Bullshit. I provided a broad cite – here it is again. Many of these riots were associated with the Civil Rights movement. Some examples: '64 Harlem riot, '64 Philly riot, Watts riot, Hough (Cleveland) riots. All of these were associated with the Civil Rights movement, and they were significantly more violent than anything BLM has been associated with.
Some of it probably is, just as some of the violence associated with the Civil Rights movement was. Those very few who call for violence are also responsible, as of course the actual violent individuals.
I’d blame the leaders (like Trump) who have advocated for violence, along with those who committed it. The vast majority of BLM folks, leaders and non-leaders alike, have advocated against violence.
I think historically, the American media has warped things to make black people seem scarier. Less so now than in the past, but it still exists. Riots and looting certainly are newsworthy, as are the much larger number of peaceful protests.
That was one bad statement, and pretty much the only one from anyone that could be called a BLM leader. Almost everyone else has denounced violence.
When did I say it wasn’t a problem (though Infowars? Seriously?)? It’s a problem. None of this is new information. But it doesn’t reflect any more poorly on the BLM movement as a whole than those riots in the 60s reflected poorly on the Civil Rights movement. It’s harmful but it’s also a small part of the movement, and not reflective of the overall goals and body of supporters.
Says you. I don’t believe you, at least not without lots of evidence, considering how little you apparently know about the Civil Rights movement (and associated rioting) in the 60s.
Now that I’ve shown you (again) several instances of rioting associated with the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, does that mean you condemn the CR movement as well? Or are they special?
Compared to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, BLM is pretty damn peaceful. Hopefully they will be even better with future protests.
I have no interest in broad brushes.
So now MLK has to be directly involved? Bullshit on your goalpost shifting. Several CR associated riots are linked above.
Same ball park? Some police departments still victimize their black citizens, as the Ferguson report demonstrated. In the case of Ferguson, it was largely shakedowns for cash via nuisance tickets. That’s not as bad as the incredible brutality of Connor, but considering the violence necessarily associated with such shakedowns, as well as some other departments which have tolerated vicious personal bigotry among their officers (and more!), it’s in the same ball-park.
Occam’s razor. Rather than assuming that miscreants show up at the tail end of a demonstration to break windows and turn over cars, I think it is much more likely that the people that are already there in droves are the pool of people that produce rioters and looters.
Those riots are not associated with the civil rights movement just because they happened at the same time as the civil rights movement.
Which of those were MLK marches that escalated into rioting?
When following the announcement of the grand jury’s decision, Michael Brown’s stepfather Louis Head yelled to the crowd of protesters in front of the police department: “Burn this bitch down!” that may or may not be on BLM.
However, when a BLM demonstration escalates into riots and looting in places like Baltimore, that can pretty clearly be laid at BLM’s feet.
There is a difference between the effect MLK had on the civil rights movement and the effect that the Watts riots had on the civil rights movement. If MLK had been at the front of marches that resulted in the watts riots, it would have undermined his moral authority and he would have become just another violent hoodlum to many people.
Bull Connor was actively telling cops to beat up demonstrators, is there something like that happening here? But at least you are acknowledging that there are people within BLM that are calling for violence (or at least using violence in their rhetoric).
And some of them call for violence in their rhetoric.
Riots are more newsworthy than peaceful protests (sorry but that’s just the way it is) but there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. Most of the peaceful protests started to blend into one another as it became clear that most of the killing being protested were actually lawful killings. The circumstances surrounding the Michael Brown killing was particularly harmful to the credibility of the movement.
It was at the top of the goggle feed. There were no reports of that twitter feed on CNN (I guess they were too busy trying to make black people look scary).
It may not reflect badly on BLM for you but when a BLM protest evolves into riots and looting a lot of other people could reasonably associate that rioting and looting to the BLM protest from which it evolved.
From the 60’s? We have very different ideas of what is recent. BLM is uniquely violent in America today. Nothing in recent times have come close.
Those riots are not associated with the civil rights movement other than the fact that they happened at the same time. Which civil rights march ended in rioting and looting?
Those riots were not associated with the civil rights movement. They were just riots. A violent expression of the black community’s frustration with de jure and de facto Jim Crow.
Well, certainly many of the people on this board (including me) were labeling the Tea party as racist because of the acts of some members of the tea party.
I’m pretty sure this isn’t the first time we have mentioned MLK but if you could just point to a couple of civil rights marches that ended in rioting and looting even if MLK was not at the head, that would be appreciated as well.
Its nothing like the 1960’s Did you read DOJ report? Its bad in St Louis but its nothing like Jim Crow. Not even in the same ballpark.
So its not as bad as Bull Connor sicking dogs on peaceful protesters and turning fire hoses on them and beating them with night sticks. But its in the same ballpark?
I gave you the links. Each of those were associated with marches and protests against mistreatment of black people in those communities. That sounds like civil rights to me. If you want to pretend it’s not related, then feel free. There was no dividing line or label that specified individual marches and protests as CR related or unrelated, but I’ll count anything during that time that was related to the systemic mistreatment of black people as part of the Civil Rights movement.
