What is BLM (Black Lives Matter)

[vla1ne]

well to many, it's a group that's meant to emphasize the problems facing the black community

 

to others. it's everything that's wrong with the black community

 

and to others? it's a terrorist organization:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-black-lives-matter-terrorist-organization

 

yep. after the recent events, (shootings, riots, ect, in the name of BLM) the last straw has peen placed, and people are putting forward the stance that BLM is on par with other groups that have earned the illustrious title of "Terrorist". so i've got to ask, what do you believe BLM is? what do you think needs to be done to improve or deconstruct the movement? and as it stands, do you believe BLM is worthy of the title of "Terrorist"?

 

[spoiler='my own opinion' ] they spout noble goals, but those goals, and their actual actions do not match. i signed the petition, but i don't believe they're Terrorists, at least not Terrorists at the level that ISIS is. but i honestly believe that that isn't from lack of trying. i believe that BLM gives black people false license to act ignorant, and hide behind the stated goals. much like feminism, BLM is something that while probably not bad at the core, is not positively affecting anybody. it builds a victim complex, and that is never good. but enough of my thoughts for now. anybody with similar, or different views willing to speak up?

 

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

BLM's core values are good.

 

The radicals polluting it and cheering and advocating the murder of police officers are not. They are part of the problem.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

George Soros 

[Βyakuya]

Now that you mention it, terrorism is being defined as the use of violence, threats, and coercion in order to achieve political goals, at least according to dictionary.com. Sure BLM is no where near the level at which ISIS stands since ISIS has a bigger presence and threat that can warp the minds of any troubled individual, but there's no doubt in my opinion terrorism can potentially be a connotation with BLM. 

 

BLM simply gives the false justification to achieve violence and bigotry only because it's possible under the 1rst Amendment. They have a goal in mind, but the path they are trying to achieve it is very warped; if they want civil rights in accordance to police and domestic violence towards blacks by stopping violence towards them, why attempt to do destructive acts and violence and vandalism towards people and services who are nonchalant towards them? It's only spurring a chain of hate when they want to be free to create hate. They clearly are ignoring the nonviolent methods their ancestors have done and all what they have been fighting for, making MLK shiver in his grave. 

 

I believe it's particularly due to the fact the most BLM supporters come from a low income background of Blacks who suffer from low living conditions and within areas of crime and gang presence, especially when Police are involved. They want to have their share of rights and representation, but with a lack of education of principles and law, demand for equality and better representation turn into emotionally fueled bursts of rage multiplied by mob psychology. There's nothing noble about it, and even the leaders might be self aware about it.

 

But when you go back to the word terrorism, although seemingly uncanny in terms of definition, BLM is still just a hate group than a terrorist group. They have so far have done nothing to damaging to public services or other civilians, but they definitely get a lot of hate in a sort of hate cycle, but that is not enough to coerce political ideas. They have been protesting for vague demands of stopping violence only solely for the black community the whole time that it's hard to take them seriously. 

 

I'm pretty sure there are good and noble people who are innocent and want to spread the good ideals of the group, and I'm sure most leaders do, but because there are huge amount of radicals, you would imagine such responsible and virtuous group and protest organizers would do something to control the overall goal and action?

[Dad]

I'm going to try to be as consistent and unbiased as possible, because you know where I stand.  With that out of the way, let's address this:

 

• BLM incites violence.
• BLM was formed as a response to violence against the black community.  It's stated that "not all of Trump's supporters are part of the rallying cry of racism, violence, and ignorance, so Trump isn't a problem."  The same is true for BLM.  After the attacks, the heart of BLM, and a large portion of the community came out against the attacks.  Just like Trump himself condoned the nonsensical acts and violence of his extremist supporters.
• BLM promotes the victim complex.
• BLM was formed in favor of the victim.  I think to say it promotes a "victim" complex is a double standard when things like "All Lives Matter" was formed in response and in an effort to demonize "Black Lives Matter".  It's logical that a victim complex would be formed behind the movement because it was based around the killings and violence against blacks.  I would think that this would also fall true to things like Veterans Programs.  They've suffered and they've fought hard, and now those Veterans need help.  Someone is standing up for them.  No, I am not comparing BLM to Veteran Soldiers.  I'm merely using this as an example.
• BLM mostly stems from low income background black families who don't understand the law.
• Actually, most black families are very well coerced and studied in law.  They have to be because they fear the law so much.  I was learning my rights as a young man in a low income neighborhood by the time I was seven years old.  And the same can be said by a large number of black children.  It's called "the talk".
• BLM  is a hate group.
• Let's go back to Mr. Trump.  A number of his supporters have openly come out as racists or persons who despise others because of the color of their skin.  Mr. Trump's following is not a hate group.  Because all of his followers don't share that belief.  BLM is not a hate group.
• BLM acts on emotion and not logic.
• Is it logical to assume that you would be completely apathetic to an event in which your loved ones were severely injured or killed?  While acting on emotion is bad, it's not unlikely.  It will happen.
• BLM has a mob mentality.
• Should I bring up Mr. Trump again?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

To me BLM is, like many things, a phrase that is meant to promote unity. For it's important to be able to have a group of people in similar circumstances to you to get support and feel like you matter.

However there are people abusing the phrase as a means to a dark end.

In my opinion the biggest issue is associating the radical members with the phrase, rather than the phrase itself. Many people tried to have ISIS called something else to separate them from Islam, and I think that same idea applies here.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why not just progress to All lives matter? You basically eliminate the race from the equation. Can attract more people to your cause (yes, white people do get killed by police too). Just cause some racist people try to detract from BLM by saying ALM, doesn't mean ALM is a bad message, nor an inferior message

To me BLM is, like many things, a phrase that is meant to promote unity. For it's important to be able to have a group of people in similar circumstances to you to get support and feel like you matter.

However there are people abusing the phrase as a means to a dark end.

In my opinion the biggest issue is associating the radical members with the phrase, rather than the phrase itself. Many people tried to have ISIS called something else to separate them from Islam, and I think that same idea applies here.

Nitpick, They call ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Daesh (~Arabic for Bigots) because they don't want to validate the State). 

 

That being said, I won't talk about how Islam any further  here

[Dad]

Why not just progress to All lives matter? You basically eliminate the race from the equation. Can attract more people to your cause (yes, white people do get killed by police too). Just cause some racist people try to detract from BLM by saying ALM, doesn't mean ALM is a bad message, nor an inferior message

 

That's the thing.  BLM understands ALM.  The reverse is usually false.  But I do agree that  ALM has merit.  The problem is the same as it is with BLM.  The presentation is wrong.

[a bad post]

BLM is a organization that has been extremely demonized due to misinformation, and only focusing on the group's negative parts (like the protesters screaming pigs in a blanket fire 'em like bacon and other such violent rhetoric). 

 

So first I think we should get a few things straight here

 

BLM does not mean that white lives or any other lives matter any less than black lives. It's just black lives have significantly larger time staying alive than other lives.

