Political Correctness

[jacks]

Is BLM even still a thing? I thought the corruption scandals pretty well knocked out the leadership.

 

[RandyPNW]

Much if not most the violence was in "association" with this saying was not done by the BLM protesters. Most the rioting took place after the protest had taken place. Remember that besides the BLM protesters were the counter-protesters which often included Proud Boys and their ilk. Then to counter the counter-protesters were Antifa who did engage in violence which was too often either conflated with or attributed to BLM.

I don't know how you're constructing your timelin? To me it was a "movement,"all parts acting as if in concert with one another, trying to achieve the same end *by any means.* Although I agree that Antifa was bad, I can't say it was only Antifa.

What I can say, however, is that politics played a role in this. The Liberal Democratic Media played down these so-called "peaceful protests," even as we saw fires burning in the distance. People were beat up, and lives were threatened, and the crowds supporting this added weight to the violence that went on under their banner. Stores were robbed and defaced. It was an obscene scene!

Democratic politicians, like Harris, tried to raise money to defend those who were arrested for violence. Why would politicians want to defend this violence? Good question!

My belief is that Democrats were trying to win politically through the strategy of "divide and conquer." Separate all of the disenfranchised, discontented groups and then claim to represent all sides in a "battle" of sorts.

It may seem cynical, but how else could the Democratic Party support illegals coming into our country with criminal gangs if not to appear as the "defender" of Hispanics? The Democrats not only supported virtually every disaffected group, but they did so with hateful rhetoric, threatening violence against their political opponents.

What a horrible way to try to win political elections! I think many people saw through this, were disappointed, and voted accordingly. Many may not have liked Trump so much as they hated what Democrats were doing to their own country, just to stay in power!

"Black Lives Matter" is, in my opinion, a bad slogan because overall it is associated with change by radical means. It was not a rational voice like MLK--instead it was a defiant protest, inciting retaliatory reactions from bad people on the other side. These things have not been good for our country.

 

[RandyPNW]

It is so strange that a few men kneeling in silence and submission provokes such rage in so many.

Why do you assume my reaction or the reaction of others is "rage?" I know my brother simply stopped watching football games. He was disappointed in this kind of political grievance reaching into the entertainment industries.

I feel the same way, to some degree. I'm just disappointed knowing that this kind of "rage" being expressed, perhaps subtly, by Black Americans--angry enough to disrupt proceedings--is going to cause nothing but more division.

I'm fully on board doing more about discrimination in any area of society. But underhanded means by interrupting proceedings is going to produce the opposite results. It will produce greater resentment towards any minority wishing to do harm to the country overall.

I sympathize wanting ad-free entertainment BUT is football or any professional sports event devoid of sales pitches? Even the stadium names are ads.

My goodness, this is not the same thing as paid advertisement! Can't you tell the difference between a streaker interfering with a football game and someone selling popcorn in the stands? (Sorry about the crude example--just making my point.)

Again, I can see wanting to avoid sales pitches while being entertained at sporting events but expecting to get it seems unrealistic. Even kids' games have sponsors' ads all over.

Ice skating and gymnastics avoid violence; football, hockey and MMA not so much.

Kneeling is silent. Painting is visual. Protests can generally be avoided if they are planned and permitted.

That's nice.

No, it's designed to distract the audience away from being entertained to being stirred up and angry about racism. It is a dog whistle to call forth more angry Black Americans to join in the national protest. It may begin as kneeling, but it ends in riots.

They didn't all protest in the same place and at the same time. There were some 9,000 discrete BLM protests that took place over many, many months.

And that's horrible! That's too long and way too many! Do more fires and a longer period of destroying things make it better? It was a movement--something that should have dissipated. But the design was to form a larger group of protest.

Even the things being protested were very poor examples. There are always a few examples of injustice. But some of the cases that elicited protests were just bad examples. It gave the appearance of a "planned protest"--something planned in advance and just waiting for an opportunity.

 

[stevil]

It is so strange that a few men kneeling in silence and submission provokes such rage in so many.

