What is BLM (Black Lives Matter)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

imo, the picture and comment was definitely the kind of thing that is deserving of heavy reproach, but the actions loomis is  threatening to take are too much. i can see why he would, but there are also innocent people who go to those games, who ought to be the real reason for guarding it. 

I just think that the vast majority of Cops and Black people aren't in any kind of war with each other. Black lives DO absolutely matter, but BLM (or atleast many vocal subsections of it) are creating a war that doesn't exist for political gain, the very definition of terrorism

[vla1ne]

I just think that the vast majority of Cops and Black people aren't in any kind of war with each other. Black lives DO absolutely matter, but BLM (or atleast many vocal subsections of it) are creating a war that doesn't exist for political gain, the very definition of terrorism

cops and blacks really aren't at war. many of the people who think that clearly don't understand how much worse things would be if there were an actual war between cops and blacks. i won't say there aren't racists on the police force, but cops, as a whole, are no more interested in oppressing people than your average human.

 

as for BLM, they aren't even in it for (rational) political gain anymore. their main website stated that flat out. BLM (the most well know faces) was offered the chance to gain the backing of the democratic party, and instead of using it as another voice, they turned it down. BLM doesn't even want political clout. i don't know what it is they do want, but i know it's nothing your average cause would be after.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

cops and blacks really aren't at war. many of the people who think that clearly don't understand how much worse things would be if there were an actual war between cops and blacks. i won't say there aren't racists on the police force, but cops, as a whole, are no more interested in oppressing people than your average human.

 

as for BLM, they aren't even in it for (rational) political gain anymore. their main website stated that flat out. BLM (the most well know faces) was offered the chance to gain the backing of the democratic party, and instead of using it as another voice, they turned it down. BLM doesn't even want political clout. i don't know what it is they do want, but i know it's nothing your average cause would be after.

I can't fault them for that. If you saw the latest DNC leaks from Guccifer 2, the DCCC expressly was instructing dems to give BLM lipservice, sympathize, and then do nothing about it.

 

I'm not sure when BLM turned down the Dems offer, but the Dems never really had a genuine offer 

[vla1ne]

I can't fault them for that. If you saw the latest DNC leaks from Guccifer 2, the DCCC expressly was instructing dems to give BLM lipservice, sympathize, and then do nothing about it.

 

I'm not sure when BLM turned down the Dems offer, but the Dems never really had a genuine offer 

they turned it down way before the convention. but yeah, can't say i was expecting the dem party to be anything more than a slime party.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

 

I get it, but it's still pretty pathetic to see from a party that claims to be a champion of the Black people

[vla1ne]

 

 

I get it, but it's still pretty pathetic to see from a party that claims to be a champion of the Black people

actually, from the wording of that document, especially the last bit, it seems as if the dem party is just going along with the exact response BLM gave them the first time they reached out. it still sounds bad, but it seems as if they really are going along with the exact words given to them by the BLM activists. on the home page, (either on the really long list of criticisms i typed on the opening statement, or the one following shortly after) BLM literally said the exact same thing the last part of this statement was saying, they don't want to affiliate, they just want to jump in the conversation.

[Aerion Brightflame]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37283869

 

So I'm curious as to how this fits into the BLM movement as it started in the US? 

 

Because this is the second BLM protest in the UK and I have no idea why they are happening beyond attention grabbing? Especially since environmental damage and pollution are now a matter of racial discrimination. 

 

The fact that it was only 9 protesters leads me to think that it was just 9 idiots but still. It's either that or they are trying really really hard to find some metric to make BLM relevant in the UK, which they kinda can't. The UK isn't perfect in racial regards but the issues of race in the UK is nowhere near the same as that in the US. 

[vla1ne]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37283869

 

So I'm curious as to how this fits into the BLM movement as it started in the US? 

 

Because this is the second BLM protest in the UK and I have no idea why they are happening beyond attention grabbing? Especially since environmental damage and pollution are now a matter of racial discrimination. 

 

The fact that it was only 9 protesters leads me to think that it was just 9 idiots but still. It's either that or they are trying really really hard to find some metric to make BLM relevant in the UK, which they kinda can't. The UK isn't perfect in racial regards but the issues of race in the UK is nowhere near the same as that in the US. 

wouldn't the irish, or even the polish, have a way better cause for a __ lives matter movement in the UK?

[Aerion Brightflame]

wouldn't the irish, or even the polish, have a way better cause for a __ lives matter movement in the UK?

