2020 Protests

Hello

Sorry this response is a little delayed, however I do want to put my two cents in.

Like MOST of you, I do agree that "BLACK LIVES MATTER" but like MOST of you, I also agree SOMETIMES people take things too far!

That being said- I was at the protests!
We were in Eugene Or, Portland OR (For over a month) and KENOSHA WI (during the shooting)

This being said- we were not there necessarily for BLM - but more for HOLD THE POLICE ACCOUNTABLE !
To me it doesn't matter what color you are, or where you are from, we should all be nice to each other, period!
That being said I have NO TOLERANCE for hate groups, including but not limited too NAZI(s) Proud BOYS and EVEN THE EXTREME BLM side of things.

Now please understand I do have children of mixed races, it really doesn't bother me. However hating someone for something as stupid as the color of their skin is not right, by any means, and does not follow the jedi way
Only Siths deal with Absolute- That being said we are all humans on this planet trying to survive together.
So It irritates me that not only "Proud BOYS" target peaceful people like myself- when we are just trying to get Law enforcement officials to be held liable for their actions the way any of us would be (especially when they have been trained and we haven't)
So that being said I'd like to take a moment to talk about the other side of things
In Portland, at the protest they had "RIOT RIBS" which was basically free food to anyone- including the homeless, But BLM made it a POINT to send the WHITEs to the back of the line, THEY MADE IT A POINT to tell us we were there to be the front lines and PROTECT BLM, and we were not allowed to talk on the megaphone (even though i have been abused by police myself in the past) ... and in APPLETON WI they tried making WHITE FEMALES who PARTICIPATED pay! like literately PAY to be part of their movement! all because apparently female slave owners years ago resided in that area...

SO my wife and myself are standing there, FIGHTING FOR PEACE, and we got hatred on all sides! BLM, NAZI, and POLICE!
and again, all we want is equality for ALL!
So our travels (we are full time RVers) then took us to Kenosha (to see my family in my hometown), where the man was shot by police just after a week of us being in town- so they started protesting, Being that we have been doing this for MONTHS and they are only DAYS in- my Wife and I stock the truck with snacks and water and she took it down to Kenosha to pass them out. We know how thirsty n hungry you get out there.
AGAIN my wife did not discriminate, she gave water/food to EVERYONE and ANYONE who needed it, Cops, proud boys and BLM protesters.
That night, that kyle kid opened fire- just a few yards from where my wife was parked handing out food.
Now from what we saw- is very different from what the media says- The live stream will show you what happened but what is not being told is that kyle walked around to everyone asking if they needed a medic and if you replied with NO he would then respond with "You will, You will."
That being said I think that kid who crossed state borders with a loaded gun (all while under age) came there with the intention of NOT BEING PEACEFUL!
It has taken my family some time to cope and realize just how lucky we got that night, and how grateful we are for still being together, However it also brought another source of pain we feel for the family of those lost that night, as it COULD HAVE BEEN US!

I'm not trying to choose sides (again I dislike all hate groups) and I am not trying to persuade anyone one way or another!
I JUST WANT PEACE!
People should be treated as just that, PEOPLE!
Cops should be held to a higher standard and not get away with wrongful murder!
And ALL HATE GROUPS need to come to an end.

But MOST IMPORTANTLY - we must stop the violence, we live in an age of technology and communication and should be able to use those to our advantage in understanding each other. We need peace- we need to be able to settle our arguments and disagreements without someone losing a loved one or in fear for their own family.

We have taken the tear gas, the rubber bullets, Had people try to run us over, aim guns at us, ect. Been there done that, and ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
This is not the world I want my children raised in, This is not the world I wanted to be in as an adult.

So I'm asking everyone- pass along the message of PEACE!
PEACE MAN! i know it sounds like some hippie crap - but I think we can all agree we would rather argue with our neighbors than be at war with them.

And if anyone has questions regarding what we experienced, or anything please ask- I have nothing to hide.

but even if you disagree with my stance on police or w.e - we shouldn't disagree on PEACE!

REMAIN PEACEFUL! The kids of the future will thank you!

@Dadof2many


Your response, my brother, is most welcome. You spoke the truth. You spoke from experience. You spoke from love. And that's the most anyone can ask for. I truly appreciate everything you and your family have done in the struggle for equality and justice. I thank you for taking the risks and being a light in a dark place.

I'm sure it was quite a surprise to be there. I can only imagine. You were there at ground zero in the vortex; the collision of love and hate, good and evil, positive and negative.

I am glad to hear your story and that you and your family came through it safely, especially knowing that... it could have been you.