Protesting is fine as long as it is white people protesting.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

God loves all of mankind--not just Black People.

You see, just by making this statement you have completely missed the deeper meaning of " black lives matter". What is the true meaning? It was the response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. A tragic and senseless murder that told the world that the color of one's skin can be deadly.
There is a long history in our country of violence against the black population. So the reminder that black lives do matter is not only warranted but, necessary in this society.
Blessings

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Protesting is fine as long as it is white people protesting.

It still matters what they are protesting. Storming the center of government to ensure fair elections with the corrected electoral votes is okay, marching around in Washington with pink hats on, not okay.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I believe in "All Lives Matter."

All lives are not racially profiled.
This all started with the deaths of Trayvon Martin in 2013, Michael Brown and Eric Garner in 2014. George Floyd in 2020.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't know how you're constructing your timelin? To me it was a "movement,"all parts acting as if in concert with one another, trying to achieve the same end *by any means.* Although I agree that Antifa was bad, I can't say it was only Antifa.

I'm constructing the timeline by looking at what led up to the first protest and the creation of the slogan, what proceeded each subsequent one and when the protests stopped along with the history of the Antifa-Proud Boys-militias history of conflict. In my experience, using actual history of events in the order in which they occur is the most useful way to construct a timeline. How else?

What I can say, however, is that politics played a role in this. The Liberal Democratic Media played down these so-called "peaceful protests," even as we saw fires burning in the distance. People were beat up, and lives were threatened, and the crowds supporting this added weight to the violence that went on under their banner. Stores were robbed and defaced. It was an obscene scene!

Yes, of course politics played a role in this. "Liberal Democratic Media" may have played up the multitude of peaceful protests over the few actual riots, but "Reactionary Right Media" did play down the peaceful protests and covered the riots as though they were the protests. Riots are horrific, but are you so sure that the people who organized and participated in the protests - which often included getting permits and sticking to proscribed routes and hours - are the same people who rioted? Many of the riots were clashes between Antifa and armed counter-protesters which included Proud Boys, Three Percenters, Patriot Prayer and suchlike, plus opportunists who wanted to steal and destroy. A lot of bad actors on both sides leapfrogged off the protests for their own purposes, political and personal.

Democratic politicians, like Harris, tried to raise money to defend those who were arrested for violence. Why would politicians want to defend this violence? Good question!

That is inaccurate - Harris made a Tweet in support of Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) which assisted people, not just protesters, but poor people, with cash bail. Why would President Trump pardon violent J6ers? Not just bail as determined by the courts, but out and out pardons. But perhaps you find "this violence" different than "that violence"?

My belief is that Democrats were trying to win politically through the strategy of "divide and conquer." Separate all of the disenfranchised, discontented groups and then claim to represent all sides in a "battle" of sorts.

It may seem cynical, but how else could the Democratic Party support illegals coming into our country with criminal gangs if not to appear as the "defender" of Hispanics? The Democrats not only supported virtually every disaffected group, but they did so with hateful rhetoric, threatening violence against their political opponents.
What a horrible way to try to win political elections! I think many people saw through this, were disappointed, and voted accordingly. Many may not have liked Trump so much as they hated what Democrats were doing to their own country, just to stay in power!

Not going down that rabbit hole now. I get that you believe that Democrats are bad.

"Black Lives Matter" is, in my opinion, a bad slogan because overall it is associated with change by radical means. It was not a rational voice like MLK--instead it was a defiant protest, inciting retaliatory reactions from bad people on the other side. These things have not been good for our country.

On the other hand, we have seen increased accountability for bad police actions that used to be glossed over and condoned, so net gain, imo.

 

[DaisyDay]

Why do you assume my reaction or the reaction of others is "rage?" I know my brother simply stopped watching football games. He was disappointed in this kind of political grievance reaching into the entertainment industries.

Mainly because your reaction to a few men silently kneeling in submission and sorrow for a few minutes seems so disproportionate.

