The Problem with Black Lives Matter

ZealotX wrote: Bottom line? There's a lot of "stuff" that's NOT okay.

Exactly so. Much of what you posted i am not denying or disagreeing with. But what I feel you are not grasping is the difference between

Working towards a positive and better future

vs

Adding to the problem


Just because the world around you is doing "Not Ok" things - Doesn't give you justifiable reasons to behave in similar action.

We blame THEIR actions. We use their actions to JUSTIFY our response.

Exactly. And I am saying that is an incorrect manner of action.

And to add (I missed this second post sorry!)

ZealotX wrote: Oh and I'm glad you had the amazing opportunity to go to such an international school. Most of us didn't get that opportunity and didn't get the memo that diversity has become the accepted norm.

This opportunity wasn't a matter of "Accepted Norm" but a choice my parents made between the school options. They choose to put all of there effort into providing me, there child, with a unique experience rather than "Following the sheep" as it were.

I believe it was Kobos who said

In general the growth of the next generation of children being exposed to more racially opened parents is in fact going to help the problems

Which I agree with. If more parents were to strive towards setting good, positive and accepting roles for there children to modulate, many of our greater problems will slowly resolve through good, positive leadership.

Trisskar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Bottom line? There's a lot of "stuff" that's NOT okay.

Exactly so. Much of what you posted i am not denying or disagreeing with. But what I feel you are not grasping is the difference between

Working towards a positive and better future

vs

Adding to the problem


Just because the world around you is doing "Not Ok" things - Doesn't give you justifiable reasons to behave in similar action.

We blame THEIR actions. We use their actions to JUSTIFY our response.

Exactly. And I am saying that is an incorrect manner of action.

Typically in long debates there is a danger in ending up in loops. It's no different from walking in the jungle and losing direction. You can end up going in circles. In this case the added danger in this is that the person you're speaking to can take what you're currently saying outside the context of everything you've previously said and while you are focused on saying new things, those new things could cause you to be misunderstood. So in an effort to avoid that, I'd like to point you to a previous post to provide some context and restate a few points. If you already read then consider this me restating my positions for the record.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/member-discussions/118436-the-problem-with-black-lives-matter?start=20#286703

First, we need to, at some point, understand a few things:
1. There are varying degrees of racism.
2. It is possible to be racist subconsciously or be manipulated by a person who is racist.
3. Reverse racism doesn't exist. The reaction is not the same as the action that caused it.
4. Movements that create an unheard voice will attract those who feel like they haven't been heard
5. Movements are not a monolith and everyone in it will not totally agree on everything.
6. It's not cool to hijack another human's pain and suffering by trying to force mass inclusion. It belittles and drowns out the source of the pain.
7. Black people have had a different history with the police than whites. Period. There are whites that hate the police too but but the reason of race is unique to black people.
8. A lot of racist whites join the police force in an effort to subdue and mistreat black people
9. Most of the stories of blacks getting beaten and murdered by police are never counted and not publicly heard or disseminated
10. There is no reason to insert "white lives don't matter" into the statement "black lives matter". This is a form of transference as well as an effort to "muddy the waters"
11. Some, not all, policing evolved out of the slave catchers and some of that mentality still exists
12. Many police officers are "programmed" by a police culture to seek out black people as "the problem".
13. There is also an economic component in targeting minorities
14. Police violence in general is not the central issue or theme of BLM, but rather the RACIST targeting of unreasonable police violence and aggression.
15. The BLM organization cannot police every expression of anger or frustration on the part of every single person that wants to participate
16. The reasons for someone participating in a protest are not always in line with the organization's design leading people who take advantage of protests who are not truly BLM members or supporters but rather subversives with a different ideology and agenda. Confusing and conflating this with BLM is typically done in an effort to destroy BLM because a person is hostile to it because of the 2 sides of the conflict they find themselves more on the opposite side.

From here I'd like to tackle, once again, this notion of adding to the problem. I'd also like to inject the spirit and consciousness of this video for the record as it pertains to views of hate and how to correct them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

Now, I think we can agree that this has been a very civil discussion. We are, after all, civilized people. And more than that, I think everyone who has posted on this thread has displayed a high level of intelligence, including emotional intelligence and empathy. These are the people that black people wish they were interacting with on a daily basis because even if you can't fully "get it" you can at least be conscious of that fact and be sensitive and empathetic to the degree in which you are capable. This is all most black people are even asking for. But it seems like society (in general) turns a blind eye when a majority of individuals aren't directly affected. It becomes easy to then become a back seat driver, critical of everything including the emotional responses of people who are going through something that you've never truly experienced.