 

Being pro-BLM does not being anti-cop, and the reverse is true. These should not be divisive sides that we have to take. We can acknowledge the importance of issues facing the black community without ignoring the importance police officers play in our society.

 

BLM is an organization that is predominantly peaceful, as evidenced by the protesters in Dallas who were not aggressive at all towards that officers there, and before anybody brings up the shooter it has been proven several times over that he had no affiliation with BLM. The majority of the bad rap BLM gets is because outside agitators who come in to take advantage of the protestors to cause violence and commit other crimes. Though there are problems in the organization, like any other, they are an extremely vocal minority that gets far to much attention by the media.

 

 

Why not just progress to All lives matter? You basically eliminate the race from the equation. Can attract more people to your cause (yes, white people do get killed by police too). Just cause some racist people try to detract from BLM by saying ALM, doesn't mean ALM is a bad message, nor an inferior message

Nitpick, They call ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Daesh (~Arabic for Bigots) because they don't want to validate the State). 

 

That being said, I won't talk about how Islam any further  here

That's the thing though ALM is the inferior message cause it's just that a message. It's nothing but a f***ing bumper sticker that people through out because they feel that they're being excluded from the party. When ever there is a police shooting ALM isn't the one out there protesting. There not the ones speaking against police violence. Even when it's not black people who are the victims of excessive force ALM doesn't do s***. That's the problem with ALM, they wanna have some of the cake, but they don't wanna help bake it.

[Βyakuya]

Why not just progress to All lives matter? You basically eliminate the race from the equation. Can attract more people to your cause (yes, white people do get killed by police too). Just cause some racist people try to detract from BLM by saying ALM, doesn't mean ALM is a bad message, nor an inferior message

 

 

It definitely would seem like something we can all agree to support but the thing that makes BLM instead of ALM sadly is because of the victim effect; the fact that Blacks appear to be more of the threatened group, therefore legitimizing uprising, not to mention them being more charismatic. 

[Dad]

It definitely would seem like something we can all agree to support but the thing that makes BLM instead of ALM sadly is because of the victim effect; the fact that Blacks appear to be more of the threatened group, therefore legitimizing uprising, not to mention them being more charismatic. 

 

I gotta agree.  I am pretty charismatic.

 

And the appearance isn't an appearance.  It's very real.  I've been there.  It's the reason the movement exists.

[Aerion Brightflame]

It's a fact that Blacks are more victimised by police violence than they should be proportionately. Despite being like 13% of the US population, they make up 30% of cases for police violence. Obviously that's not proof of Blacks being targeted solely because they are Black, but you can understand why they might have the opinion that there lives and liberties are worth less in the lives of the law. 

 

It's completely understandable where BLM comes from, because when communities and cultures are forced into poverty and treated like sheet for years it's natural to think they'll act out against the status quo - It's the same reason Trump has the following he does. And 40 years of theWar on Drugs on top of the global recession means this type of movement is actually a bit late to the table I see. The War on Drugs is one of the best arguments to legitimise the idea that Blacks are victimised, because it was specifically started to disrupt Black communities in the US and other groups that acted as opposition to the Nixon administration. 

 

This is the controversial bit - Even if there are idiots who use it to incite violence, some of the burden lays with the police for the situation continually escalating. As far as I am aware, there has not been one ounce of police reform as a result of the frequent violence claims, nor real consequences for officers who do gun down innocents. (Something like 97% of officers escape consequences). Either of these two things would have helped, even if it didn't accomplish much, because the appearance of change would be encouraging and debatable quell those who have the most radical of viewpoints. 

 

Because change works both ways, both parties have to desire it and actively work towards it.To my understanding, that hasn't happened for the police side of things on a national scale.

[.Rai]

BlackLivesMatter and AllLivesMatter are both completely flawed, and I really can't support either movement in the slightest. I'm pretty sure I'm going to stick to supporting equal rights and protesting police brutality without attaching my name to hashtag movements that have such tumultuous goings-on.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

It's a fact that Blacks are more victimised by police violence than they should be proportionately. Despite being like 13% of the US population, they make up 30% of cases for police violence. Obviously that's not proof of Blacks being targeted solely because they are Black, but you can understand why they might have the opinion that there lives and liberties are worth less in the lives of the law. 

 

It's completely understandable where BLM comes from, because when communities and cultures are forced into poverty and treated like s*** for years it's natural to think they'll act out against the status quo - It's the same reason Trump has the following he does. And 40 years of theWar on Drugs on top of the global recession means this type of movement is actually a bit late to the table I see. The War on Drugs is one of the best arguments to legitimise the idea that Blacks are victimised, because it was specifically started to disrupt Black communities in the US and other groups that acted as opposition to the Nixon administration. 

 

This is the controversial bit - Even if there are idiots who use it to incite violence, some of the burden lays with the police for the situation continually escalating. As far as I am aware, there has not been one ounce of police reform as a result of the frequent violence claims, nor real consequences for officers who do gun down innocents. (Something like 97% of officers escape consequences). Either of these two things would have helped, even if it didn't accomplish much, because the appearance of change would be encouraging and debatable quell those who have the most radical of viewpoints. 

 

Because change works both ways, both parties have to desire it and actively work towards it.To my understanding, that hasn't happened for the police side of things on a national scale.

 

Actually, while change hasn't happened on a national level, the Baltimore Police Department took the first step by overhauling their deadly force policy: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/us/baltimore-police-use-of-force-policy-freddie-gray/

 

Others that I found: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/nassau-police-revamp-use-of-force-policy-focus-on-de-escalation-1.12003673

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/crime/2016/03/12/greenville-pd-overhauls-force-policy-shooting-cars-prohibited/80086464/

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151231/downtown/police-use-of-force-guidelines-getting-overhaul-what-are-they-now

 

Whether this has any effect or not is remain to be seem. Furthermore, in the case of Dallas, the police were actually supportive of the protestors, and generally speaking, they seem like a decent department, given that and the massive level of sympathy the Dallas residents are giving the department. In any case, those cops did not deserve what happened to them, and people like Walter Scott and Alton Sterling did not deserve what happened to them either.

 

Even the LAPD is seemingly trying to patch things up, hence why the chief and the new recruits met Snoop Dogg and The Game, the latter two leading a march. A march to build some understanding with the cops. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-game-snoop-dogg-protest-lapd-20160708-snap-htmlstory.html

 

While change has not happened at a national level, and many departments still need a overall, it has happened, because I feel there are people within the police departments who want change as a much as the protestors do. There might have been more changes out there, given the number of departments in this country, but it is going to take a big effort to fix this miss. That effort cannot be the police alone. The community has to step up and reach out, like Snoop Dogg and The Game did.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not sure how else to put this. But a bunch of guys marching with signs chanting "no justice, no peace"

 

is...well encouraging and provacative to people who are already unstable

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Now that I think about it, is it truly BLM we need to worry about? Or is it the apparent rebirth of the Black Power movement that is the real threat here, along with them probably corrupting BLM?

[Dad]

Now that I think about it, is it truly BLM we need to worry about? Or is it the apparent rebirth of the Black Power movement that is the real threat here, along with them probably corrupting BLM?