I feel the same way, to some degree. I'm just disappointed knowing that this kind of "rage" being expressed, perhaps subtly, by Black Americans--angry enough to disrupt proceedings--is going to cause nothing but more division.

The proceedings were not disrupted, they continued with the anthem as usual the only difference being some were kneeling, quietly, while everyone else was standing. At most, the disruption was visual if you happened to be looking in that direction or spiritual/moral if you cared one way or the other. If it were not for the commentators, who would've even noticed?

I'm fully on board doing more about discrimination in any area of society. But underhanded means by interrupting proceedings is going to produce the opposite results. It will produce greater resentment towards any minority wishing to do harm to the country overall.

That is an interesting way of framing it, as "minorit[ies] wishing to harm the country" rather than people seeking justice. It's almost as if you see minorities who want to end discrimination as more harmful than the discrimination itself. I would think there would be resentment towards anyone who wanted to harm the country, minority or not.

My goodness, this is not the same thing as paid advertisement! Can't you tell the difference between a streaker interfering with a football game and someone selling popcorn in the stands? (Sorry about the crude example--just making my point.)

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I was not referring to vendors selling overpriced crap refreshments but the corporate sponsors who have their names as the stadium name as well as advertisements and gigantic logos slathered all over the stands and fields, not to mention the advertising featured on the televised games which get more airtime than the actual game.

What do streakers have to do with any of this? Are they still a thing?

No, it's designed to distract the audience away from being entertained to being stirred up and angry about racism. It is a dog whistle to call forth more angry Black Americans to join in the national protest. It may begin as kneeling, but it ends in riots.

Yes, a couple of minutes of a few players silent kneeling during the all important anthem is soooo distracting and enraging - enough to spoil the enjoyment of the following hours of entertainment. And it was not only Black Americans that joined the national protest against extrajudicial killings. The riots ended when reforms were enacted for the betterment of the entire country.

And that's horrible! That's too long and way too many! Do more fires and a longer period of destroying things make it better? It was a movement--something that should have dissipated. But the design was to form a larger group of protest.

No, more fires and a longer period of destroying things do not make it better - police being held accountable makes things better for everyone except those who prefer the discrimination. The movement dissipated about five years ago.

Even the things being protested were very poor examples. There are always a few examples of injustice. But some of the cases that elicited protests were just bad examples. It gave the appearance of a "planned protest"--something planned in advance and just waiting for an opportunity.

What was "bad" about Breonna Taylor? Tamir Rice? Philando Castile? John Crawford? Only perfect victims matter?

I agree that much of it was planned but they didn't really have to wait long for provocation. It should have happened when Amadou Diallo's executioners got off or Michael Stewart's or Aiyana Jones' or any number of previous incidents, but oh well, what's past is past, eh?

 

[SimplyMe]

Mainly because your reaction to a few men silently kneeling in submission and sorrow for a few minutes seems so disproportionate.

The proceedings were not disrupted, they continued with the anthem as usual the only difference being some were kneeling, quietly, while everyone else was standing. At most, the disruption was visual if you happened to be looking in that direction or spiritual/moral if you cared one way or the other. If it were not for the commentators, who would've even noticed?

That is an interesting way of framing it, as "minorit[ies] wishing to harm the country" rather than people seeking justice. It's almost as if you see minorities who want to end discrimination as more harmful than the discrimination itself. I would think there would be resentment towards anyone who wanted to harm the country, minority or not.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I was not referring to vendors selling overpriced crap refreshments but the corporate sponsors who have their names as the stadium name as well as advertisements and gigantic logos slathered all over the stands and fields, not to mention the advertising featured on the televised games which get more airtime than the actual game.

What do streakers have to do with any of this? Are they still a thing?

Yes, a couple of minutes of a few players silent kneeling during the all important anthem is soooo distracting and enraging - enough to spoil the enjoyment of the following hours of entertainment. And it was not only Black Americans that joined the national protest against extrajudicial killings. The riots ended when reforms were enacted for the betterment of the entire country.