 

The Irish would, but technically they have organisations of that sort that did a lot of terrorist stuff. 

 

Technically those from Liverpool have a better cause for a __ lives matter movement because of the Hillborough disaster. 

[vla1ne]

well, was gonna make a new thread about it, but here seems like a good enough place to put it:

 

so, anybody got any thoughts on that discussion?

 

[spoiler=my own thoughts]

she lost absolutely as far as presentation of argument goes, he had home turf, natural discussion talent, and incredible diversion. the man got the presentation grade 90% she had the better poise throughout, better eye contact, better posture,and incredibly polite with her arguments. (but i'll leave that for another point later if anybody has any desire to know why)

 

on the other hand, if we're talking facts, she just destroyed him. he diverted her points without acknowledging the sheer amount of facts she dropped on him. she got the massive brunt of audience disapproval, but it's trevors' show and i miss jon stewart so it's to be expected that they'd be more for him. she pointed out the fact that the people in BLM that she's condemning are doing almost exactly what the KKK did on its rise to power, the comparison being apt, and instead of acknowledging as much, he goes into a poor excuse for a diversion, instead of properly discussing the antics of BLM and the false narratives that began the group, and are somehow still being used, he diverts to that talking point about how the narrative/platform is different from the actions, as if the people involved didn't define the movement. 

 

was a somewhat interesting discussion, and i haven't watched the daily show for a long time before this. as definitely good for the show and for tomi herself. luckily everybody left somewhat happy, so can't say too much bad came out of it. lots of people will not have their opinions changed overall, including me, but the discussion was pretty healthy for the subject as a whole, discussions a good starting step.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I disagree with her actually. I think her vision is misguided becuase the "leaders" of the BLM community are acting like the KKK. I'll get the names tommorow, but it's their fault, not the movements

 

There's pictures of mothers sobbing over their dead kids in Chicago. Black Lives matter to them too. The leadership is flawed. The leadership's motives and targets are flawed.

 

But my earlier statements that the movement is flawed, are incorrect. Black Lives DO matter. "Black lives matter, always" is the change I'd make to the movement

[vla1ne]

her point wasn't that BLM was an entirely horrible group though, it was that the actions of many BLM members or people sympathetic to the cause, resemble those of a hate group/terrorist group/supremacist organization  of course there's good in the group, and there are many groups that have good intentions, but the groups with the negative influence are often ignored instead of abashed, when their actions cause more damage to their communities than the positive groups can repair in any reasonable amount of time. in addition she pointed out the false narrative that BLM has often lead with, and was completely glossed over instead of having her actual statements addressed. her victory imo wasn't in the destruction of the BLM narrative, but in properly pointing out the flaws in he movement, and even if they were not addressed, she mentioned them calmly, and in an organized manner.

 

in other words, she was trying to point out the dangers of ignoring the negative seeds in the group, and pointing out the hypocrisy of both BLM and much of the left (right does it to, but that's a discussion for a different time), wherein they attack people who do nothing to disavow unrelated actions, and then ignore worse levels of such from within their own groups.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

her point wasn't that BLM was an entirely horrible group though, it was that the actions of many BLM members or people sympathetic to the cause, resemble those of a hate group/terrorist group/supremacist organization  of course there's good in the group, and there are many groups that have good intentions, but the groups with the negative influence are often ignored instead of abashed, when their actions cause more damage to their communities than the positive groups can repair in any reasonable amount of time. in addition she pointed out the false narrative that BLM has often lead with, and was completely glossed over instead of having her actual statements addressed. her victory imo wasn't in the destruction of the BLM narrative, but in properly pointing out the flaws in he movement, and even if they were not addressed, she mentioned them calmly, and in an organized manner.

 

in other words, she was trying to point out the dangers of ignoring the negative seeds in the group, and pointing out the hypocrisy of both BLM and much of the left (right does it to, but that's a discussion for a different time), wherein they attack people who do nothing to disavow unrelated actions, and then ignore worse levels of such from within their own groups.

I agree with that much man, but I think Trevor had a point that it wasn't all people in the movement who think like that or act like that

 

Leaders like

 

Tariq Nasheed

Shaun King

Joy Ann

Rev. Sharpton

 

On the other hand make it a us vs them narrative (usually, but not exclusively, targeting whites and police)

 

She should have criticized them, not movement. As for the KKK, it was the constant indoctrination by the leaders which made the Klan so powerful. I think much like the Nazi soldiers, the avg klansman had just come to believe what he was told.