 

The fact that the Black Power movement is what scares people when the KKK are still a thing is really ironic.

[vla1ne]

I'm going to start this with 2 videos. it is valuable to see how much racism is held by blacks today. it is not part of my main point, so you can ignore them if you wish (in which case i advise skipping them completely and moving onto the main point) but if you don't want to, or cannot take the time for the main point, this would be sufficient for you to respond to:

 

 
now, there's a lot in the above comments that i'd want to respond to, but in this case, it's be better to just take it to the source: http://blacklivesmatter.com/11-major-misconceptions-about-the-black-lives-matter-movement/i would enjoy debating points that many of you have brought up (that was the original plan, but then the comment posted early, i flipped out, deleted everything in the edit to prevent misreading, and forgot to copy it back before i made a post elsewhere, so yeah, i'm not trying that again), and if requested i'll address your specific arguments, (i may do so regardless through this) but for now, i think i'll go down this route. here we can see BLM address concerns about BLM, and i can explain my own reasoning for objecting or agreeing with their positions. as we go along keep in mind that this is the BLM website, not some secondary website, these are the arguments that they believe are the most central to their movement. and i will be tackling those in this particular post. other comments in this thread i'll be handling in my later posts. so without further ado, i'll start. 

 
 
actually, before i start, minor warning, this is gonna be long as hell, to fully digest this comment, you will need a while. this was me doing an a refutation of a webpage, if you don't have time, then save time by watching the abve videos ald responding to them. to fully respond to the following, dear gods, i can only wish you luck. i will not be holding back or using the normal mannerisms that you all may be familiar with, this is the debates section, and i intend to get at least this out fully seeing as i missed out on commenting earlier, so i suggest you only read below  when you have full time to address said points, otherwise you're likely to get that nagging feeling in the back of your mind like i do when i leave something i read unaddressed for too long. but if you've got the time, let's begin. i probably made some spelling mistakes, of forgot to fix a sentence or two, but that's how it is.
 
 
[spoiler=the main argument]
 
1) they state that a common misconception is that BLM doesn't care about black on black crime, now let's break down the statements:

 

• they claim that the violence interrupters is sufficient to cover the 93% of black deaths caused by black on black crime, this is clearly false, there has been a severe spike in black on black crime ever since the police lowered their response and patrol levels. in other words, when there are no police, there is no longer an efficient deterrent to crime in neighborhoods like Chicago, BLM is active in protesting police over every black shooting, be it justified, or unjustified, yet choose to make nothing but a token effort to change the community, or even to speak out against the overwhelming black on black violence. going so far as to latch their name to the violence interrupters, when there is no indication that BLM is related to violence interrupters in any major way. you know what happened during the weekend that the one innocent black man was shot by a cop, in a state miles away from Chicago? 64 shot, 10 killed over the same weekend in Chicago. but Crickets from BLM on that. yeah, black lives matter, but only when it's not a black person shooting them.

 

• they attempt to claim that the 84% white on white crime rate counters the 94% black on black crime argument, it is not. just because the other race has a high racial crime rate, does not grant a free pass to the black community, the very first place that BLM needs to plant it's roots and funding into if it wants to improve the black community is the black community. the cops contribute to 3% of black deaths, and many of those deaths are justified, such as the man who shot the cop as he ran from them, being portrayed as an innocent, cops have bad apples, but they are not the largest problem that the black community faces, blacks kill 31X more blacks than cops do, they are obviously the largest f***ing demographic of deaths in the black community, meaning if black lives matter, you would fix the black on black death ratio before you gave half a s*** about the 3% death ratio of cops against blacks. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/sheriff-clarke-black-black-crime-much-bigger-problem-community-policingit's mathematically, AND logically consistent to call them f***ing hypocrites when they attempt to weasel out of the topic. white people kill 28X more of their own people than cops do, they are obviously the largest demographic to target if you wish to say white lives matter. so if whites protested cop killings in the name of "white lives matter" as much as blacks do under the title of "black lives matter", it would be perfectly valid to tell them to first focus on their own white on white crime ratio.

 

• they play the victim card of "blacks are more likely to be targets of police violence" they are, but not in the manner they are attempting to spoon-feed you. blacks make up more than their fair share of criminal activity. it's not racist cops killing blacks, it's ignorant blacks getting shot by cops. like it or not, blacks commit more crime than Asians. Whites, Hispanics, and all manner of other races, by a large margin. yeah, blacks get arrested and shot, but when they commit higher rates of crime, what the hell do you expect? backing me is this: http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler. there's ample evidence that i's not racism killing blacks, it's black actions killing blacks. and that brings us back to the statement; If BLM cares about black people, why are they not focusing on the people more? they play the same tunes over and over, the eternal victim complex, yet they ignore the largest problem, the black community itself. they don't inspire hard work, they advocate sloth and reliance on the system.

 

• they argue to change the system, and act as if changing the people were an unreasonable request, even rephrasing it to "demonizing the people" it's not demonizing to tell somebody to get off their ass, stop having kids for a benefit check, and go get a respectable job. Oh? th only thing you can find is drug dealing? then don't b**** when you get busted with f***ing drugs. i'm sick of the "it was so hard in the hood" line, you want to get anywhere but jail, you'd better be ready to work for it. the system is there to help you get back on your feet, but people act like it's there to cradle them through life. there's tons of jobs (except in Detroit, but people need to get out of there anyways) people are just too afraid to go looking for them. when you resort to criminal activities, or refuse to locate job seeking facilities, you forfeit your right to complain about how hard life is.  your boss sucks? well so does everybody else's boss. you can't work under these conditions? then quit so we can get somebody who wants to be here. you can't find afford an apartment, then hopefully you've got a friend to room with. life is uncomfortable for everybody. it makes no damn sense that black people not only commit disproportionately high amounts of crime, but have one of the only cultures that actually glorifies the s***. you want to change the black community, then how about you look for new job openings to get your brothers and sisters into instead of wasting everybody else's time whining about how bad the cops treat your criminals in comparison to every other race. yes, there exist innocents who get shot, or are treated unfairly, but that goes for all the other races as well. there's no award for being the most retarded snowflake, yet these motherf***ers derp like there's a cash prize for the s***:

 

 

2) they, for whatever reason, care about there being a leader, this one's got multiple layers of derp, so we're gonna herp slowly into it.
 