No, more fires and a longer period of destroying things do not make it better - police being held accountable makes things better for everyone except those who prefer the discrimination. The movement dissipated about five years ago.

What was "bad" about Breonna Taylor? Tamir Rice? Philando Castile? John Crawford? Only perfect victims matter?

I agree that much of it was planned but they didn't really have to wait long for provocation. It should have happened when Amadou Diallo's executioners got off or Michael Stewart's or Aiyana Jones' or any number of previous incidents, but oh well, what's past is past, eh?

It is also worth noting that the Trump administration has blocked the agreements to reform police procedures in Louisville and Minneapolis, that are aimed at preventing police wrongfully killing citizens. Additionally, Trump has largely ended any activity to enforce civil rights laws by the federal government.

 

[RandyPNW]

You see, just by making this statement you have completely missed the deeper meaning of " black lives matter". What is the true meaning? It was the response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. A tragic and senseless murder that told the world that the color of one's skin can be deadly.
There is a long history in our country of violence against the black population. So the reminder that black lives do matter is not only warranted but, necessary in this society.
Blessings

Zimmerman "murdered" Martin? Your "facts" are flawed.

 

[stevil]

It still matters what they are protesting. Storming the center of government to ensure fair elections with the corrected electoral votes is okay, marching around in Washington with pink hats on, not okay.

Nah,
Protesting violently to overthrow the government for Trump is OK.
Protesting against police violence towards blacks is not OK.
It's a skin colour thing.

The blacks were abducted, stolen from their families and homeland, brought across to the great country of USA where they got to work hard for whippings and rape and their kids got to do the same and their kid's kids, and their kids too for many generations.
Now they are not getting whipped anymore, they just should be happy and not complain, right?

 

[DaisyDay]

Nah,
Protesting violently to overthrow the government for Trump is OK.
Protesting against police violence towards blacks is not OK.
It's a skin colour thing.

The blacks were abducted, stolen from their families and homeland, brought across to the great country of USA where they got to work hard for whippings and rape and their kids got to do the same and their kid's kids, and their kids too for many generations.
Now they are not getting whipped anymore, they just should be happy and not complain, right?

Are we allowed to mention that slavery is still legal in prisons? And that the US has one of the largest incarcerated populations in the world?

https://apnews.com/article/prison-to-plate-inmate-labor-investigation-c6f0eb4747963283316e494eadf08c4e

 

[Pommer]

Zimmerman "murdered" Martin? Your "facts" are flawed.

How’s about “stalked, confronted and killed”?

 

[RandyPNW]

Nah,
Protesting violently to overthrow the government for Trump is OK.
Protesting against police violence towards blacks is not OK.
It's a skin colour thing.

The blacks were abducted, stolen from their families and homeland, brought across to the great country of USA where they got to work hard for whippings and rape and their kids got to do the same and their kid's kids, and their kids too for many generations.
Now they are not getting whipped anymore, they just should be happy and not complain, right?

Who is saying that Generational Enslavement was okay today? It's a whole new group of people. If it was still happening I'd be along to protest too. But it isn't happening. It's just dredging up ancient complaints to get favorable treatment and maybe reparations money, right?

My great grandparents were threatened with death by the Russians just for crossing the border to get out. Should I start a movement to riot in the streets of Moscow? I don't think so.

The Russian government and judicial system could be corrupt, just as the US government could be as well. Hurting business people who are minding their own business gets attention, but not the kind that will help your cause. Maybe you'll attract fellow looters?

What happened a long time ago is not a current issue. If cases of discrimination show up, there's something called a "law suit." But if you want to encourage rioting, you're going to end up in jail.

 

[RandyPNW]

How’s about “stalked, confronted and killed”?

I'm speaking the language of law. If you want to couch things in language to make "innocent" sound like "murder," you're in a territory called "slander." And Christians should not be engaging in this. That tells me the kind of spirit that is driving this kind of "protest."

Take your pick: peaceful protest and dilligent security, or radicalism and violence. There is a reason one side called for defunding the police and anarchy.