I brought up the Boston Tea Party because that was a famous riot. It was illegal. And it happened because of an emotional outrage. That outrage eventually led to war. We could sit here and say "oh that wasn't okay". We could say that killing someone is never okay. However, if someone is trying to kill you or your family then how quickly does killing become okay? call it a necessary evil. And even then people could criticize your use of deadly force. Well maybe there was something else you could have done. I mean... how did you know this intruder was going to kill anyone in your house? You could have allowed them to take whatever they wanted and called the police after they left. Again, we are civilized people having a civilized discussion.

And yet the societies that claim to be the most civil also go to war when they believe it to be in the best interest of their people. And they kill people. And there's "collateral damage" far greater than all the riots that have ever taken place in this country. One could argue that Americans have consistently made the problems of the world worse through the use of force. And yet we always feel justified when we're attacked.

No matter how you personally feel, you cannot control the U.S. Military, can you? The U.S. Military is funded through your tax dollars and its actions can be systematically traced back to your voting record as a citizen of the United States. But you have no direct control over what millions of other people in this country do; not with their time, their money, their guns, etc. As a citizen of the United States you never told kids to shoot up a school. As a European citizen you never told a white kid to go shoot up a black church.

So now, let's continue in the vein of civil and intelligent discourse.

If you cannot be personally blamed for things other citizens of the United States do, why are we blaming Black Lives Matter for all the things individual protestors do? If you cannot control white people to keep them from shooting up black churches how can black people control other black people and keep them from vandalizing businesses? Are we psychically linked and know what individuals are planning and have the resources to stop them? Does BLM have its own NSA to read all the facebook posts and tweets and all communications of every person who they didn't even know was going to show up to a peaceful rally? Are there BLM private police, BLM military, BLM secret services? Do you imagine that there are secret meetings in the basements of Chinese restaurants where top BLM officials are telling people to instigate violence at their peaceful demonstration?

How exactly do you imagine BLM would be able to stop people from doing what they want?

If you cannot give me a rational explanation as to HOW BLM is supposed to protect the intent of their planned and organized events then how much sense does it make to blame BLM and say THEY (BLM) are making it worse or adding to the problem?

What problem are they adding to?

Are they adding to the problem of racism? If so, how so? Are they adding to the problem of white supremacy? If so, how so?

What is "the problem"?

Is it the perception of Europeans?

If so, do you think every single black person who feels completely provoked by how we are collectively treated, cares about how white people perceive them? Let me tell you the truth. They (Those who DGAF) fully believe and have the perception that Europeans HATE them and that's why they do what they do to us collectively. But how many Europeans are actively trying to change that perception? How many care enough to do so? But black people are the ones expected to care about how we are perceived so that whites wont hate us. The expectation, one which is ridiculously incorrect, is that black people are the ones with the problem. And this comes from a misunderstanding of racism and white supremacy. It comes from a misunderstanding of the the victim to the point where you can blame and shame the victim, thinking that at the same time you're not defending her rapist.

Think about that.

Let's say a woman is taken to the male college dorm by a friend. While she's there, she gets brutally gang raped by 4 guys on the football team.

How much do you talk about what she was wearing? How much do you talk about how she may have been intoxicated? How much do you focus on her interactions with them and what she may have said or whether she was alone in the "wrong" room? How much? And do you understand that for each one of these you are blaming the victim and defending her rapists? If a woman is raped it doesn't matter what she said or did. It matters who did it and how it was wrong. Why do we allow ourselves to get distracted by the woman in the red dress?

Black people were mistreated for over 400 years in this country. I'm not saying that gives us a right to break the law. But whenever we break the law we're treated like we're the only ones who EVER break the laws. That's amazing! White people can afford good lawyers who allow them to break laws all the time. The corruption in this country is so easily seen and so pervasive that people voted for someone on the off chance that he would somehow "destroy" the system. Our president as broken many laws and people voted for him, knowing this, to be their primary representative in the world. They thought his populism and the "movement" was more important than the man and his bad acts. Did republicans reject him because he defrauded students at Trump University which wasn't even a university? It became a partisan issue whether he was good or bad, even though he was verbally assassinating his own character. But like he said, he could shoot someone and not lose his support.

But if BLM cannot do the impossible, and police the frustrations of every individual black person, then we should elect the founders president and vice president of the United States!

NO?! BLM shouldn't exist because they're "adding to the problem"?

My point, in all of this, is that the attacks on BLM are political attacks based on people, knowingly or unwittingly defending racists and racism, in order to characterize and politically attack a movement based on the actions of a few. When it's white people everyone rushes to say they're not racist and how dare you accuse them. But when it's black people somehow it's okay to characterize them all (or large groups or organizations) based on the worst behavior you can find among them. And we have done the same thing with Muslims. So this is not even a problem that only affects black people but black people have been the "default Muslims" since before it was even a thing to hate on or be fearful of Muslims. And if it doesn't matter what we say or do, Europeans find reasons and justifications not to listen, then it's only going to result in more black people who hate and fear whites just as many whites hate and fear blacks. This is what we ignore when we brutally report on the fact that a law was broken or that someone was hurt, rather than what led to that riot (and who was hurt) or what led to that act of terrorism (and who was hurt). "Adding to the problem" looks at the symptom in order to avoid having to cure the cause. And no we cannot cure the cause when all Europeans seem to want to do is criticize the movement. It would be naive to think that the public political attacks against the movement is "help". If anyone is confusing these political attacks as help then this isn't the intelligent discussion I thought it to be.

Arisaig wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

Trisskar wrote: It is NOT ok to start riots...

"I think we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?"

Riots are illegal. Protests are not. If one feels like their voice is unheard they can protest. Rioting solves nothing, and has been proven to be counteractive to the point. Violent protest (riots) are less likely to succeed and are more or less an excuse to rage and smash stuff. A proper peaceful protests (alliteration for you right there ) are more likely to succeed and not land one behind bars.

This is an interesting take on rioting and violent disobedience, but I think it is a blanket statement that generalizes too much. Just what is a "proper peaceful protest"? The two most often cited examples of peaceful protesters are Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Both were assassinated. Their followers were beaten, sprayed with hoses, attacked by dogs, and sometimes killed. This doesn't take anything away from their methods or the achievements that each is credited for, but it demonstrates that sometimes the reaction to peaceful protest will still be increased violence, most often instigated by the oppressor. What about "proper peaceful law enforcement"?

Sure, rioting is illegal, but what drove people to that point? And what was the outcome? Dragging a man from his car and beating him with night sticks over and over despite the fact that he is too injured to fight back is also illegal, but four cops who perpetrated this violence against Rodney King were acquitted, despite video evidence. Minorities in South Central Los Angeles had enough of systematic, racially motivated violence by the police, and they rioted. I watched it happen as a teenager and it scared the crap out of me. I wasn't afraid of black people coming to steal my stuff. I didn't suddenly fear my black friends. It scared me because it wasn't black versus white. It was black, Hispanic, Asian, and even poor white people tired of being manipulated, harassed, and brutalized by a corrupt police force. Groups like N.W.A. and songs like "F*%k the Police" and "April 29th, 1992" by Sublime don't just come out of nowhere.

As scary and senseless as the rioting in 1992 was, it was an indictment of the police, and it worked in a way that no "peaceful protest" would have. Suddenly, the L.A.P.D. was on the defensive. Officers were now afraid of entering neighborhoods they had previously policed with unlimited authority. They had to rely on the National Guard to protect them instead. They were stuck trying to justify their misguided policies and training in the face of a very angry community that also included white and Asian business owners who were pissed that the police allowed the situation to get to the point where rioting was the only recourse people thought they had and then abandoned them to fend for themselves when the crap hit the fan. Chief Daryl Gates was forced to resign and the entire L.A.P.D. underwent sweeping changes. It has since been led by a black Chief of Police and a Hispanic Chief of Police. Officers are now trained in community relations rather than how to drive a tank through someone's front door. L.A. still has a lot of problems, but the L.A.P.D. is much more transparent and involves the community on a level that allows us to address our issues with police before it comes to the point where a riot is the only way to be heard.

Just like the Boston Tea Party example used before, sometimes people have to destroy some stuff in order to get any attention at all, and whether it is legal or not, it works. The question should be why law enforcement in L.A. or the British in Boston ever allowed the public to become angry and disillusioned enough to even consider illegal action.

Senan wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

Trisskar wrote: It is NOT ok to start riots...

"I think we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?"

Riots are illegal. Protests are not. If one feels like their voice is unheard they can protest. Rioting solves nothing, and has been proven to be counteractive to the point. Violent protest (riots) are less likely to succeed and are more or less an excuse to rage and smash stuff. A proper peaceful protests (alliteration for you right there ) are more likely to succeed and not land one behind bars.

This is an interesting take on rioting and violent disobedience, but I think it is a blanket statement that generalizes too much. Just what is a "proper peaceful protest"? The two most often cited examples of peaceful protesters are Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Both were assassinated. Their followers were beaten, sprayed with hoses, attacked by dogs, and sometimes killed. This doesn't take anything away from their methods or the achievements that each is credited for, but it demonstrates that sometimes the reaction to peaceful protest will still be increased violence, most often instigated by the oppressor. What about "proper peaceful law enforcement"?