  

• first and foremost, who cares if BLM has a leader? really, BLM is a movement to promote black lives, it should not require a leader, it should require an ideal, the ideal itself -black lives matter- is a noble ideal, it speaks of black lives as no less valuable than those of whites, or other races. admirable, even if -all lives matter- does the exact same thing, with less racism. but all ALM is for another day, today the spotlights on BLM, the group that now has a petition to label them terrorists, although i did sign the petition, i personally think of them more as a hate group than a terrorist group, even though their actions are slowly beginning to mirror the KKK. but enough of that, on to the next thing

 

• read this, i know, you might have read this before, the moment i posted the article, but it bears reading again: "Many Americans of all races are enamored with Martin Luther King as a symbol of leadership and what real movements look like. But the Movement for Black Lives, another name for the BLM movement, recognizes many flaws with this model. First, focusing on heterosexual, cisgender black men frequently causes us not to see the significant amount of labor and thought leadership that black women provide to movements" can you not see why that is a f***ing cancer? it places emphasis on gender, race, and sexuality. three things that did not matter to MLK, he preched freedom, he placed character over color, and he gave no f***s whether you were black, white, asian, gay, straight, male, female, or attack helicopter. It would take me an entire day to completely vent my thoughts on this single segment sufficiently, so instead, i'll let martin luther king do it for me:
  look at that video. BLM is telling you that that man, who vouched for freedom for everybody, was not a sufficient representative of BLM. if you cannot f***ing understand why race, gender, and sexual preference are irrelevant arguments against MLK, then do not respond. because i will roast you. no arguments, no points. i will just roast you. point blank period. but before that, let's carry on from there to the rest of this statement

 

• they again try to make leadership a point, it is not, in one breath, they mention all of the hands on the side that got tough things done, and in the very next breath, they attempt to throw in variables that were not even a problem at that time for blacks, they are judging the movement, and achievements of the civil rights movement, by the amount of gays, trans, women, ect, that were in it, ignoring completely, the likes of Rosa parks, Harriet Tubman, Hellen Keller, and those similar. there have been multiple women and men, of all races, and  all manner of sexual orientation, throughout history, who have made history, and contributed great things, be it in the face of history, or behind the scenes, yet they swipe it all away, in favor of their narrative. this entire point is essentially them claiming that if id doesn't include every f***ing option under the sun, it's not a valid movement, yet, at the same time, act as if ALM doesn't exist. ALM covers men, gays, transgender, bisexuals, women, and all other lives, of all races, compared to that, BLM is one monotone shade of bigotry. inclusion only matters when it suits their narrative. everything else just isn't "inclusive enough" by their own logic, what makes BLM more inclusive than ALM? ALM covers everything that BLM does, and adds in all other races to the mix, so why isn't BLM clamoring to become more affiliated with ALM? i'll tell you, because to BLM, the only thing that matters is the narrative.

 

 

 
3) here they address the misconception that the movement has no agenda, onto the points
 

• first they say that there is a purpose other than protesting and disrupting the lives of whites, to this i say, why just whites? the white guy on the store does not need to give a s*** about you any more than the Spanish guy, or the Asian guy. if you label yourself BLM, then of course the white guy isn't supposed to be your target. but once more, they slyly draw just a touch of racism into the discussion. that'll come to a head later though, so just keep it on the back burner for now.

 

• they mention Ferguson, funny that, the entire thing about Ferguson was that they were wrong to protest it. according to all evidence, he did not have his hands up, and he was indeed resisting arrest, attempting to fight the officers back. the entire case was built upon a lie, and it's rather fitting that they trace their roots back to the lie that started riots across america.

 

• next we have their demands. the question here becomes, why did they feel the need to tinge the context with black? why not swift and transparent legal investigation of all police shootings?  adding black to it is more racist than anything. were whites to attempt it, they would be called racists to no end from the black community, and BLM, but when they themselves make such a demand, it's perfectly fine? especially after the very investigation they protested found the shooting to be justified? but that's just me nitpicking. really, they actually then go on to make other demands.

 

• their next one is to compile and disaggregate (separate) data based upon race. well, i already posted the results of that above. and once more if you skimmed it: http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandlerin other words, the data was already there, they just didn't like the results.

 

• their next request was to demilitarize police, and they got their wish. in the most twisted way possible: http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-lives-matter-protests-responsible-for-violent-crime-spike-in-Chicagothe cops of Chicago have essentially been forced to abandon the black community, and what do we see? a spike in the black on black crime ratio. meaning my second point, to the first 'misconception' is solidified here. the problem isn't cops, at least not to any large extent, it's the ignorant people in the black community who act a fool and decide to commit crimes. by BLM would have you believe that the 93% black on black ratio can be handled by taming the cops? no, call out the black community and you might just be onto something. but nope, demilitarize the cops, that'll help solve the problem right?

 

• their next demand is actually reasonable, accountability for those officers who do step over the line, i can get behind that 100%, cops who do abuse their power do not deserve their badge, but BLM rarely takes the time to do such things. i will say this, not all people who affiliate themselves with BLM are violent, or racist, (for example, http://mynorthwest.com/336596/black-lives-matter-to-hold-seattle-vigil-for-recent-police-involved-shootings/)but enough of them are like that that the movement itself is heavily polluted from it. it's not a good thing, and more members of BLM need to point it out within themselves, or risk becoming, however unknowingly, members of a hate group.

 

• a demand that comes from another group, they acknowledge calls for body cameras as well, and i can support that fully. yet there are those in the group who are against it, claiming they don't want their privacy invaded when in proximity to a cop, and to that i say, if the threat of cops is so great, then why would they care? which leads me to assume at least a few members of BLM understand that cops are not the problem.

 
 
4) here they state the BLM focuses on more than one issue. and i agree, but i object to their methods for reasons as follow:
 

• they want to blame public education for the failures of black students. while i agree that public education does need reform, it is not the source of the problem, if it were, then there would be no whites or blacks who could make it through public schools without becoming criminals. public school requires reform, but not because it sends blacks to jail, but because it does not teach to the strengths of the students, nor does it enforce critical thinking, both things that would be at least as valuable as reading, writing, and arithmetic. it's not a black issue, it is an educational issue that affects everybody whose child goes there, regardless of race. but again, it is not as bad as they make it out to be. it IS a problem, but it s not THE problem.

 

• and for the next issue, they request reformation (or even removal) of prisons, again, it is true that we need prison reform, but it is not a racial issue, it is a legal issue, many crimes, should not be crimes, and prison itself would be better used to reform than to detain. instead of the clusterf*** criminal breeding ground that it is today. enforce actual education curriculums, decrease overall time and increase chances of probation for better grades, teach those who never learned how to read and write, practice math with those who never learned it, provide incentives to get along, while cracking down upon corrupt guards. as they are now, prison does nothing productive, and it would be easy to change, if only somebody took the time.

 

• the next three come in a flurry, but let's tackle them slowly, housing, for one, is indeed a problem that affects black and Latinos more than whites statistically speaking, but the government already supplies aid, it might not be much but that's because too many people look to abuse these services, upon the backs of the taxpayers. there needs to be reform here, but there needs to be something more concrete than just saying there needs to be reform, and BLM isn't even trying here, they mentioned it, and then just left it. BLM might be just one year old, but it takes less than a year to come up with a potential solution, i'll get to that upon touching the other two issues though.

 

• food security? the government isn't yor mother, it is your government. i know it's hard to believe for some people, but the government does not need to hand out food, it does because it is understood that not everybody can make a living off of minimum wage. but again, to be touched after the next

 

• reproductive rights. no. the government already oversees planned parenthood. there is no need to do more. the government doesn't need to grant any more assistance in that area. birth rates are already down across the board. just keep it low and the problem will level out over time? 

