BLM gets Divisive Again

[RDKirk]

BLM is under the microscope here, and divisiveness is what we're studying. Ad Homs don't help in the discussion.

That's not what an ad hominem is.

 

[Pommer]

It's not surprising that Marxists would use populist-style techniques. I'm sure we remember the Marxist Occupy Wall Street movement. Obvious Marxists using populist techniques.

I see the divisiveness of these groups as one of their main features, whether it's dividing the 1% from the 99%, or the Whites and the blacks. Divisiveness is the game that populists play... It's their main feature... Divide and destroy and then rebuild.

That BLM is a popular movement is without question.
Is it populist?

Not as yet, from what I’ve seen.

 

[rjs330]

Having perspective on the oppression of others is not a strong virtue for some Americans. It's hard to understand their plight even for those who try. Sadly, plenty of Americans will not even try to see things from their perspective. The entire black community has far more patience and resilience than my Caucasian counterparts here in America it would seem.

This assumes is here is oppression in America today. There can be no argument that there was oppression here. There was. And in places it was really bad. I mean we fought a war over it. There were laws that had to be passed to stop it.

However, oppression no longer exists in America. Americans have lost their tolerance for oppression. We no longer tolerate the bus situation. We don't tolerate anyone being harmed strictly due to the color of their skin. And we have built systems to severely punish those who do. Why? Because we don't want oppression. It is not acceptable. And we have seen that blacks can come to America from other nations and do very well. If oppression truly existed that would not be possible.

If one sees a disparity one must look elsewhere for the answers. The answer is not oppression.

 

[Brihaha]

This assumes is here is oppression in America today. There can be no argument that there was oppression here. There was. And in places it was really bad. I mean we fought a war over it. There were laws that had to be passed to stop it.

However, oppression no longer exists in America. Americans have lost their tolerance for oppression. We no longer tolerate the bus situation. We don't tolerate anyone being harmed strictly due to the color of their skin. And we have built systems to severely punish those who do. Why? Because we don't want oppression. It is not acceptable. And we have seen that blacks can come to America from other nations and do very well. If oppression truly existed that would not be possible.

If one sees a disparity one must look elsewhere for the answers. The answer is not oppression.

Respectfully, if oppression was actually gone, BLM would never have needed to form. Blacks are still forced into protesting. Hence the BLM movement was created.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not surprising that Marxists would use populist-style techniques. I'm sure we remember the Marxist Occupy Wall Street movement. Obvious Marxists using populist techniques.

Occupy Wall Street was disorganized.

I don't recall anything specifically Marxist about it.

I see the divisiveness of these groups as one of their main features, whether it's dividing the 1% from the 99%, or the Whites and the blacks. Divisiveness is the game that populists play... It's their main feature... Divide and destroy and then rebuild.

Well every protest is against something. Protesting wealth inequality isn't inherently Marxist. Marxism has some recognizable features.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Respectfully, if oppression was actually gone, BLM would never have needed to form. Blacks are still forced into protesting. Hence the BLM movement was created.

That's the assumption that every movement is inherently legitimate. There's people who protest circumcision. BLM started around a tiny number of police shootings.

 

[Brihaha]

That's the assumption that every movement is inherently legitimate. There's people who protest circumcision. BLM started around a tiny number of police shootings.

I doubt those police shootings, without consequence mind you, feel like a tiny number to the black community. Chauvin was the very first conviction of a policeman for murder in Minnesota.

 

[RDKirk]

Respectfully, if oppression was actually gone, BLM would never have needed to form. Blacks are still forced into protesting. Hence the BLM movement was created.

BLM was created as a movement to dramatically up-end all aspects of American life, according to its founders.

It might not be a matter of oppression per se in any sensible meaning of the term. People can be wrong. Christians in the US claim to be oppressed--and they are wrong. White people these days claim to be oppressed, and they are also wrong. "Micro-aggressions" are not oppression.

Back in the 60s, we protested in order to have specific laws stricken or passed. What is specifically intended today? Police brutality? Well, that's just as significant for whites as blacks. For instance, here in Dallas in 2016 a white man was killed by police in exactly the same manner as George Floyd, pleading for his life, being mocked by the police until he passed...and mocked even after they discovered he was dead. And he had been the one to call 911.

Video shows Dallas police mocking man killed as they pinned him down | Dallas | The Guardian

Does there need to be some protesting about that? For sure.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I doubt those police shootings, without consequence mind you, feel like a tiny number to the black community. Chauvin was the very first conviction of a policeman for murder in Minnesota.