Sure, rioting is illegal, but what drove people to that point? And what was the outcome? Dragging a man from his car and beating him with night sticks over and over despite the fact that he is too injured to fight back is also illegal, but four cops who perpetrated this violence against Rodney King were acquitted, despite video evidence. Minorities in South Central Los Angeles had enough of systematic, racially motivated violence by the police, and they rioted. I watched it happen as a teenager and it scared the crap out of me. I wasn't afraid of black people coming to steal my stuff. I didn't suddenly fear my black friends. It scared me because it wasn't black versus white. It was black, Hispanic, Asian, and even poor white people tired of being manipulated, harassed, and brutalized by a corrupt police force. Groups like N.W.A. and songs like "F*%k the Police" and "April 29th, 1992" by Sublime don't just come out of nowhere.

As scary and senseless as the rioting in 1992 was, it was an indictment of the police, and it worked in a way that no "peaceful protest" would have. Suddenly, the L.A.P.D. was on the defensive. Officers were now afraid of entering neighborhoods they had previously policed with unlimited authority. They had to rely on the National Guard to protect them instead. They were stuck trying to justify their misguided policies and training in the face of a very angry community that also included white and Asian business owners who were pissed that the police allowed the situation to get to the point where rioting was the only recourse people thought they had and then abandoned them to fend for themselves when the crap hit the fan. Chief Daryl Gates was forced to resign and the entire L.A.P.D. underwent sweeping changes. It has since been led by a black Chief of Police and a Hispanic Chief of Police. Officers are now trained in community relations rather than how to drive a tank through someone's front door. L.A. still has a lot of problems, but the L.A.P.D. is much more transparent and involves the community on a level that allows us to address our issues with police before it comes to the point where a riot is the only way to be heard.

Just like the Boston Tea Party example used before, sometimes people have to destroy some stuff in order to get any attention at all, and whether it is legal or not, it works. The question should be why law enforcement in L.A. or the British in Boston ever allowed the public to become angry and disillusioned enough to even consider illegal action.

holy crap this was good post. I'll add only one this.

If no protest ever disobeyed any laws we would still be serving kings and queens and America would lorded over by a tyrannical dictator.

I submit as evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_War

Sometimes people feel the need to fight; the need to revolt, the need for revolution. In most cases I think it comes after not being heard and not being treated fairly. But we live in a world that is more free today because of all the people who died fighting for it. The idea that one should never fight is ridiculous, especially when the person who says that is a descendant of those who also rioted, revolted, and fought for freedom.

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"

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".

Having witnessed both the L.A. Riots and the O.J. Simpson verdict from the perspective of an L.A. resident, I can tell you that the "herd mentality" is an issue, and it happens on all sides. I watched people who began protesting peacefully turn to violence simply because others around them were doing it. People of all races were looting during the riots, and people from outside of Compton and Watts drove to those area specifically to join in the violence going on.

I heard white people who were outside the L.A. Courthouse peacefully expecting O.J. to be found guilty start shouting racist slurs at black people after the verdict was announced because everyone around them started doing it too. The trial was supposed to be about an individual accused of killing to other individuals, but it tuned into "us vs them" based on race on the sidewalk outside. It was weird to watch. People were obviously trying to fit in with their own tribe by mimicking the behavior of others in their group. Nobody dared to cross the line to the other side for fear of being ostracized or ganged up on. It lasted for weeks. I felt uncomfortable around people I used to get along with because their behavior had changed based only on the color of their skin, even though the trial was really about money and fame.

Interestingly enough, the same stupid crap happens here every time the Lakers win a championship. Celebration turns into lighting cars on fire. Gotta love L.A.

So it looks like (correct me if you disagree) there's several issues here that we agree on:
A.) America used to have institutionalized racism
B.) Blacks still feel prejudiced against by both the attitudes of non-blacks and the system that gives the benefit of the doubt to police
C.) Blacks feel like they are expected to change everything in B but don't have the power to do so
And the issues we disagree on:
I.) Are blacks expected to comply with a system that has been at least historically disadvantageous to them (to what extent)
II.) Can we blame a group as a whole for the actions of some of its actors (especially if it's not a well-organized one like BLM)
III.) What will make the government (and people in it) change both their way of thinking and their actions
IV.) What is a specific, quantitative end goal for BLM
V.) What should we as individuals/Jedi do?
VI.) How are police supposed to respond to semi-violence? (cue force continuum)
(Feel free to add on points of contention that have relevance)

Kobos wrote: "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".

Thank you for an excellent contribution to this discussion.

Again... I think the reason why this discussion here is as good as it is is because of the people. I commend all of you because it takes a certain level of: respect, sensitivity, consciousness, level headedness, logic, understanding, wisdom, etc. etc. to really have this discussion in a fair and meaningful way and I just want to say that you guys are all great in all of these aspects. Even those I may disagree with... you're still share these qualities which allow us to communicate in a way that I can fully express myself and no one really gives in to the "dark side" (metaphor) which would turn the conversation negative. As a result I'm very proud of this conversation and all those involved.

I want to combine a few things from both you and Senan. Both excellent contributions.

Herd mentality
Snowball effect

You're right! These things have always been a problem for the human species in the most absolute general terms one can imagine. Think about order vs chaos. Think about world religions. Think about the Jedi. Think about the distribution of authority. Think about the animals fighting to see who is the strongest; who will lead the pack/herd/flock/etc. Who's the strongest? Who's the prettiest? Who's got the most money? Who's the most famous? or infamous?



When you are a good leader, everything goes right and no one challenges you.

I'm kidding. The Lion King was actually a great example. Order was established through the greatness of Mufasa and Simba was being raised to follow in his footsteps. However, Scar wasn't interested in being a follower; being a part of the pride. He didn't care about Mufasa's excellent and righteous leadership. He wanted power. Is this story not repeated a zillion times in our culture? Is it not the basis of the Star Wars franchise which is a reflection of humanity and human events?

This is why I cannot agree with casting blame on BLM. That's like blaming Mufasa for Scar. The existence of "the dark side" is the shadow of the light. Where there is light there will be darkness. Goodness, in my opinion, is maintaining a balance and controlling your words and actions from a desire to do/be good. This prioritizes the wants and needs of others over yourself. I personally, think this is of the utmost importance because what we do shapes the environment. Like global warming/climate change. People can debate it but the science seems to agree that we're contributing to it. So what happens is that, if we don't care what happens to the planet or what the world will be like for future generations we will literally, over time, turn this planet into hell. And what is hell? A "Lake of fire". Everything we do is a cause that has an effect on the environment and all living creatures adapt to their environment. The more light we contribute to the environment the more things can grow. The more darkness we contribute the more things adapt in other ways; struggling to survive.

Black people are not a monolith and black people don't have a king that we all follow. There is no Mufasa. We wish there was. We see a lack of black leadership "in general". However, the only reason "we" (black people) see a need for "black leadership" is because there is no Mufasa that includes us to an equal and fair extent in America. In theory there shouldn't be "black leaders" because that implies there are white leaders. The perception that American leaders are white leaders is created by the environment. In the environment is there more, less, or equal opportunity for black people? Why did the hyenas follow Scar? They weren't in love with him. He simply promised them food under his regime and he was simply using them to get power.

This is where racism in America becomes institutional...

In theory there should be ONE herd; America for Americans. But this is a lie. If you have 1 king that makes all the decisions then the direction your country goes in is based on what he thinks is right or wrong. That concentration of power is very dangerous....but.... it depends on that person. Kings normally have advisors: priests, court, knights, etc. What we have is a system where, instead of trying to bribe the king, you're trying to bribe enough people to carry a vote and because they're not wealthy like a king it takes less money to control them. And therefore that control can be more sophisticated and more consistent since you don't need to bribe the same person for every vote.

Sure I'm talking about lawmakers but this is a problem throughout our system. It's called corruption. So if you look at the judicial branch instead of the legislative do you really think there's no corruption there? The only real question is whether or not there is power there. If there's power there then there is corruption there. Because if you do not cultivate highly moral people... you will have corruption. How much corruption dominates depends on the level of discipline. Jedi, if nothing else, are people who believe in discipline to control their own power. This isn't self-serving but rather that which serves the greater good. TO ME... The Sith are those who, whether consciously or not, are willing to f*ck over everyone else in order to gain whatever power they seek. Again, they may not see it that way because they don't necessarily want to see the consequences and you can narrow your field of vision to exclude the lives and well being of others. That's when you start losing things like empathy and morality.

So is there a question that there is corruption in the Judicial system? If the answer is yes then what form does it take? Think about it.

I was bullied in middle school by a big white kid. At that time I was a skinny black kid. "us vs them". Was it racist? probably not. I don't think I was chosen by this kid because I was black, because the school was mostly black. I think I was chosen because I was skinny and different. And that was enough. So maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he got in trouble at home and his dad yelled at him and it hurt him inside. Maybe people thought, because he was so big, he could take the hurt they unwittingly inflicted on him? But when he saw me he saw someone he could take it out on. He saw someone who couldn't fight back, and even if he did, wasn't nearly in the same weight class. It would be like a heavyweight fighting a lightweight. Even if he wasn't the greatest fighter his size meant he didn't have to be in order to win. I was someone who he could win against even if he was a loser elsewhere in life.

"us vs them"

Now I'm a big black guy. 6'2 250lbs. I'm the nicest guy in the world but I intimidate people who don't know me. Now imagine that bully becomes a cop. Far fetched? Not all. You have to consider what type of individuals seek out this profession. What kind of people desire to be police officers? Do they want justice? Do they want the authority? Whatever their reasons for joining they all have a little racial bias. As Senan said, when white people (and I assume they weren't dressed in all white with hoods) heard the verdict, how did they react? Whether they controlled it every other time or not, they were racists who weren't actively discriminating (or didn't have the power to do so). But in the safety of a group they felt empowered to use their words to inflict emotional damage on the black people in earshot for something THEY were completely innocent of.

Now if a random group of white people could do that, what happens when you put badges on them? They're still in a group. But now you've empowered that group with the authority of the state. This is again, one the reasons why I said earlier that a lot of racists and KKK members simply became the police. And often if you took the hoods off you would see they were already cops and other public officials-which is why they had to wear masks to hide their identities in the first place. What happens when your leader is Scar? What happens when the alpha males are the guys who are looking for the slightest reason to shoot black people because they already feel like black people shouldn't be here and that they are overwhelmingly criminals. And if you're racist then you are much more likely to be exposed to racist propaganda (herd communications).

And when black people see this and white people are flippant about it and support the cops, the feeling of not being true americans in the same sense is reinforced. The feelings of inequality are reinforced. The feeling that we need our own leaders, our own schools, our own land, maybe even our own state, are reinforced. And that's in the minds of the logical. In the minds of the irrational, who are driven by emotions, these feelings turn to hatred and jealousy. These feelings pervert the person and turn them into a vehicle for hate. The hatred of the KKK is received by them in full and they express it the only way they can. More hate. It becomes easy for them to think in absolutes; to think that all whites are the same. It becomes easy for them to think all white people are evil and that they hate us because in reality... the way they see other black people treated is "evil". If you are on the other side you're more likely to see it as evil. If you're on the same side you're more like to see it as "a mistake", "self defense", etc. You look for possible reasons and justifications because otherwise it doesn't makes sense to you. If you're on the other side and you've seen much more of this and you've witnessed it and you've experienced it yourself, how many cops do you need to prove it to you? At a certain point you stop trying to figure it out. The answer is that white people (in general) hate us and they're out to get us.

I would love to show all of these emotional, irrational black people that they're wrong. I would love to argue that "oh well its really the wealthy elite". But then that argument is undercut every single time a Zimmerman gets off, a Tenseng gets off, or the countless officers who are never even charged. Did you know the officer that shot a black guy picking up a toy gun in a store, shot DEAD, got off? Why? BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT. If I did what the cop did, a 6'2 black man, to a white guy, I would be on death row. I could claim that I was scared for my life all day and no one on the jury would believe me. Juries are helping these guys get off. Prosecutors are friends with the police because the police 99.9% of the time are helping prosecutors make their cases. White jurors see the police 99.9% of the time as people sacrificing their lives to protect and serve (them). They're looking for reasons to get these guys off because they are on the same side and it's...

"us vs them"

Rex wrote: So it looks like (correct me if you disagree) there's several issues here that we agree on:
A.) America used to have institutionalized racism
B.) Blacks still feel prejudiced against by both the attitudes of non-blacks and the system that gives the benefit of the doubt to police
C.) Blacks feel like they are expected to change everything in B but don't have the power to do so
And the issues we disagree on:
I.) Are blacks expected to comply with a system that has been at least historically disadvantageous to them (to what extent)
II.) Can we blame a group as a whole for the actions of some of its actors (especially if it's not a well-organized one like BLM)
III.) What will make the government (and people in it) change both their way of thinking and their actions
IV.) What is a specific, quantitative end goal for BLM
V.) What should we as individuals/Jedi do?
VI.) How are police supposed to respond to semi-violence? (cue force continuum)
(Feel free to add on points of contention that have relevance)