"It could have been me." is a statement I want us to marinate on. Sometimes it seems like we have to get far too close to say this, to truly feel what someone else felt. However this is the very reason for the BLM protests. "It could have been me" is something I definitely feel having survived situations with the police that could have easily gone sideways. It is the fear that black people feel when they see those flashing lights behind them. Sometimes your heart even skips a beat because you don't know this officer any more than he knows you. To him, you have the potential to be a Kyle and therefore he treats you with that potential in mind. And because you know and understand his fear you see his potential to be a Kyle and to kill you based on his biases against against your color or class.

"It could have been me" is something all black people feel especially when we understand the danger, the action and reaction danger, in not holding police accountable so that they have no fear of playing judge, jury, and executioner, knowing that all they have to say is that they were afraid of us.

unarmed. doesn't matter.
educated. doesn't matter.
rich. doesn't matter.
successful. doesn't matter.
legal permits. doesn't matter.
gender. doesn't matter.
polite. doesn't matter.
in your own home. doesn't matter.
innocent. doesn't matter.

Everything we are told to do by 'concerned citizens' to protect ourselves in these situations are all things we've been doing for longer than they have thought to offer that advice. We've quietly had to adapt over decades but all the while developing mistrust, not just for the police, but for the society that allows them to get away with being bigger and worse criminals than many of the people they arrest.

And we know it isn't all police officers. That's obvious. But we have to recognize that being a police officer offers a position of power and authority and that is desirable for many people who seek some measure of these things. That especially includes racists. Even some who may not start the job with these thoughts and ideologies can be indoctrinated over time by racist officers who constantly attack inclusion and diversity and have their 'special names' for different ethnic groups.

No one just "does their jobs". Because we're not machines. We have opinions. And when racists share their opinions on the job it works to dehumanize their subjects. Once they and other cops accept certain people as less human well then it really doesn't matter to them what happens to those people as a result of their actions. To them its just "one less _____".

We don't even worry about the most of the kyles of the world. We know they fundamentally exist. We worry about the Kyles who get older and get badges. And then when they do the same thing their fellow boys in blue give them pats on the back and hand shakes and, like a video game, there's usually no real consequences.

And even if you have a Kyle who isn't racist... because these are not the only people who should never get badges, never be allowed to operate with the authority of the state, what if you have a person who is simply a psychopath who just wants to kill and terrorize people? Why don't they do it? Because there are consequences in real life. But if we're signaling to them that they can do it and get paid for it... then not only will that attract them into being police officers but it will also make them target minorities, not necessarily because they're racist but because there are less consequences for targeting those groups.

That's what the protests are really about.

The only thing said that I would disagree with is that there exists an "extreme BLM". I disagree because as someone who has been part of organizing something before and being on exactly that type of phone call, there are always going to be people who think your methods are too soft; who think whatever protest you're talking about is not going to create enough of a consequence that the other side will feel. Those extremists are NOT BLM and aren't really trying to be. They are their own agents of chaos and I say chaos because they commit to these actions without knowing what the end result will be. They are simply emotionally charged with negative energy that needs somewhere to go.

When a terrorist attack creates collateral damage, there is more damage than whatever was caught in the blast radius. The people who were outside the radius were also damaged. You're forcing them to see their own people dying and suffering, knowing it could have been them. If they had walked to the store a little sooner or the bomb veered a few feet off course... any number of things could have changed events because even if they are different from the target person they are no different from the people around the target person.

The threat increases when you live in certain neighborhoods, and when you belong to multiple hated groups. Plenty of men don't like women. So when its a black lesbian in a low income housing unit that's like 4 different groups and the target over that person head is 4 times bigger. And it's not like police don't abuse whites also. We know they do. But they don't target white people. If they have to respond to a call then a white person can be in just as much danger but they're not searching for them. They're not pulling them to the side and asking if they belong in nicer communities.

The reason BLM has to manage white protesters differently from black protesters is not because they want to. And I understand if this never gets explained or explained well and so it wouldn't surprise me if many white supporters come away disappointed because they don't understand.

In their minds they're helping and should be part of the "us" that is protesting. But the organizers are fully aware of the potential threat of people claiming to be part of the "us" who have hidden agendas. Even black people often have hidden agendas and no one has a psychic detector to figure out who everyone is. If such a thing existed then the police should use it to prevent racists from ever joining. But alas, such a magical device does not exist. And therefore organizers have to do the best they can. If whites are grouped together, it's less likely that a white person embedded in the crowd (like a Kyle) who is there to cause chaos and havoc, can throw something at a police officer, making it look like the hurled object came from black protestors because that's what the police are going to think. That's what the news coverage will think.