Actually, at least one poll was done to gauge how accurately the population sees the issue. Nearly 45% of those on the left and around 10% on the right believe that around 10,000 or more unarmed black men are shot by police every year.

 

[RDKirk]

That's the assumption that every movement is inherently legitimate. There's people who protest circumcision. BLM started around a tiny number of police shootings.

There is a derisive line from a television show I watch: "You think every underdog is a good guy."

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is a derisive line from a television show I watch: "You think every underdog is a good guy."

It is somewhat true that we tend towards rooting for underdogs. That is, so long as we can identify with them.

It's a pretty common phenomenon. We want to see the upset...the guy typically loses beat the champion. It's more exciting due it's infrequent nature...and we vicariously win through them.

That combined with a false impression of the "hero cop" through movies and tv left a lot of people blind to reality. Yet with over 500,000 police...many people are related to or know one personally and they had a more realistic image.

So that really explains the immediate pushback. We never heard from that side though...media plays to narratives.

I remember watching the Rittenhouse video and thinking that was about the only time I'll probably ever see a situation like that and it's blatantly clearly self defense. I honestly thought that the charges would be dropped. I half think the prosecutor just went through the motions to avoid any protests at his home. I don't think he wanted Rittenhouse convicted. I think the judge is unfairly blamed....he's known for giving a significant amount of leeway to the defense in murder trials, consistently, and upon conviction...he's pretty harsh. That's a man who doesn't like sending innocent people to jail, but will gladly keep them there when convicted.

 

[rjs330]

Is BLM your role model now?

Just because they're logic is screwy doesn't mean you have to follow them.

What are you talking about?

I don't know what your trying to say.

I don't support BLM. I think they are a populist movement that seeks to cause division. I whole heatedly disagree with them.

 

[RDKirk]

What are you talking about?

I don't know what your trying to say.

I'm saying: They're defining "elite" wrong, and there is no reason to go along with them.

 

[rjs330]

Respectfully, if oppression was actually gone, BLM would never have needed to form. Blacks are still forced into protesting. Hence the BLM movement was created.

No, because BLM was formed based upon a false narrative. You certainly can create a movement based on a lie. In this case that is what has occurred. We have demonstrably seen protests on actions by police that have been proven to be utterly false.

Oppression is gone. But there are those that will use any means necessary including emotional manipulation and false information to create a crisis that doesn't really exist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

BLM was created as a movement to dramatically up-end all aspects of American life, according to its founders.

It might not be a matter of oppression per se in any sensible meaning of the term. People can be wrong. Christians in the US claim to be oppressed--and they are wrong.

Indeed...the war on Christmas is an example. Hard to understand from the outside, but when people create a narrative based upon persecution stories....and identify with that narrative....it's easy for them to see persecution where it doesn't exist.

White people these days claim to be oppressed, and they are also wrong. "Micro-aggressions" are not oppression.

I definitely haven't seen it...but it wouldn't surprise me. I find the increasing normalization of racial hatred and blame towards whites pretty disturbing. I knew it existed....but it was always private. It simply wasn't acceptable in the public sphere. I don't really mind that...and I'm encouraged that attempts to legalize racial discrimination are failing.

It's a concern though if this is indeed the new left. A party that sees me as less than others is ultimately, a party of my enemies. I can only conclude that eventually everything and anything becomes justified in that party's destruction. We aren't there yet...but I'd prefer this stop than reach that point down the road.

Back in the 60s, we protested in order to have specific laws stricken or passed. What is specifically intended today? Police brutality? Well, that's just as significant for whites as blacks. For instance, here in Dallas in 2016 a white man was killed by police in exactly the same manner as George Floyd, pleading for his life, being mocked by the police until he passed...and mocked even after they discovered he was dead. And he had been the one to call 911.

Video shows Dallas police mocking man killed as they pinned him down | Dallas | The Guardian

Does there need to be some protesting about that? For sure.

I suppose. I'm not against more police accountability. The police should be accountable when deliberately engaging in crimes....and should be removable when mistakes lead to significant harm or danger.

That's a tough thing to do though....we're watching this as detached observers not facing the choices in real time. Even non-life threatening choices are difficult. The level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause are very vague concepts that are mostly subjective and based on perceptions of abstract criteria. Simply detaining someone can be justified or not by these factors.

There is simply no cop capable of getting these things right 100% of the time. They're running around the environment in high stress situations making split decisions. Every cop makes mistakes. All of them.

Yet there's really no other way to do this...you simply have to accept that they work in an ambiguous morally and legally grey space a lot of the time. They are ceded the authority to do so. Someone has to take criminal actors into custody and begin the more clearly defined process.