A) used to?????? I think we disagree on what institutionalized racism means.
Let me use a different example. Let's say that Amazon bought ALL grocery stores. You might say "no way, we have laws against monopolizing an industry because we know that monopolies are the enemy of the free market and they crush small business which for many people is the American dream". And if you say all that I would be nodding the whole time and then remind you that this is just for fun. If Amazon owned all grocery stores then they would control how grocery stores operated. This would be good and bad. A lot of people would lose their jobs. The cost of food would rise but it would be at your door within 3 hours of your order. There would be pros and cons. Now let's say that Amazon created a culture that supported the vegan diet more than any other. Maybe they would increase the price of meat while decreasing the price of fruits and vegetables. In other words, they would discriminate. They might see this discrimination as a good thing. "We don't need no stinkin meat", they might say. And maybe they talk about how awful it is to slaughter animals and how animals are treated. All that stuff. And they would have some valid points. But that would be institutional discrimination. It wouldn't have to be stated policy of Amazon to become a cultural norm. As long as there is a mob of people who believe strongly in the vegan diet and don't mind pushing it on others, that's really all it takes. All it takes is for the biases of a group to become normalized. Once normalized then going against that becomes "wrong". Now that homosexuality has become normalized, for example, it is now wrong to denigrate people for being part of the lifestyle. I remember a time when everyone seemed to be against it and called people "fags" and such. Now, the only time you really hear that word is from gay people themselves. But do you think everyone's mind has really changed? Or is it just political correctness that doesn't allow people to talk about it? So what if a bunch of white cops think the worst things about black people but simply cannot say it out loud for political correctness? Does that mean their thoughts and feelings cannot shape the culture of the police force? All it needs to be is "normal". From there it becomes institutionalized. And when you still have laws on the books that punish black people more than whites for arguably the same offense... then it seems to support and reinforce this "us vs them" mentality that forms the basis of racism.

B & C) While I can't fault your use of "feel" I would like to interject and remind you that we're not talking about the "feelings" of one person, but literally millions. And for many of those millions it's not just a feeling but experiences. And when we share our experiences it reinforces these feelings but just saying feelings, in my opinion, undercuts the argument by making it seem like the feelings aren't legitimate. You might "feel" they aren't legitimate. (I'm not saying you do, just making a point about feelings) But these feelings has a basis in experiences that white people simply do not share and is therefore harder (not impossible) for them to understand.

I) Are black people expected to comply? Why is it "black people"? When individual white people fail to comply with the laws of the land, (for instance: Jared Kushner changing forms to
reflect meetings with Russians), no one says "white people are expected to comply with the law". Jared Kushner isn't a "white" offender. He's simply Jared Kushner. When you see a criminal on TV, do we note only his name? Or do we note his or her race? What if the person is mixed race? Do we notice their race then? It SEEMS TO ME... that race is particularly of interest in the commission of a CRIME. So the problem with racism is how it EXCLUDES races from being part of the "us" and INCLUDES them as being part of the "them". Instead of saying there were "individuals" who started riots at peaceful demonstrations organized by BLM the conversation is that "black people" started riots. The color of their skin shouldn't even matter. The fact that it seems to matter very much is why WE (black people) feel the need to say "BLACK LIVES MATTER". We didn't create this culture in which "black" is included in the negative sense. We didn't tell teachers to treat black students as if they were automatically dumb or automatically criminals. We didn't ask for the label nor did we invent it. You can't even call people FAT anymore on TV but you can identity someone by their race on the news. "2 people were shot. The suspect was black." This is part of the problem that I really want you guys to understand.

II) There's another well organized group. It's called The United States. If you blame the United States as a whole for the actions of some of its members then the Taliban, ISIS, and all other Muslim extremists are right and the United States is evil and must be stopped. But then again... they have members who behead people and blow other people up so Muslims are evil and should be stopped. If you fall into this trap of blame you will eventually have to see that it is a roller coaster ride that doesn't end. You cannot take a commonality of a group of people and use that common thread to blame the MAJORITY for the actions of the MINORITY. Because guess what, we're all humans. We all have 2 eyes, 2 ears, etc. Are we all guilty of genocide because some of us (humans) did it? Of course not. If a minority of American voted for Jill Stein why isn't she president instead of Donald Trump? And let's go back down to the micro-level. To expect BLM to be able to prevent the actions of a minority is irrational because it assumes something impossible; that you can control people. You can't. America has a police force, not to control people, but to apprehend people who are out of control. So the best BLM could do would be to apprehend people who are out of control but is that their responsibility? Or is apprehending people who are out of control the responsibility of the police? Chances are, if I threw on a leather coat and started fighting crime the police would throw me in jail because I do not have the authority to do that.

III) Voting is great if you are part of the MAJORITY. Therefore for issues concerning the MAJORITY voting works great. When you're a MINORITY voting is not so great. You become a "special interest group" and people in the majority use propaganda to make the majority vote against you. They call it "conservative values". It just means "we don't want to change the status quo". Black people were denied civil rights for A HUNDRED YEARS after slavery and the civil rights movement lasted for decades. When it takes THAT LONG to change something that the MAJORITY shouldn't be against... do you think that inspires black people to vote more? or to vote less? In essence, it reinforces anyone who thinks their vote doesn't matter (then there's gerrymandering and other shenanigans), and reinforces anyone who thinks the majority of whites are the same and are all racists. Logically, why else would the MAJORITY of whites be against black civil rights? I'm not saying all whites are racists. I'm saying "It's complicated". Way too complicated than to say that voting is the answer.