Black people with extreme views may at least not be the first one to provoke something but may wait to see if others do. If they see a window break they may take that as a cue to start looting a local business. But they're not necessarily going to throw something at the cops to endanger the black people around them the way that a white racist kyle would. And so if you group the whites together you minimize that possible threat. Most of us have seen whites in videos, breaking windows or setting a business on fire. And they know when they do it the protest will be blamed. They know BLM will get blamed for it. And they know it's counter productive to what BLM is trying to accomplish. The truth is they want the chaos and don't truly care that much about the cause. Even the black people who do it. The cause of BLM isn't about revenge or retribution. It's about justice. That's different. That's the cause. If your agenda is revenge then you're not there as BLM. You're representing your own selfish interests, driven by your amped up emotions and the anger and hate that have developed in your consciousness. This is not construction, only destructive.

By keeping the whites together you also limit the ability for those revenge seekers who are black to do things and blame it on white people in the crowd. I've heard people like that, one the phone, in conference calls, and they try to radicalize other people and push for a more radical approach. So you have to consider them too and if it was a big integrated mix of people you would have very little control.

I wouldn't give anyone a megaphone who wasn't pre-vetted as part of the BLM organization. Because you don't know what they're going to say or what kind of chant they might try to start. "Pigs in a blanket"? That was terrible and became a bigger weapon for the opposition to kill positive change then any positive effect that it may have been intended by the unthinking individual who started it. But if you only see black people on the megaphone you may not notice that it's not just any black person who gets it. It's not random because it cannot be random because you cannot trust everyone, black or white, to say the right thing; when what they say is going to be associated with BLM. So anyone on the mic, any reporter, is going to attribute those words to BLM.

Another issue, is that black people also know, in general terms, that a lot of "liberal" folks like to use us and our struggle to make themselves either look better or simply feel better about themselves. That's not what BLM is for. If they want to do that they have other platforms no one is stopping them from using.

So I apologize if it seems unfair, but the the potential threat to the organization creates the need to minimize risk as much as possible because we honestly do know what we're fighting against. We know there are a lot of racists out there, in and out of uniform, protecting each other, whether they are in blue or not. We know there is insititutional and systematic racism because we've been hit with it, literally, for generations. So we don't have to convince ourselves of that. We have to convince the majority white society of that and the ones who aren't racist don't necessarily want to see the full extent of racism because they don't want to imagine it is that pervasive and they don't want to be responsible for confronting it, even though they know they have racist father, uncles, etc. But as black people are the main targets of racists we don't have the luxury of ignoring this problem and would rather confront it as peacefully as possible even though it is literally killing and re-enslaving us through federal and private prisons. And the fear that "it could have been me" is simply a fact of life we have to deal with simply because of the color of our skin.

So again... I apologize for your negative experience. I'm also happy you shared your positive experience and that you are again safe and sound and out of harms way. From the bottom of my heart I thank you for your support because you didn't have to do it. You didn't have to go there; and yet you did. We appreciate that. The world needs more like you.

May the Force be with you.

Thank you, ZealotX. Every time I am still trying to formulate my thoughts into words, you already have facts, presentation, and experience to back it up. I'm learning a lot from your writing, your experience, and your approach.

And thank you, Dadof2many. It's uplifting to see the stories of others who are willing to do their part for justice, despite the risks to themselves.

One of the themes in both your posts that I think gets overlooked by the media and the general public: BLM is not an organization with training and resources like the police or even some of the militias that come in to agitate. By which I mean, as a protestor coming in, there's not a lot anyone can do to make sure I know how to be a positive influence right from the start. We talk about how as a Jedi group we must be cautious about how we present ourselves because of how the public sees us, but that is amplified to a level of absurdity when it comes to race issues. People expect even 19 year olds with no training and a lifetime of racial abuse to behave like politicians with an awareness of their words and actions that take years of training and support for anyone to acquire. It's a difficult journey to come from a background of pain and suffering into a space you can fight for your rights and then find that you are expected to think of all possible connotations of your words and actions. And it feels like a losing battle when no matter how hard you try, someone always seems to take things the wrong way. Which is what I think it really means to remember that anyone who is not black is a guest in a BLM space. I can understand some of the issue, through my own experience as a hispanic guy. But I cannot understand every aspect of it. The best I can do in a BLM space when I feel disenfranchised is to listen and seek to understand, and perhaps avoid the people who I cannot understand until my experiences with others leads me to a greater understanding of the situation. I know I would have trouble explaining myself well to an ally in a fight for my rights under stressful circumstances, and I would assume that is a struggle for most of us when we are at our most vulnerable.

Honestly, that's one of the reasons I've stuck around with this group as a Jedi. I need resources to help me develop my skills further in choosing my words and presentation wisely. I need to be able to use these skills under extreme pressure. I've spent the last decade improving my soft skills, and it still feels like every little mistake I make is used as an excuse for how I'm actually the aggressive one. So if that's my experience as just a hispanic guy, how much is that going on for every black person in the nation right now, especially if they choose to be activists and speak up? We choose to be Jedi and learn how to find peaceful solutions, here on these boards. But a group whose unifying goal is the safety of black people is constantly having to learn and adjust to whatever narrative the media projects, without the luxury of every participant having the same goals or values (or even close). PR is a difficult game, and one untrained attendee can be the difference between a successful day and a failure if the media just latches onto whatever they did in the right light. Which really makes me appreciate ZealotX's explanation of why the BLM protests attempt to keep the racial groups clear. If such a strategy makes it clear where the bad actors are, and keeps the amount of lying and trickery down, it seems like the only viable strategy for the situation.