That's why it looks like they are given so much leeway and consideration, despite making mistakes. If we punished them, for example, for wrongly pulling over someone who fit the description of a subject....I doubt any cop would last 5 years.

 

[RDKirk]

I suppose. I'm not against more police accountability. The police should be accountable when deliberately engaging in crimes....and should be removable when mistakes lead to significant harm or danger.

That's a tough thing to do though....we're watching this as detached observers not facing the choices in real time. Even non-life threatening choices are difficult. The level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause are very vague concepts that are mostly subjective and based on perceptions of abstract criteria. Simply detaining someone can be justified or not by these factors.

There is simply no cop capable of getting these things right 100% of the time. They're running around the environment in high stress situations making split decisions. Every cop makes mistakes. All of them.

Yet there's really no other way to do this...you simply have to accept that they work in an ambiguous morally and legally grey space a lot of the time. They are ceded the authority to do so. Someone has to take criminal actors into custody and begin the more clearly defined process.

That's why it looks like they are given so much leeway and consideration, despite making mistakes. If we punished them, for example, for wrongly pulling over someone who fit the description of a subject....I doubt any cop would last 5 years.

Did you look at the video I linked? It's only a few minutes long...just long enough to watch a man being asphyxiated while the policemen laugh. And he wasn't even being held as a suspect for a crime--he had been the one to call the police to help him.

Anyone could see that was wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did you look at the video I linked? It's only a few minutes long...just long enough to watch a man being asphyxiated while the policemen laugh. And he wasn't even being held as a suspect for a crime--he had been the one to call the police to help him.

Anyone could see that was wrong.

No I didn't RDKirk. I'm tired of watching those videos. I'll take your word for it. Your description sounds criminal.

 

[MehGuy]

So BLM pushes a black Christmas to disrupt white supremacist capitalism.

You know I have NO issues with encouraging people to shop at black owned businesses. I think that's a good thing. If we can help black businesses get if the ground and do well that helps everyone.

HOWEVER, the way they go about this is nothing but divisive, racist and quite frankly nothing but being a big jerk.

With things like this:
As BLMLA organizer, Jan Williams, reminds us, 'Capitalism doesn’t love Black people.' In fact, white-supremacist-capitalism invented policing, initially as chattel-slavery-era 'paddy rollers,' in order to protect its interests and put targets on the backs of Black people," the post said.

"Let’s harness our economic power to disrupt white-supremacist-capitalism and build Black community. #BlackXmas is about being self-determined and dismantling existing structures by building new, and more viable, beneficial ones[ … ]in the names of our mightiest and most righteous warrior Ancestors, in the names of all those stolen by police violence, in honor of our community, and as a commitment to the generations to come," Black Lives Matter declared.

Good grief. How about we just say , "Let's all shop at black owned stores to support them. Let's use our shopping power to uplift black owners and make it more viable for businesses to come to our neighborhoods."

But all this "we are against white people and capitalism cause they just put targets in our backs and we have to call capitalism white supremecy". Is nothing but a divisive message and does nothing to bring people together. It is designed to foster hatred, suspicion and promote disruption of society.

Good luck to them.

 

[rjs330]

Did you look at the video I linked? It's only a few minutes long...just long enough to watch a man being asphyxiated while the policemen laugh. And he wasn't even being held as a suspect for a crime--he had been the one to call the police to help him.

Anyone could see that was wrong.

And I think that's part of his point. Police should be held accountable for committing crimes or engaging in wrongful activities that cause significant harm. The case you mentioned definitely falls within that realm.

The larger point if all this is that there are very few police that engage in this behavior and most of the time they operate within this realm of probable cause or reasonable suspicion Which allows for decision making based upon circumstances presented. Often it falls within grey and not back and white. Cops do their best to make those decisions correctly. And they do it often under extremely stressful rapidly evolving situations in a matter of seconds. Which most people don't have to deal with.

And 99% of the time they get it right. It's not a pervasive or crisis situation as presented by groups like BLM.

 

[IceJad]

I don't understand the problem... black people advocating for support of black-owned businesses is hardly a call to violence. So what exactly is the problem?

Nothing if they stop at there. The added statement about white and capitalism are the problem. If the words black and white are swapped around, will you still stand by your sentiment?

White people advocating support for white-owned businesses. Asian people advocating support for Asian-owned businesses. All these sentiments are rooted in racism. If America wants to solve its race problems follow what Morgan Freeman once said in an interview: