For those of you against BLM

Post Reply New Topic

They have to not have a discussion about it....and avoid that "huge" thing.

I'm supposed to be able to name them all?!?!

Absolutely; I never denied white people get arrested, or abused, or even killed by the police, because they do.

No, skin color doesn't make you think or behave differently, but widely different experiences do.

! !! !! !

I'm just sickened by how some people shouted black lives matter during a MOMENT OF SILENCE for slain police.

Black Lives Matter seems like a decent idea (in general), but its still full of jerks that arent considerate of others. For many- its pushing their own agenda, no matter what it does to others. So stupid.

People in general need to be more respectful, rather than forcifully trying to push their opinions on others. If a protest disrupts random people getting to work- that's a problem. If a protest interrupts a funeral- thats a problem. If a protest interrupts a wedding- thats a problem. (And so on). Black Lives Matter has interrupted many things (probably not all my examples, yet at least) and it needs to stop. There's a difference between peaceful protest and just a disruption, they need to learn it.

I'm not racist at all, just saying that people need to respect others and not be so rude because others don't agree with you.

The full statement was: "The truth is, what you and BLM are bringing up is a not a real problem. Police don't unfairly target black people because they love killing n****rs; they justifiably target black people because they commit more crimes, and by targeting certain demographics they save more lives."

I was not calling black people n****rs myself; I was trying to demonstrate the hyperbole embedded in the claims made by others on this thread: that white cops are often just looking for reasons to harass or harm innocent black people. So I used the word "n****rs" as a rhetorical device to represent their idea of what white police think, to hopefully show how it is incorrect and unfair to make such an exaggerated generalization about the intent of police officers.

I know I am provoking some people, and the reason for that is because I think that a lot of people (both here and in America in general) have a very condescending attitude towards black people in general. Anything that even might offend a black person is off-limits to say, or else you get labeled a racist immediately, regardless of the context or intent. And I find that the vast majority of people who are getting offended are not even black people themselves; instead, they are white people getting offended on behalf of black people, as if black people are too sensitive to talk about things like black-on-black crime or to hear the word n****r. They have such a low expectation of black people that they think they can't take criticism or have people disagree with them. They basically act like black people are akin to children (the OP even compared them to people with mental disabilities at least twice).

Last edited by L_Holmes on 29 Jul 2016, 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm reminded of The Inquisitor from Red Dwarf, demanding the crew justify their existence.



And you will therefore open yourself up to scrutiny.



When you descend into personal attacks and implications of low intelligence, it sticks out like a sore thumb. If you don't want to be called on it, don't do it. Otherwise, continue as you are and I'll happily draw attention to it every time.



Again, I'm not here to salve your esteem. I'm not your mother, I don't have a vested interest in doing so.



A good sign that you're not willing to consider other people's viewpoints is when you decide to answer your own questions on behalf the other conversant.



Then I suggest you refrain from directing further puerile remarks regarding it being a waste of time.



And here's the crux of the problem. Your entire MO seems to consist of creating a poorly-reasoned narrative and proceeding to try and shoehorn someone into it. You were not cherry-picked. You were called out for making a condescending remark about L_Holmes - incidentally, not your first - and you're trying your absolute damnedest to paint me as the bad guy for pointing out your poor behaviour.



It's in the same category of "I have black friends so I can't possibly be racist". Your black friends are not a convenient jacket you can wear to signal your virtuosity.



Debate is to the mind what a scratching post is to a cat's claws.



I'd settle for you letting us know how many of the million or so US cops fit the description. Perhaps you could link to a psychological study or something?

Yes, BLM does avoid that huge thing.

Good, I read this police officer's heartbreaking account. His experience is valid. He doesn't address the BLM main point of police brutality/harassment though, in terms of what to do about it, how to prevent it, how to judge police officers fairly in these situations, ETC.

Of course black-on-black crime is part of the literal meaning of BLM. Indirectly, the group addresses it with some references to poverty. They don't bother to come out and say that the poverty is a factor in these crimes that kill black people, or that crime is the larger problem though.

So why don't they include homicide in the behaviors they're fighting? My best guess is that it's a branding issue. They want a clear focus on what they call 'state violence.'

BLM is a slogan like any other. Slogans aren't meant to be all-encompassing, and neither are movements. The group's theme is 'state violence,' and the movement started because of police behavior. Crime prevention doesn't fit their brand/focus. Their method seems to involve calling as much attention to the state, and as little attention to the faults of individual people, as possible. It's a simplistic movement that tries to broaden itself with these wonderfully idealistic principles.

I'm not sure why you would require him to. His entire motivation for becoming a cop was to help stop the spilling of blood of black Americans. Judging this particular cop fairly would require acknowledging that he has, in all likelihood, done more to protect black lives (and non-black lives) from harm than the entire BLM movement ever will. If we wish to "judge police officers fairly", we would do well to heed this part of his post:



Police brutality is an aberration, not an epidemic. There is no "silent assent" granted by the majority. I would hope that we are all outraged by any instance of excessive force, no matter the wielder, that we desire justice be served in those instances where cops step over the line without genuinely mitigating circumstances.