 

[stevil]

Who is saying that Generational Enslavement was okay today? It's a whole new group of people. If it was still happening I'd be along to protest too. But it isn't happening. It's just dredging up ancient complaints to get favorable treatment and maybe reparations money, right?

As far as I've seen (I could be wrong), but the BLM wasn't about reparations or about past atrocious slavery. But instead it was about the current treatment of blacks by the police. In particular police brutality towards blacks.

It was wanting the violence to end. It was wanting Blacks to be treated just the same as whites are, not asking for favourable treatment, but to be treated just like everyone else, especially the whites.

Unfortunately, instead, the USA right have then treated them even worse. Trump and his AG got peaceful protesters hit with tear gas and riot control measures for his photo op.
Rittenhouse decided to go to a protest with a gun and killed a couple of unarmed protesters, and was held up as a hero for it on right wing media.
Some other white guy rushed out of his house with his wife brandishing a gun because they didn't like blacks in their neighborhood.
And all this endless complaints about black sportsmen quietly and peacefully taking a knee in the most subtle and peaceful protest one could imagine.

Way to go guys!

 

[Gene2memE]

Saying "All Lives Matter" is fine, in isolation. Saying "all Lives Matter" as a response to "Black Lives Matter" is not fine. It's a deliberate attempt to diminish a specific issue applying to a specific community through over-broadening.

Black Lives Matter is a slogan that is a response to the perception (right or wrong) that Africa-Americans receive unequal treatment from the law enforcement and are killed at a disproportionate rate compared to other racial groups in the US. Saying "All Lives Matter"as a response to this just serves to deny the existence of the specific problem, an replace it with an essentially meaningless counter-phrase.

 

[RandyPNW]

As far as I've seen (I could be wrong), but the BLM wasn't about reparations or about past atrocious slavery. But instead it was about the current treatment of blacks by the police. In particular police brutality towards blacks.

It was wanting the violence to end. It was wanting Blacks to be treated just the same as whites are, not asking for favourable treatment, but to be treated just like everyone else, especially the whites.

Unfortunately, instead, the USA right have then treated them even worse. Trump and his AG got peaceful protesters hit with tear gas and riot control measures for his photo op.
Rittenhouse decided to go to a protest with a gun and killed a couple of unarmed protesters, and was held up as a hero for it on right wing media.
Some other white guy rushed out of his house with his wife brandishing a gun because they didn't like blacks in their neighborhood.
And all this endless complaints about black sportsmen quietly and peacefully taking a knee in the most subtle and peaceful protest one could imagine.

Way to go guys!

You must get your info from CNN and MSMBC, whose reporting has been heavily criticized for skewing facts on behalf of the Democratic Party. Police Brutality happens. But where do you get your statistics on any major increase in cases of politic brutality against Balcks, and specifically of White on Black violence?

My impression is that violent Black protest would result in greater police suppression, and that 2 billion dollars worth of damage to personal property would naturally bring police restraint and a limited number of cases of police abuse when making arrests.

The death of George Floyd was indeed a tragedy and an injustice. But he wasn't exactly innocent of criminal activity either. That being said, no injustice is okay--it just shouldn't result in riots unless there is more than the typical cases of police abuse, just as there is anywhere there are human beings.

I'm interested in real facts--not skewed facts. So if you have them, I'm interested?

 

[SimplyMe]

Saying "All Lives Matter" is fine, in isolation. Saying "all Lives Matter" as a response to "Black Lives Matter" is not fine. It's a deliberate attempt to diminish a specific issue applying to a specific community through over-broadening.

Black Lives Matter is a slogan that is a response to the perception (right or wrong) that Africa-Americans receive unequal treatment from the law enforcement and are killed at a disproportionate rate compared to other racial groups in the US. Saying "All Lives Matter"as a response to this just serves to deny the existence of the specific problem, an replace it with an essentially meaningless counter-phrase.

Not to mention the much higher rate of Blacks in prison than other races, somewhere around 40-50% of the jail/prison population is Black.