 

• now to touch upon food and homes, the best solution imo is universal basic income. Under UBI, all citizens who are old enough, would be eligible for a set amount of money from the government, equivalent to the basic standard of living (just enoough for average price food and rent,). so long as they make less than 2-3x living wages. that way, the strain upon businesses to support their workers via wages would be lessened, there would be no excuse for homelessness other than sloth and poor life decisions, and all manner of tangle within the government for social security programs would be lessened. it's been less than a year. and i already responded to more than the BLM FAQ in regards to the issues blacks face. there is no excuse.

 
5) no respect for elders. they claim they do, those who marched during, or shortly after the king era say otherwise. 
 

• their first response is essentially the same as saying the people who went through jim crow, don't know what racism is. need i say more? of course, it wouldn't be me if i didn't. listen, older people don't understand everything, but it is objective fact that if a member of the old civil rights movement calls you out on your racism claim, your claim needs to be looked over with scrutiny. and in this case BLM falls short of the test.

 

• they are using shadow racism to stir fear of violence. not, that doesn't fly, either point out specific instances of racism, or don't use it as an argument. I've already linked to stats and videos proving that the racism they claim to fight is a straw-man, and have already put forth more solutions, and less violence than the BLM movement.

 

• they then follow up with more shadow racism claims. i've already addressed it, either point out the racism, or stop acting like sagging your pants is even half as professional as a suit and tie. or better yet, do both. tell me how many blacks in a suit and tie have been shot by cops. and out of those, tell me how many were committing crimes when they got shot. 

 

• yep, BLM, fun for all ages, but only when it suits their narrative.

 

 
6) in this particular area, i will not be addressing anything. i am an atheist, and as such, care little for religious arguments. i assume you can all understand why i'll be leaving this alone. it'd become complete religion bashing, and that's not the goal today. i can make a thread on that if anybody's unsatisfied, and if anybody wants me to, i can open salvo, but i'm gonna save you time here, and skip it, because religion is the last thing i care about when it comes to freedom and equality, so long as said religions give me the same room i attempt to grant them.

 

 

7) why? do you know why do they need to single out trans and queer? again, they only include when it suits their narrative. queer issues are more often for the LGBTWTFBBQ+ community. yet BLM is quick to virtue signal over it
 

• they list off the gender and sexual preference of the person speaking before they ever list the stats of the problem, who cares, i want to hear about the ideas, I want to know what the problems are. i don't care who the person is, i care about the plans they want to lay out to solve the problem. yet it seems that BLM often cares more for the narrative than the plan, they want to tell you everything's all bad, and that BLM is trying to make it all better, but they rarely attempt a concrete outline, and they've made enough excuses to kill my patience. but luckily, they get to the stats next 

 

• the stats are? *drumroll* 20. that's it. 20. for the entire year. there were 60 murders, over a SINGLE WEEKEND in Chicago. you see the problem? and on top of that, can you guess the cause of at least 60 of those 80 murders? you guessed it. it's my fellow African Americans. and here we are, to something i pointed out earlier, now, assuming any number of those 20 women murdered were killed by cops, can you guess what would be posted? yep, you guessed it, they'd have said the cops killed them, and tied it back to cops. if the majority were killed by whites, can you guess who they'd have blamed? you guessed it, it would be whites are killing blacks, but my hunch? it was either blacks or nobody knows, because those are the only times, throughout this article, where the people killed are not tied to the races or genders of their killers.

 

• oh? all black lives matter? where's the rallies and riots for these women? where's the rally for the small girl killed as a side effect of black on black violence? where's the call for, and rally to end black on black violence, here's the vigor i see when cops kill blacks? bunch of f***ing hypocrites. but that brings us to the next one

 

8) Does BLM hate white people? they say they don't, and i can't say i believe them. again, you should have read this already if you've come this far, but it bears quoting because it's so incredibly dishonest in it's request. 

 

• exhibit A: "However, those white people who continue to mischaracterize the affirmation of the value of black life as being anti-white are suggesting that in order for white lives to matter, black lives cannot. That is a foundational premise of white supremacy" can you tell me what's wrong here? if you guessed the use of whites instead of applying it to all lives, you'd be correct. what makes the white assertions of such a position any different from any other one? whites are the only race that have been used in such a context in this entire speech. they are using the most sly insinuations to try pushing their points. just replace white with Hispanic, or Asian, or Eskimo, or African, or Black, and you should see the flaw.  they're using past racism to justify the insinuation of present racism, while not realizing exactly how far they've come from the days of MLK. go ahead and say that white have been oppressing blacks, but honestly, who gives a flying f***? the actions of your goddamn ancestors are not inherited by you. whites today are not the whites of the past, i have never been discriminated against by blacks more than whites at my job, and I've seen more blacks being discriminatory these days than whites, so if we're talking racism, blacks are in the lead this generation.

 

• yes, black lives also matter, but BLM, is mistaken in it's implementation. what they're selling right now, is a half-empty bottle of snake oil.

 

• exhibit b: " The Black Lives Matter movement demands that the country affirm the value of black life in practical and pragmatic ways, including addressing an increasing racial wealth gap, fixing public schools that are failing, combating issues of housing inequality and gentrification that continue to push people of color out of communities they have lived in for generations, and dismantling the prison industrial complex. None of this is about hatred for white life. It is about acknowledging that the system already treats white lives as if they have more value, as if they are more worthy of protection, safety, education, and a good quality of life than black lives are." the wealth gap is not based upon race, it's old money holding up old money, and new money being found by those who have the resources. it's not about race when the only color that matters is green. I've already addressed the rest regarding schools, housing, and prison, but again, as you can see, they list problems, and give no solutions.i can pull up white people getting shafted by the system all day, i get the feeling some of you are white people, or know white people, who have been shafted by the system, it's not a f***ing racial issue, it's an economical one. BLM has no business dragging race into it, ESPECIALLY if they are not ready, or willing to list solutions.

 

• in fact, look around the site, you'll see rallies, and other s*** organized, but no concrete solutions. the first thing you need when building a foundation is answers, all they've got behind them are questions and reactions. 

 
9) you know what, these. right here, but first i have to at least put my own words in, BLM might not hate cops, but their actions have led directly to less cops in the neighborhoods that need them the most. and i say good for the cops. stay safe, and leave the neighborhoods that want to blindly follow the rhetoric . crime has spiked in every area that the cops have left due to BLM, yet cops are somehow the ones causing the threat? bullshit.
 
a mother talking to BLM about their apparent ignorance of the little ones, in favor of those who don't deserve notice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52eRAimHimc

 

 

1:36 for this one in particular 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z10eiuQ8q8
 
 
10) you remember earlier, that shadow racism i spoke of? you remember earlier, the desire to change the country from the inside that they mentioned? well guess what, they had the chance! those in power (white and black an all other whatever you want to call them) opened their f***ing hands to give then the power to actually become a political force, and what did they do? instead of using said power to support a homegrown candidate, they avoid it. so even their most basic of goals is ignored. i don't think i need to say much here. they had a prime chance to enact change from the inside, they blew it. and they base their judgment on corruption. the f***? not saying the democratic party is or isn't corrupt, but they gave BLM the power to be the change they wanted to see, and the BLM movement couldn't even realize how close they were to it.
 