IV) Assimilation? (even population distribution for major cities such that all cities over 500k residents wouldn't have a disparity greater than 1σ or ~15% from the national average)
I don't understand this answer. My answer would be justice and equality which has nothing to do with assimilation or population distribution. If there's too many black people in the city whites will just move out, taking their money with them. Thus, the suburban schools and private schools are better funded and provide better education. Better education means more money. More money means a healthy economy for those suburbs. A healthy economy supports better schools, better jobs, and other opportunities. I won't say what happens to the inner cities without a healthy economy. That should be obvious. But for example, to see a movie I literally have to leave my neighborhood and go to a white suburb because there are ZERO movie theaters in my community. But don't get me wrong. I make more money than most people at my company regardless of race. I could live in those white suburbs if I wanted to, just like most black people who earn more money. And then my tax dollars would support the mostly white schools and the mostly white economy. I shouldn't have to do choose between a "better life" for my family and other black people. Truly, the whole idea of assimilation bothers us a great deal.

V) We participate in peaceful assemblies, we don't condone violence (including with your rhetoric or presence), we talk to people of different backgrounds from yourself to reduce your own ignorance, and we participate in civic duties. We do all of these things with a constructive goal in mind.
BUT WE GET ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T. Why? Because we are black and so are those individuals.

VI) I like the current general consensus on force continuum. Body Cameras.
Except that body cameras can magically "not work" at the time the cops decide to beat you. It is one thing that serves as a deterrent to police officers abusing their power. It does not solve it. It's just like how there are many news outlets that report on the president of the United States, but that doesn't stop him from abusing his power; firing the guy investigating him, attacking news organizations, threatening TV hosts, etc.

**There are many ways groups can prevent their members from misrepresenting their group, and BLM's lack of leadership seems like a method to divert responsibility/liability. A far-far-far-right group, the oath keepers, have been involved in many nearly-disastrous events, but have never been (as a group) in legal trouble because of two factors: they're incredibly selective in membership, and they are quick to denounce the actions of members contrary to their mission (even to the point of denouncing the member).

No. Again... there is no way to prevent members from misrepresenting your group if all of their actions are automatically associated with you. All you can do is apprehend people when they get out of control and that is the job of the police. You can't call it a lack of leadership. You're comparing BLM to an organization that doesn't, that I'm aware of, have public marches/protests. The reason people pay any attention to them is because of who they are. This is from their website:

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

If black people could do this there would be no need to march or protest in the first place. Who we are doesn't get the same level of respect so that's why we have to use huge numbers in order to make people take notice. The problem with numbers is that these are not all "members". If you're organizing a march you say "come to this location". The million man march didn't screen hundreds of thousands of people. And because the million man march was to promote unity and family values. It wasn't a response to something that was done to us; therefore, it didn't convey the anger and hurt feelings that a BLM rally would have. So it isn't because they were black or because BLM was unorganized. It was because there was a lot of hurt and anger and you CANNOT CONTROL PEOPLE. Not only that, but riots are a well known thing and a minority of individuals will take that opportunity to grab some free stuff, assuming that, under riot conditions, they can get away with it. Of course, you first have to create riot conditions and so there are people that go to rallies in order to try to instigate that.

As a side note, with Jane Elliot's lesson, I think that it should've been a lesson for people on both sides. If you have brown eyes and you chose to help oppress blue-eyed people, you are literally a part of the problem. The lesson is in how easy that is. If you are blue-eyed and you refuse to see the problem, you are purposefully ignoring the problem; contrapositively, if you have blue eyes and fought against Ms. Elliot, you are the problem that you most likely don't like. The real winners are the ones who understand the comparison and choose to either remove themselves from it or refrain from oppressing others.

No, with all due respect, the real winners are those who understand the point of the experiment and walk in the shoes of the other side. It really wasn't the brown-eyes doing the oppression. They were along for the ride. If they did not participate there would be no way to show the blue eyes how it feels to be oppressed based on something they have no control over. The brown eyes were the "control group" so to speak. The blue eyes needed to see them being treated better in order to understand how they were being treated. For example... if you see that you are being given half a sandwich, and everyone else is, you'd think nothing of it. But if you see that you are given half a sandwich while a group of others are getting a whole sandwich THEN your feelings of inequality would kick in. To not be part of that control group is to DENY the experience needed by those not in the control group and to DENY that they need that experience or that the experience has VALUE. It is, in fact, to pretend that racism isn't happening at all so we don't need to work on ourselves as human beings to do anything to prevent racism.