and time again we find no justice and we don't feel safe around the police because we don't know whether or not they're in the mood to kill us and what we might say or do to trigger that response... what's the time and what's this fantastical place that you speak of? Because black people don't have a police force to oppress and murder white people while we wait.

As you said, there is not a single group in history that hasn't fought for their rights. What I want you to see or acknowledge is that the ability for oppressed people to challenge their oppression in a peaceful and lawful and legal way is mitigated by the opposing force and their capacity to hear and respond; change and adapt. You can choose to look at the victim or you can look at the perpetrator. But very few who identifies with the perpetrator are willing to look at themselves. That's "the problem". BLM is blamed because people don't want to look at themselves in order to see that racism is still a big problem in the United States. It's easier to say "I'm not racist because _______" and then turn the spotlight on BLM as if they have some magical ability to keep the peace. Nobody knew a crazy white guy was going to shoot up a senatorial baseball practice. People who are about to commit crimes don't normally notify the people whose responsibility you want it to be to stop them. It is by making BLM responsible that the racists are able to mitigate the message of their movement which is their goal. And because we can see their goal is to hinder, not help, we learn even more that they do not care about the lives of black people.

And of course all cops aren't bad but when cops, like Storm Troopers, are carrying out unjust orders, don't expect a Jedi not to take a few out in the fight for freedom/justice. How many Storm Troopers did Luke and the Rebels kill when the death star exploded? Just sayin'.

It's never easy to talk about the problems of something that is trying to solve a problem, especially when part of that problem is trying to create a constructive narrative, because it tends to drown out the narrative by changing topic, but that is the topic of this thread, so... its not about the good things about BLM, but the 'problems' of the BLM, I guess.

So first thing, there are laws in the 'West' around war, to try and make it more humane, after seeing in World War II the destruction capable from advanced civilizations. It's never really legal to just kill someone for no reason. The fictional Order 66 would not be a legal order by 'western' standards, in my unprofessional opinion.

I'd suggest the nature of the laws defines how humane a civilization is, or inhumane. So its not that something is called a law that makes it important, its what that law represents.

You can agree with the law or disagree. It'll just change how you interact with that society... as its not a 'sin' to break a law - but you might get 'policed'. Changing laws must be possible, but not necessarily easy - they need to change in accordance with some due process to ensure the implications are considered so the changes are not retrograde - assuming a change is actually needed. And finding out where fault actually lay is obviously the first step. To skip the steps in changing the law, or choosing to avoid changing it and being judge, jury and executioner yourself is inviting failure on many fronts.

But slow is unpopular, and not to mention when people are emotional there are various distortions which enter into how people perceive problems and possible solutions. It's not easy, but violence is another level, and as mentioned there are laws around that as well.

The worse thing to do is to react in like, to the inhumane, as fighting inhumanity needs to stand up to the same idealism it argues for otherwise it becomes nothing more then a reflection of the original problem. Parts of the BLM 'movement' is said to suffer from this, perhaps not the BLM organization or stated agenda, but the manifest nature of something is going to be less about what it says it is, and more about what is actually happening under its flag. How much of it is true, is it representative of the majority, I dunno but it only takes a steady stream of smoke for people to run from what they think is a fire.

Senan wrote: Nobody used the BOston Tea Party to steal tea for themselves, which is what makes the Patriots different than the people looting Walmart.

Something else I wanted to point out. The Boston Tea Party was done with a measure of tact and singular purpose. A powerful and note worthy purpose.

Even Martian Luther King is known best not for standing about in the streets holding signs and shouting out profanities....But by inspiring not only his own people.....but 'the other side' as well.....He did so with a powerful and not worthy message.


No one is going to hear the mouse in a field of belting sheep.


We need to inspire people - not bleat at them with repetitive rhetoric

Adder wrote: It's never easy to talk about the problems of something that is trying to solve a problem, especially when part of that problem is trying to create a constructive narrative, because it tends to drown out the narrative by changing topic, but that is the topic of this thread, so... its not about the good things about BLM, but the 'problems' of the BLM, I guess.

Actually, I believe the title of the thread was simply created to match the video, which Rosalyn, the OP, disagreed with the premise of. So technically speaking, the thread isn't to sit around in a circle nodding heads about what's wrong with BLM, but whether or not the premise of the video is correct. It's more about whether there's something wrong with the video, not whether there's something wrong with the subject of the video, being Black Lives Matter. I guess you could take the OP a different way but that is how I took it.

So first thing, there are laws in the 'West' around war, to try and make it more humane, after seeing in World War II the destruction capable from advanced civilizations. It's never really legal to just kill someone for no reason. The fictional Order 66 would not be a legal order by 'western' standards, in my unprofessional opinion.

I used the fictional order 66 at as metaphor due to its proximity to the people and contents of this site. If we cannot put ourselves in the shoes of black people perhaps it may be easier to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jedi who we watched slaughtered over and over. The legality of legislating murder is an exaggeration on our legal system where it is legal to treat "black crimes" differently from "white crimes". And its not just black and white; its also rich and poor. But more relevant to the discussion, for example, are the laws against crack vs. the laws against cocaine. Do you know what the difference is between crack and cocaine is? water and baking soda.

http://americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/differences-with-crack/
Check out the section on prison sentencing

How is this not illegal? When officers stopped and frisked minorities in violation of the constitution it was the legal policy of the state, carried out by law enforcement. So even if something isn't constitutional that doesn't mean it cannot be enforced. It simply takes time and effort to prove it isn't constitutional. Furthermore, police are trained and given license to shoot if they "feel" their lives are in danger. So guess what? Whenever they go on trial they know that all they have to do is say that they "felt" that their lives were in danger. Now their victims have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But the implication is that as long as they can claim this subjective state of fear (even as the suspect is running or driving away) they have the right to use lethal force. And there are no laws apparently, even though there are laws preventing companies from discriminating, there are none that restrict the police's ability to target minorities or treat them differently. I agree with your statement about what that law represents, but some laws represent a legacy of oppression and the freedom of the majority to continue to oppress the minority. The BLM movement is simply trying to change this by bringing awareness so that laws can change and so that the legal system is fair to all people. Again, I don't agree with rioting. However, it is hypocrisy imho, to focus in on individuals within a large movement because of laws being broken when they are protesting the authoritative actions of the state that either violate the law or the constitution. 2 wrongs don't make a right but if my parent is telling me not to do drugs mid pull on a crack pipe... come on. Let's be reasonable. That's far worse as one sets the example for the other. We don't pay the government to violate our constitutional rights.

But slow is unpopular, and not to mention when people are emotional there are various distortions which enter into how people perceive problems and possible solutions. It's not easy, but violence is another level, and as mentioned there are laws around that as well.

Slow is intolerable when you're getting killed left and right and when this is being done by those who are supposed to be protecting and serving you.

The worse thing to do is to react in like, to the inhumane, as fighting inhumanity needs to stand up to the same idealism it argues for otherwise it becomes nothing more then a reflection of the original problem. Parts of the BLM 'movement' is said to suffer from this, perhaps not the BLM organization or stated agenda, but the manifest nature of something is going to be less about what it says it is, and more about what is actually happening under its flag. How much of it is true, is it representative of the majority, I dunno but it only takes a steady stream of smoke for people to run from what they think is a fire.

I couldn't agree more with your first sentence. Now when you start saying things like "said to suffer" and "perhaps not the BLM organization or stated agenda" then it's like WOAH! Hold on. I could say "Parts of America suffer from racism" and be absolutely correct. I could say "perhaps not the U.S. organization or stated atenda"... "actually happening under its flag". I could say that and be correct. And yet, what expectation could I or should I have for the American government to PREVENT racism? And if it cannot prevent racism then what? Then it shouldn't exist? Would that be a reasonable expectation? And unlike BLM, America has almost unlimited resources in comparison. America has police, laws, lawyers, judges, and a whole branch of government dedicated to the judicial. Our expectations of America should be greater than an organization with little money.