 

I think it should be a priority to stop a Black Klan from forming, and the way to do that is to nip the message at the head. Which is from the agitators I mentioned. 

 

Now, I'm a well off Asian, it's not my place to patronize the black folk who are living in actual plain, but as someone who has watched the movement, I think a few things should can be said

 

1) Black Lives Matter

2) Always - not only when a police or white person is the killer. Ignoring black on black crime is not OK. It's not more important or less important. Every Black life unjustly lost matters equally

3) Lives Matter - they've actually done a good job of this by protesting when a white boy was shot unjustly by a police officer, but doing more of this, would earn a lot more good will from the white population

4) Protests, not Riots and Looting

 

Look to Dallas (before the sniper), instead of Ferguson 

 

If 1-4 are done, I feel a lot more people would be sympathetic to the movement, and the movement will succeed (more). 

[vla1ne]

I agree with that much man, but I think Trevor had a point that it wasn't all people in the movement who think like that or act like that

 

Leaders like

 

Tariq Nasheed

Shaun King

Joy Ann

Rev. Sharpton

 

On the other hand make it a us vs them narrative (usually, but not exclusively, targeting whites and police)

 

She should have criticized them, not movement. As for the KKK, it was the constant indoctrination by the leaders which made the Klan so powerful. I think much like the Nazi soldiers, the avg klansman had just come to believe what he was told.

 

I think it should be a priority to stop a Black Klan from forming, and the way to do that is to nip the message at the head. Which is from the agitators I mentioned. 

 

Now, I'm a well off Asian, it's not my place to patronize the black folk who are living in actual plain, but as someone who has watched the movement, I think a few things should can be said

 

1) Black Lives Matter

2) Always - not only when a police or white person is the killer. Ignoring black on black crime is not OK. It's not more important or less important. Every Black life unjustly lost matters equally

3) Lives Matter - they've actually done a good job of this by protesting when a white boy was shot unjustly by a police officer, but doing more of this, would earn a lot more good will from the white population

4) Protests, not Riots and Looting

 

Look to Dallas (before the sniper), instead of Ferguson 

 

If 1-4 are done, I feel a lot more people would be sympathetic to the movement, and the movement will succeed (more). 

 

she never said it was everybody though, and that's where the problem comes in, he implies that she has said this, when her words are that the movemnet itself was built on a false narrative, she literally stated herself that she respects the more positive ideals of the movement, what she has called out have been the actions of those within, or those closely affiliated with the movement that do not support the stated narrative (actions speaking louder than words and all), [spoiler=for example:]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SelnsAFlVq4

 

that's the kind of stuff she was calling out within the movement, that BLM leaders or no, have not yet disavowed, but merely glossed over,as if it wasn't harming the image of the platform.

 

as for calling out the leaders, that's not a winning argument, hers wasn't either (at least not on trevors home turf,) but it was a more relatable story, it links the problem directly to the homes affected, and provides wider coverage as far as the main point goes. she was criticizing the actions of those wihin the movement, you can call out al sharpton once you have the public's attention focused upon the symptoms, it's hard to treat the source of a social disease without convincing people that the symptoms themselves are real.

 

1)agreed.

2)agreed 100%

3)100%, and this is something that some branches of BLM have failed to address, which is exactly what she was calling out. the fact that BLM, does not disavow those responsible for racially based violence, or inciting hatred towards cops/whites/ other races and instead ignores it, even though is has clearly lead to significant damage between police-civilian relations within the affected areas.

4)that was one of her points, and trevor, instead of properly discussing it, tries to use it as a weapon against her, even though all she was saying was tell BLM (the violent ones) to protest appropriately, instead of agreeing, and building upon it, he turns it into a challenge (does not matter whether or not he said it was or wasn't a challenge, the only time you frame a question under the terms he did is to challenge or discredit an idea, it would be the same, or similar to me saying that i'm not racist, but i hate all Mexicans and believe they are sewer-bred garbage, clearly racist, whether i prelude it or not).

 

 

dallas was the two factions of BLM (peaceful vs cop-hating) in the same area, one went nuts, the other did the right thing, and while the peaceful side deserves respect and acknowledgement, the violent side needs to be called out as heavily as the peaceful side is praised.

 

i agree.

[Dad]

Not always.  Too.  Too is the word you're looking for.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Some of them yes, I'm not gonna defend the Oakland chapter telling cops who asked to come to a BBQ to go fry like pigs

But I need to believe that's not most of them

 

Edit

 

 

This is counterproductive