You've outlined some of the complaints I have against BLM here, the foremost being that it is clearly far more interested in that ever so important brand you mention than it is in the well-being of black Americans. The entire premise is built on divisive identity politics and this makes it fundamentally, fatally flawed.

People can defend the American police system all they want. But the question needs to be answered, why do US cops kill more often than other developed countries?

There are a number of different answers to this question.

One answer is gun control. Police are more afraid of guns and kill more often due to fear. I place this idea high on the list.

Another answer is racism. I do think this matters but I don't think US is necessarily more racist than other developed countries. It's important but I don't think it's the most important problem to tackle when it comes to police shootings.

Another answer is police training. Maybe.

Another answer is police hiring practices. Authoritarians are favored. both by employers and self-selecting. I believe this but not everyone does.

In any case, the discrimination against blacks is obvious so there's no point in denying it. I just don't think it is actually the main factor behind these shootings. I think police brutality is the main factor. But BLM is a catchy name to draw attention. I think its a little ridiculous to apply strict word-for-word meaning to a name of a movement. It's just a mob movement with some good ideas, some bad ideas, nothing more

Do you have any evidence of this "obvious" discrimination? Or is it just so obvious in your mind that you think you are exempt from providing evidence for your claim? Are you talking about systemic racism, or individual racism? Those are two very different issues. I agree that there are racists (of all races and against any race), and there always will be, but I disagree that systemic racism still exists in America.

Also, let me know if I'm understanding this correctly, but it seems you think it's ridiculous for a group that calls itself Black Lives Matter, that is constantly saying how much it cares about black lives, to be expected to care about the problems that have the most significant effects on these black lives. How does that make sense? That is completely misleading, and if the group is supposed to be an anti police brutality movement then they should change their name. Of course, anyone rational can see that they are not even anti police brutality, but anti white-on-black police violence (regardless of the justification), and just anti-white in general. But even disregarding that, saying their name is just "a catchy name to draw attention" doesn't excuse the loads of misleading and false information this group consistently puts out.

"Just a mob movement, nothing more." You realize some of the most barbaric and deplorable human behaviors come from mobs and mob mentality, right? And a lot of these very same barbaric behaviors, especially recently, have been seen coming from none other than BLM. But we're just going to sweep that under the rug, because we can't criticize what appears to be a pro-black movement, can we? Oh no, that would be racist.

I also can't help but notice that all your reasons for why police in the US might kill more often are reasons that put the blame entirely on police. They are racist, their training and hiring processes may be flawed. Even your gun control answer seems to be implying that the police are just more jumpy and afraid of someone possibly having a gun. Let's not acknowledge that they actually are faced with armed criminals who intend to kill them on a consistent basis, giving them no choice but to defend themselves. So you're not even going to mention crime and criminals as a possible reason for all the police shootings (the vast majority of which are in fact justified)? Disgraceful.

Evidence of discrimination stares me in the face every day.

Like I said, most police officers are not racist, and are actually sympathetic to the plight of the downtrodden.

But it is an indisputable fact, in my book, that discrimination exists. In housing, in employment (though this is changing rapidly), and socially.

I'm not against the existence of BLM, even though I'm against some of their methods.

I find experiential/anecdotal evidence to be at least as valid as findings obtained via research. If I relied solely upon research findings, I would always be veering far, far away from the Truth In the Matter (in all things).

This will probably be the last time I comment on this. Even with a "well-reasoned argument" filled with evidence obtained via research findings, the OP will not budge on this. On to the next issue!

Or maybe what's staring you in the face is confirmation bias. Look, for the last time, telling me you've seen it does not count as evidence. Unless you have links to studies, articles etc. that prove what you are saying there is absolutely no reason to believe you. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that.

And I really don't understand this claim you keep making about anecdotal evidence being just as important as data. That is simply not true. The whole point of labeling something as anecdotal is to point out that it is isolated and not necessarily representative of a larger phenomenon. In this case, your personal experience is anecdotal AND it is completely subjective (therefore biased) and unverifiable. Whereas with studies and research, it is verifiable, quantifiable, and the methods used can be easily viewed and criticized. There are some circumstances where anecdotes have a place, but in a formal discussion about the existence of quantifiable things such as systemic racism, they do not belong.

I get the feeling you are taking that personally. It's not personal, and that's the whole point. In a discussion such as this, personal experiences that are not measurable or verifiable in any way mean absolutely nothing. Unless you have your experiences recorded on camera or something, and even then it would still be anecdotal. I'm not saying your experiences shouldn't matter to you, I'm saying that they don't matter to me, and they won't convince me to change my views, just like a Christian's experience of God answering their prayers will not convince me of his existence.

I don't care about subjective experiences, I care about facts. You do not have a "well-reasoned argument" at all, but I suspect that is why you put it in quotes.

Given your recent posting history, this is not a plausible statement.

You want facts, look for them and try to be at least minimally aware of your own cognitive biases.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... pd/384106/