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? I'm still trying to figure out what it is, if it isn't racism, that chooses to classify the many of us, by the actions of the few of us. Because for the life of me, it doesn't make logical sense. And when I talk about BLM with irate, irritated, and irrational Europeans they quickly make it known that black on black crime is what we need to worry about. But why are they irate, why are they irritated, why do they think that black on black crime excuses white police officers from murdering unarmed black people?

I think people WANT to see a fire. I think they want there to be smoke.

Take any group of people and among them you'll find a sub group that have done things that the majority would judge as wrong. Does that make every group wrong? In the bible, before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (According to the story) Abraham tried to negotiate with God, asking him to spare the city if a certain number of people were innocent. Radical muslims make the same claims about America. But do we deserve to be destroyed because we're not all Muslims? Do we deserve to be killed by Christianity because we're not all Christians? Do we deserve to be killed by Judaism because we're not all Jews? When will we be treated according to the content of our character and not for what someone else who looks like us decides to do? If you blame BLM you might as well blame me for all those things, as if I had rioted and said hateful things. Why not blame me instead. I'm equally responsible for those people and equally able to stop them.

...with my magic black people powers.

ZealotX wrote: Take any group of people and among them you'll find a sub group that have done things that the majority would judge as wrong. Does that make every group wrong? In the bible, before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (According to the story) Abraham tried to negotiate with God, asking him to spare the city if a certain number of people were innocent. Radical muslims make the same claims about America. But do we deserve to be destroyed because we're not all Muslims? Do we deserve to be killed by Christianity because we're not all Christians? Do we deserve to be killed by Judaism because we're not all Jews? When will we be treated according to the content of our character and not for what someone else who looks like us decides to do? If you blame BLM you might as well blame me for all those things, as if I had rioted and said hateful things. Why not blame me instead. I'm equally responsible for those people and equally able to stop them.

...with my magic black people powers.

Genesis 18:28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

Here they're talking about sparing the city, not based on a righteous MAJORITY, but rather a righteous MINORITY. In no uncertain terms are the majority of people in BLM or attending its protests saying or doing the wrong thing.

Polls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#Allegations_of_racism)
The U.S. population's perception of Black Lives Matter varies considerably by race. According to a September 2015 poll on race relations, nearly two-thirds of African Americans mostly agree with Black Lives Matter, while 42% of white Americans are unsure or do not have an opinion about Black Lives Matter.[6] Of white people surveyed, 41% thought that Black Lives Matter advocated violence, and 59% of whites thought that Black Lives Matter distracted attention from the real issues of racial discrimination. By comparison, 82% of black people polled thought that Black Lives Matter was a nonviolent movement, and 26% of blacks thought that Black Lives Matter distracted attention from the real issues of racial discrimination. On the question of whether "Black Lives Matter" was mostly a movement or mostly a slogan, 46% of whites and 67% of blacks thought that it is mostly a movement.[6][290] A similar poll in June 2016 found that 65% of black American adults supported Black Lives Matter and 40% of white American adults support it. Fifty-nine percent of black Americans thought that Black Lives Matter would "be effective, in the long run, in helping blacks achieve equality" and 34% of white Americans thought so.[291][292]

So why are whites more likely to think BLM advocates violence? And if they actually did advocate violence they would be talking to black people. So why do 82% of black people polled think it's a non-violent movement? How can these opinions differ so greatly if racism is not involved?

The ability to assign wrongdoing to BLM seems to be common practice for many whites. I believe the fundamental reasons behind this are the same fundamental reasons why many white cops do the things they do to black people. It's not that all whites think the same thing, not by far. But police may have a more exaggerated bias and belief about black people because of how often they come in contact with criminals. And instead of expecting most crime to be perpetrated by the lower class I think many of them instead associate crime with minorities.

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".