11) worthless fluff. they mention how the movement won't be stopped, yet they have nothing solid to run on. what are their goals? reform. how will they reform? they don't know. what would be the best method to implement reform? they don't know. why don't they know? because 365 days isn't enough to come up with a basic plan.
 

 

[Fusion X. Denver]

It definitely would seem like something we can all agree to support but the thing that makes BLM instead of ALM sadly is because of the victim effect; the fact that Blacks appear to be more of the threatened group, therefore legitimizing uprising, not to mention them being more charismatic. 

They totally are though.

 

From what I've seen, a huge problem underlying all of these racial tensions is that some people don't recognize that institutionalized racism is still very much an issue. Black Lives Matter isn't about crying wolf or proclaiming superiority in the face of oppression, they're just looking to elevate their status quo alongside where everyone else is. Sure, you have extremists and idiots who'll twist things the wrong way, but you know what other movements and campaigns have those? Literally all of them.

 

A good analogy I've seen is comparing lives to houses. We can all agree that all houses matter, but that house over there is the one on fire and needs to be put out first. That's not to decry any houses that have rotten wood, termites, or any other bad conditions that will need to be attended to. And we're not saying your house is more or less important than any other house in the neighborhood. But that house is in an inferno right now and seriously needs to be doused in water. 

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

The fact that the Black Power movement is what scares people when the KKK are still a thing is really ironic.

I mean, is there really a difference? Both are extremists, just a different race.

 

For the most part, I don't believe BLM has reached that level, but they need to be careful. The more radicals that are in their ranks, the more it will hurt them and make their cause much harder to achieve.

 

People, including people in office, are already pointing the finger at them for Dallas.

[Dad]

I mean, is there really a difference? Both are extremists, just a different race.

 

For the most part, I don't believe BLM has reached that level, but they need to be careful. The more radicals that are in their ranks, the more it will hurt them and make their cause much harder to achieve.

 

People, including people in office, are already pointing the finger at them for Dallas.

 

The thing about this is, BLM/Black Panthers haven't spent the last 50+ years hanging men for the color of their skin.  So yeah, there is a bit of a difference. 

 

But yes, they do need to be careful.  Black people as a whole are already walking a thin line by speaking out.  Speaking out brought out the radicals in our communities.  The radicals shed more bad light on BLM and black communities.  They all become demonized, and the cycle resets itself.  It's difficult, but the fact of the matter is you can't just give up either.

[vla1ne]

well, to start, my first post has been updated. it is based upon the actual things promoted by BLM, in other words, it goes directly to their site and discusses their top refutations. for those of you who hold an interest in that sort of thing, you may with to read it. it's not exactly a short comment though.

 

 

 

I'm going to try to be as consistent and unbiased as possible, because you know where I stand.  With that out of the way, let's address this:

 

• BLM incites violence.
• BLM was formed as a response to violence against the black community.  It's stated that "not all of Trump's supporters are part of the rallying cry of racism, violence, and ignorance, so Trump isn't a problem."  The same is true for BLM.  After the attacks, the heart of BLM, and a large portion of the community came out against the attacks.  Just like Trump himself condoned the nonsensical acts and violence of his extremist supporters.
• BLM promotes the victim complex.
• BLM was formed in favor of the victim.  I think to say it promotes a "victim" complex is a double standard when things like "All Lives Matter" was formed in response and in an effort to demonize "Black Lives Matter".  It's logical that a victim complex would be formed behind the movement because it was based around the killings and violence against blacks.  I would think that this would also fall true to things like Veterans Programs.  They've suffered and they've fought hard, and now those Veterans need help.  Someone is standing up for them.  No, I am not comparing BLM to Veteran Soldiers.  I'm merely using this as an example.
• BLM mostly stems from low income background black families who don't understand the law.
• Actually, most black families are very well coerced and studied in law.  They have to be because they fear the law so much.  I was learning my rights as a young man in a low income neighborhood by the time I was seven years old.  And the same can be said by a large number of black children.  It's called "the talk".
• BLM  is a hate group.
• Let's go back to Mr. Trump.  A number of his supporters have openly come out as racists or persons who despise others because of the color of their skin.  Mr. Trump's following is not a hate group.  Because all of his followers don't share that belief.  BLM is not a hate group.
• BLM acts on emotion and not logic.
• Is it logical to assume that you would be completely apathetic to an event in which your loved ones were severely injured or killed?  While acting on emotion is bad, it's not unlikely.  It will happen.
• BLM has a mob mentality.
• Should I bring up Mr. Trump again?

 

• yes, not all of them, but a largely vocal amount.
• it was formed under a lie. that lie being the Ferguson shooting. in addition, BLM does little co combat black on black crime, but instead spends much of it's time fighting police intervention. i can go further in depth if you wish, but my prior comment actually handles it because it was brought up on their page. trump is a person, BLM is an ideology, it does have a founder and a funder, but both of them come with their own bag of issues, so the comparison is moot. all that BLM (the ideology) carries are the ideas of a collective, meaning the actions of the collective actively determine the meaning of BLM. trump, like him or not, is his own person, if he is not an ideal. meaning even if racists support him he himself cannot be called a racist until he advocates that other races are inferior
• ok, as it is now, it does, no argument there.
• ALM does not demonize BLM, it merely mocks it.as stated prior, BLM was founded upon a false narrative, in addition, there were over 60 killings in chicago over the weekend, yet BLM did nothing for those people, which undermines their entire message of black lives mattering, especially considering black on black crime has double the black per crime. ALM is essentially a mock of a movement, but it's not the subject today, so it gets a bye. 
• then more educated BLM members need to advocate understanding. ignorance is no excuse for reckless actions.
• two. things, actually three, 1) this comment directly contradicts your above comment, and from what i see in schools today, reading, and studying isn't what blacks these days are learning 2) i had a talk as well, i know what you mean, 3) just because poor blacks know to fear the law does not mean they actually understand the law. if they did, then they'd realize that the law itself is not actually as scary as it seems.
• well, i won't argue, considering i said the same thing.
• wrong, as i said before BLM is an ideology, trump is a person, trumps actions define trump, not those of his supporters, BLM is defined by the members of BLM's actions, because an idea cannot exist without people to advocate it. now, you can say it's been twisted, but as it stands, the ations of BLM, from the majority of vocal BLM members, BLM is indeed a hate group. they aren't always clear on what they hate, but they do fit the bill of being a hate group.
• well, true, if they operated on logic, the Ferguson case would never be brought up again, the 60 shootings last weekend would be in the spotlight alongside the one innocent man, the the 9 year old shot would arouse more people than the adults being shot. so yep, emotion it is
• true. it happens to everybody, in this case, it' mass mob emotion, 
• true. but it would be more correct to say it represents a hate group,. and those who banner under it often switch to mob mentality
• sure, as an apology for confusing him with an ideology. he's flawed, but he is not an intangible idea like BLM. not to mention even trump came up with more solutions in under a year than BLM has. 