This post is a complete break from the ongoing conversation. Please forgive me.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph5g0jb8cE

OB1Shinobi wrote: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph5g0jb8cE

First off... powerful speech.

Secondly... I have to find it very sad... sad that a speech in black and friggin white (almost brings a tear to my eyes) is still very much relevant to our experience in 2020 where we have monitors capable of 8K resolution and more colors than you can count.

Third (should have been first), thank you for posting this video OB1. I've never seen it before but one must wonder why the media has not played this and other videos, reminding the public that what's going on is a continuation of something very old. Thank you for the opportunity to continue this conversation and speak on the issues. I appreciate just having my words considered in some small way; even if it's just one person.


Although I haven't seen this video before I have a fairly good understanding of how both MLK and Malcolm X thought about all these things. And the thing is that if you told MLK that in 2020 these are the issues we are still facing, you would have to imagine that he would have felt somewhat responsible for a lack of progress. MLK wanted things to change, just as X did. But MLK's strategy was more about awakening the minds of white society and asking them to make the necessary steps to create this change. He understood politics and he understood the system of representative democracy. In some ways he underestimated the problem and how deep it actually went. X, on the other hand, may have somewhat overexaggerated or overestimated the problem and therefore his approach was much more "by any means necessary". Of course the "necessary" part is generally what is most overlooked.

It made him sound more radical but if an onlooker thinks "by any means necessary" requires violence then what THEY are saying, not X, is that violence is necessary for this change to happen. And that is extreme but it is also very telling about the difficulty of the fight for equality and justice. Malcolm thought more so that black people would have to liberate themselves. He thought most whites were racist. Not a binary thing, but rather at different points on a spectrum. Why? Sounds completely unfair but it seemed to him like this was something they were indoctrinated and socialized into (very much what Jane Elliot says).

Both men would have agreed that black and white children could play together because neither was naturally racist. It was their parents who separate them, typically because one side didn't want it and the other side didn't have a choice. MLK found hope in the children but X believed those same children would grow up indoctrinated. Malcolm had personal experiences during his life, especially as a taxi driver, that led him to see the darker side of humanity while MLK, on the extreme other hand, was raised in the church. Two very different paths.

Both were wrong in that, like OB1's sig currently says, "people are complicated". So very true. People are a balance between the "church" side and the "taxi" side. Exposing yourself more to either side helps to engineer a more biased viewpoint. MLK's bias was in favor of, and Malcolm's bias was against. What does this mean? It means the balance of these views informs black people, as a community (not as individual members who can and will disagree), that we should keep white people at arms length until they, as individuals, show us that they're not indoctrinated deeper into the spectrum of racist attitude.

This will always seem unfair, kind of like there's a world you, as a white person, are not allowed into without some kind of special pass or 'visa'. But this world exists as a reaction (and natural balance) to a world that already existed, that black people are not allowed to enter without some kind of special pass or 'visa'. And it shows how when you create one thing, you create it's shadow whether you intended to or not. And this shadow that is automatically created to give the disenfranchised a franchise. And because it is for the disenfranchised it is for them and access must be controlled by them so that it doesn't fall into the control of the same group that created the disenfranchisement in the first place.

Let me put it in another way.

The NAACP. Perhaps many whites believe the NAACP is a leader in all of this. Why wouldn't it be? However, poll most black people from non-affluent communities, and the love for the NAACP isn't there. They feel like the NAACP is watered down and not effective because its too "integrated" and therefore mainly all about legal campaigns and seeking more integration rather than power. The NAACP even came out against MLK after he spoke out about the Vietnam War. This idea that all the moderates were always on King's side is false.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/4/17193286/martin-luther-king-assassination-50th-anniversary-jeanne-theoharis

And the real truth is that MLK was executed before he could fully express his changing beliefs; like how what black people needed was economic justice, like how black people were integrating into a burning house. The problem was that the more whites pushed back against his civil rights movement the more he saw the darker side that Malcolm X had already seen. And before the two men could reconcile their views and get on the same page, just as Malcolm X had started to see the other side of whites after his visit to Mecca, and lead people in a united front for an economic revolution that could have lead to the creation of many "black wall streets"... he was executed. And since X was a threat he also had to be executed. Let's call it what it was. "Assassination" makes it seem like the powers that be had nothing to do with it.

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?