 

 

 

 

BLM is a organization that has been extremely demonized due to misinformation, and only focusing on the group's negative parts (like the protesters screaming pigs in a blanket fire 'em like bacon and other such violent rhetoric). 

 

So first I think we should get a few things straight here

 

BLM does not mean that white lives or any other lives matter any less than black lives. It's just black lives have significantly larger time staying alive than other lives.

 

Being pro-BLM does not being anti-cop, and the reverse is true. These should not be divisive sides that we have to take. We can acknowledge the importance of issues facing the black community without ignoring the importance police officers play in our society.

 

BLM is an organization that is predominantly peaceful, as evidenced by the protesters in Dallas who were not aggressive at all towards that officers there, and before anybody brings up the shooter it has been proven several times over that he had no affiliation with BLM. The majority of the bad rap BLM gets is because outside agitators who come in to take advantage of the protestors to cause violence and commit other crimes. Though there are problems in the organization, like any other, they are an extremely vocal minority that gets far to much attention by the media.

 

 

That's the thing though ALM is the inferior message cause it's just that a message. It's nothing but a f***ing bumper sticker that people through out because they feel that they're being excluded from the party. When ever there is a police shooting ALM isn't the one out there protesting. There not the ones speaking against police violence. Even when it's not black people who are the victims of excessive force ALM doesn't do s***. That's the problem with ALM, they wanna have some of the cake, but they don't wanna help bake it.

it's not demonizing to criticize the actual actions of the group. unless of course you're saying they demonize themselves? which would be perfectly accurate.

 

yes, all lives are equal, and blacks do have a harder time staying alive, but there's something missing from that part, context, does it follow later? let's see.

 

true, and true, but the fact is, the current most vocal section of BLM happens to be anti cop, and there are many examples of BLM being anti-white. not in all instances, BLM is capable of peaceful protests, and they have done so in, i believe either toronto or seattle held a peaceful protest recently. more of that and they'll have something good.

 

what you're attempting here is to say that the problems that BLM faces are due to outside influences, and that's not even remotely true. yes, there are those who take advantage, but that vocal minority of BLM people doing the bad, is extremely harmful to the black community, and all communities in general. the BLM protesters calling for the death of cops? *handwave* those are not BLM members... no. they are, just because their actions are unpleasant, does not mean they weren't part of BLM, and there are flaws o BLM even outside of such cases,

[spoiler=to sum the above paragraph up]

 

 

oh? so all lives is inferior to black lives? all lives is excluded from the group that claims to be excluded? of course the ALM group isn't speaking against the police, because the police aren't the problem. 93% of black murders are black on black. and the 3% from the police is the problem? f*** out of here with that.the problem, whites have a 3% shot rate as well, and they're the far higher population, by simple math, blacks are still being shot les than whites, and half the BLM protests re over blacks who were actually criminals. BLM is sending out the wrong message, while hiding behind a victim complex. ALM supporters at least say all lives. that way they aren't excluding the excluded.

 

 

It's a fact that Blacks are more victimised by police violence than they should be proportionately. Despite being like 13% of the US population, they make up 30% of cases for police violence. Obviously that's not proof of Blacks being targeted solely because they are Black, but you can understand why they might have the opinion that there lives and liberties are worth less in the lives of the law. 

 

It's completely understandable where BLM comes from, because when communities and cultures are forced into poverty and treated like s*** for years it's natural to think they'll act out against the status quo - It's the same reason Trump has the following he does. And 40 years of theWar on Drugs on top of the global recession means this type of movement is actually a bit late to the table I see. The War on Drugs is one of the best arguments to legitimise the idea that Blacks are victimised, because it was specifically started to disrupt Black communities in the US and other groups that acted as opposition to the Nixon administration. 

 

This is the controversial bit - Even if there are idiots who use it to incite violence, some of the burden lays with the police for the situation continually escalating. As far as I am aware, there has not been one ounce of police reform as a result of the frequent violence claims, nor real consequences for officers who do gun down innocents. (Something like 97% of officers escape consequences). Either of these two things would have helped, even if it didn't accomplish much, because the appearance of change would be encouraging and debatable quell those who have the most radical of viewpoints. 

 

Because change works both ways, both parties have to desire it and actively work towards it.To my understanding, that hasn't happened for the police side of things on a national scale.

 

it is indeed a fact, and another fact, blacks commit 50-70% of crimes. good news though, cops are now having to leave the black neighborhoods alone due to public pressure and extended paperwork, so BLM has at least prevented the deaths of blacks at cop hands. now to solve the other 93%  and 4% of the problem respectively, alongside create proposals for their shell topics of racial economic inequality, educational disparity, housing problems, and prison rehaul, (all of those make more sense if you look at the point #5 on page 1, inside the spoiler) 

 

BLM does have a noble outer message, the problem is that the message is never used properly. Africans come here from war torn countries, and you hear stories about them getting scholarships, and pulling themselves up out of poverty often, blacks though? is this the best we can do? blame our situation on others? and not fix our internal community? all that effort on marches could be spent getting your hands dirty, fixing the neighborhood, bringing in black role models, ensuring that the next generation doesn't need welfare, and ensuring that the next time black on black violence occurs, it's between two consenting adults with a safeword. the goal is as noble as ALM, but the actions don't match the goal.

 

the police get attacked more often than they attack, and according to the figures, black cops shoot blacks more often than any other race of cops. in fact, even a black sherrif said the same thing: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/sheriff-clarke-black-black-crime-much-bigger-problem-community-policing

 

 

 

 

just saying. BLM, for all the noble good they are claiming, they aren't putting their energy where it'll do the most good. but that's 2 massive responses in a row. i'm done for the... oh god it's morning.

[Aerion Brightflame]

So again, end the War on Drugs increase, the minimum wage and eliminate the requirement for standardised tests to allocate funding. These are minimal things that could be done at a federal level to create positive change in the US as a whole, not just for the Blacks. 

 

My logic is thus: The issue in part is that Blacks are killed disproportionately by Police. Why is this so? Because Blacks commit more crime on average. Why is this so? Because a lot of Black communities tend to be really really poor and have poor social mobility (On average 15% of America is in poverty, but 27% of Blacks are, and similar is true for Black children (Higher percentages for both the average and the blacks)). Why is this relevent? Because when you a poor, turning to crime is a natural solution to the problem of providing. What can be done to address this? Address poverty and the social mobility issues and thus reduce the incentives to turn to crime. 

 

It's not secret that the war on drugs was designed, not to address the drug issue, but to create one and break apart existing communities as a political manoeuvre of the Nixon and Reagan administrations. Blacks in particular were a target. To quote Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic policy advisor, on the issue:

 

[spoiler=Quote and source]

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

 

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

 

 

 

So it's not that shocking that after 40 years of this 1.3 of Black males can expect to be imprisoned in there lifetimes and that the highest cause of incarcerations for Blacks were non violent drug offences. Which because of laws around criminal history and employment is terrible, and it is not shocking that this has lead to a higher poverty rate (After all this implies that there are less traditional earners in the black community than any other. In fact more than half of all black families with children are headed by single mothers (55%), (Which have a poverty rate of 46%). Given the only real lucrative employment option left that's easy to get into is crime, this also accounts for the high crime rate: One small time drug charge helps trap people in crime. 

 

So if you eliminate the War on Drugs and thus less black males get imprisoned over minimal charges, you allow more blacks to earn more, which in theory helps lower the poverty rate and some of the perception issues the black community deals with. All of which is a good start. 

 

Raising the minimum wage to be something actually livable also means less people in general will be in poverty, which means less turn to crime to sumpliment earnings. It may also reduce the amount of people who have to claim welfare to survive, which decreases the burden on the state. And it may mean less families and peoples have to work multiple jobs to get buy, which opens up more employment. And more money people have to spend on things within the economy which is also a help. 

 

The last one is an attempt to remove the emphasis placed upon testing, which means schools can spend time actually teaching people skills and teaching people to love education instead of brow beating people for not hitting an arbitrary standard. It's not a perfect solution, but there is no perfect solution to this problem because you need some way to measure standards. It just helps not become as defranchised with education and drop out (Which is a lessening issue in Black communities sure, but still an issue), which will increase social mobility in theory. 

 

There a problem facing the Black community that could be helped by the federal government, things that by right should happen anyway because they address issues facing all demographics in America. 

 

Also at no point did I talk about the race of the cops. I'm well aware of the fact that across all demographics the people most likely to kill you share your race. 

 

Sources on my figures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males

http://blackdemographics.com/households/poverty/

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

You also gotta wonder why BLM does not explain or distance themselves from protesters like...

There was another one calling for dead police officers in Minnesota, way before the recent shooting. Police killing innocent blacks are wrong, and those officers should be held accountable, but how is advocating the murder of police officers gonna help? BLM's core values are good, and the anger is understandable, but you can't justify calling for police officers to be murdered. Violence against the police will not solve violence by the police.

The anger is understandable. The advocating for more bloodshed, which will result in even more bloodshed, more grieving families, more tensions, and more hate, is NOT. Unless, of course, you like seeing police officers murderered. Sadly, some people do.

I've stated this before and I'll say it again, Dallas Police were supportive of the protest, and have even been praised by community leaders. This is how police and protestors should behave. The Dallas shooter wasn't part of BLM, but BLM will still bear the brunt of the hate.

You can be pro-BLM and demand police accountability without being anti-police. You don't need to call for their deaths. That'll only hurt your cause.

[vla1ne]

My logic is thus: -snip-

 

I agree. and your solutions work for the betterment of all lower class citizens. that's what i want from the BLM movement, a search for answers, and the proposal of concrete ideas that will better the community. 

 

true, definitely true, but something that needs to be addressed in the black community, be it by BLM or whatever other movement or person, is the glorification of the "thug life" kids in my neighborhood, and every other ghetto that i've been to, highlight the criminal life as extravagant, and are more prone to emulating the negative role models than the positive ones. it's essentially criminal propaganda, and it's shameful to say the least. in addition, there is what is known as a single mother epidemic in the black community, but that'll tie into a later statement you make.

 

never read that particular source. interesting to note. the war on drugs is not just bad for blacks, every race has suffered from the effects, and the budget to combat it isn't getting any results. the best option is honestly to reform the policy, release those held under the charges, and emphasize assistance instead of incarceration. sure, it won't help everybody, but it will at least lessen the weight of a drug charge, keep otherwise innocent people out of prison, and stop destroying lives in this so called war.

 

non violent drug offenses put many innocents behind bars, but yes, it hurts blacks far more, and that brings us back to the single mothers issue. a problem i rarely, if ever see BLM address is the prominence of the "strong black woman" mindset, that thw woman doesn't need the man to raise a child, that government paychecks make up for the absence of a second parental figure. 55% with a 46% poverty ratio literally destroys that myth, yet it carries on. and in the meantime, black women often get with the men who clearly aren't cut out for raising children, and what next? they get pregnant by them, and have kids. now you have a deadbeat dad who never planned on being a dad, a strong black woman who don't need no man because the government wallet is attached to her child, and a small child who got f***ed before they ever came into the world. the cycle repeats. and in order to break the cycle, young black men need to stop chasing the criminal lifestyle, work for better standing jobs, avoid drugs until the laws change, or some combination of all 3. black women need to start either wearing protection, being better partners, or both, and black children, there's nothing they can do. until the leading generation starts trying to make changes, the younger generation has no hope of escape.

 

i agree here fully, nothing to add.

 

raising minimum wage comes with consequences though, businesses will want to hire smaller amounts of workers, small businesses will have to lose a lot more revenue over the short and long term, and inflation of prices will simply continue the cycle. in this case, i'd propose universal basic income (UBI) [spoiler=essentially]

 instead of social security, which can be abused, and doesn't really do anything unless it's abused, there could be a nationwide dispersal of income to all citizens, based upon each respective state and city's basic living wages. so enough to buy food and pay for average rent, but only that. if implemented, such a proposal would reduce the demand for an increased minimum wage, and would not be likely to reduce incentive to work. since it would be only for the bare minimums, those who want more would be more driven to work, and those who want less, while not needing to work as much, would still need to work to get anything above he basics in life. there would be no excuse for homelessness, aside from either personal choice and lack of housing, and losing a job would be less damaging overall, which would allow both workers and employers alike more flexibility within their job structure. in addition, UBI would remove the clutter and fuss of social security, while allowing taxes to rise or fall with minimal effect upon those who receive said checks. furthermore, two parent families would have incentive due to there being two people in the house attaining money from UBI instead of one. the money would still be spent in the economy, so it would, at least in theory, recycle itself.

feel free to voice objections if you have any here

 

i agree fully, i have ways i think it could be improved or implemented as well, but again, i rarely, if ever hear anything about this from BLM. and on their own page, they list no solutions, just problems.

 

fair.

 

oh no, i wasn't implying that you did, my apologies here if you took it that way, i was pointing out that the apparent outrage /indignation / whatever you wish to call it BLM has towards cops and whites. for all they point out cops, they don't ever seem to address the fact that black cops are the more likely ones to shoot blacks. there's a lot that BLM glosses over, that particular comment wasn't fully aimed at you, it was to continue highlighting the amount of things that BLM glosses over in their narrative.

 

pretty sure we at the very least, hold the same overall views in this particular matter, if not the same method of solving them.

 

 

 

You can be pro-BLM and demand police accountability without being anti-police. You don't need to call for their deaths. That'll only hurt your cause.

this. so much this. there have been many protests by BLM that called for unreasonable actions. or incited violence. it's not a good look. and there are better things overall that BLM needs to be organizing instead of protesting the minority of black deaths. brightflame above points out the causes and lists some solutions, agree with them or not, they are put up, and out there, and that is far more solutions than BLM has on their own webpage where they're supposed to be addressing these kinds of concerns