And Wikipedia agrees – the article for the most violent among them – the Watts riot – is categorized under “African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)”.
I’m sure you could find a rhetorical way to separate these out – by insisting that MLK has to be involved, for example, or that it has to be a pre-planned, organized march that turns violent – but I find that highly dishonest.
At no point did I not acknowledge that there are a minuscule number of assholes in BLM (and the CR movement, and every other movement or group that has ever existed in human history).
It’s even more harmful when smart people twist and manipulate the truth to cast aspersions on a positive movement. You can choose to just see the mistakes, which are fewer than the successes and positive accomplishments, but I think that’s wrong.
And many white people associated the Civil Rights movement in the 60s with violent uprisings. The polling at the time was very similar to today’s polling for BLM. They were wrong then, and I think they (and you) are wrong now.
I don’t believe you, not based on your repeating of a few bad examples and ignoring the much greater violence associated with the CR movement in the 60s. There are a few examples of violence associated with BLM and that’s it.
It’s also bullshit to compare BLM only to protest movements – that’s like saying that there was no uprising more violent than slave uprisings in the 1830s. The mistreatment of slaves was far, far more brutal and violent than any uprisings, and the mistreatment and brutality towards black people is far, far more brutal and violent than anything associated with BLM.
Bullshit. Read about the riots if you want, or ignore the truth that there were multiple protests associated with them.
You’re trying to find a way to define BLM that makes it special, like (as far as I can tell) insisting that it has to be a premeditated and organized protest that turns violent to count. That’s bullshit. It’s not special, and neither is your criticism. Critics of MLK Jr. made the same accusations against him as you do against BLM:
Why is it so hard for you to separate the very limited violence with the goals and aims of BLM? Yes, it’d be better if they were 100% perfect with their strategy, and never picked any bad examples to protest, and eliminated every single bad apple among them… but that’s not going to happen. We’ll never have a perfect protest movement. There will always be ways to nitpick a protest movement to decide that they’re not worth supporting.
I call bullshit. The CR movement wasn’t perfect, and neither is BLM. But their blemishes don’t come close to eliminating their positive aims and accomplishments.
Right, not as bad, but in the same ballpark. Trump-style sexual assault is not as bad as rape, but still in the same ballpark. Indentured servitude is not as bad as slavery, but in the same ballpark.
If you don’t like that phrase, then fine, but I just borrowed it from you.
No, no they weren’t. They were frequently just spontaneous riots that grew out of violent encounters with police.
So then all riots these days are associated with BLM even if BLM is nowhere in sight?
:dubious: And you think THAT is Wikipedia agreeing with you? OK, if you think the Watts riots were part of the Civil Rights Movement then I can see how this all makes sense to you.
I think there is a significant difference between the culpability of a riot that evolves out of a demonstration by MLK and a riot that arises during the same time period as MLK marches. I think you are doing whatever you can to convince yourself that this is like the civil rights movement in some way when in fact its not even in the same ball park.
In what way is Michael Brown like the martyrs of the Civil Rights movement? When a BLM march in Baltimore evolves into rioting and looting, how is that not laid squarely at the feet of BLM?
What riot could similarly be laid at the feet of any identifiable participant of the civil rights movement? AFAICT most of the violence that occurred during CRM demonstrations was violence AGAINST the demonstrators and not BY the demonstrators.
And where were those assholes in the Tea Party? Why didn’t they burn shit down and loot stores? I am almost positive that the Tea party had more assholes per capita than BLM.
There is not room for a lot of mistakes of this sort when you are trying to convince people that the cops are killing you for no reason at all while you are rioting and looting, burning down Baltimore and threatening to do the same elsewhere.
No they were not wrong about the rioters and the looters and anyone associated with them. In what way was MLK associated with rioters and looters? Which of his marches ended in rioting and looting?
If you show me a MLK type that is separable from BLM I can make the distinction but BLM as a movement is tarnished. If Obama takes up the mantle of civil rights leader after his presidency and disassociates himself from BLM and its violence, I will be able to distinguish between shit BLM did and stuff Obama does.
Believe’s got nothing to do with it. All you need to do to disprove my statement is give me a couple of examples of OTHER movements in America today that are as violent and riotous as BLM. If you have to go back 50 years to find something as violent (and I don’t agree that you succeeded in finding a movement that was as violent), then I think you can say that BLM is a violent movement.
So now BLM is like slave uprisings? The fact of the matter is that over the past two years every questionable police shooting has made it to the pages of this board. I doubt there are any questionable police shootings that have made it under the radar since Ferguson. We know all their names and frankly after all the facts come out the majority of those questionable shootings turn out to be justifiable. It is probable that there is bias in the police departments and the implementation of body CAMs are a good thing that BLM helped bring about and the self awareness that cops seem to have developed over the last couple of years has probably done more good than bad. But at this point what good is BLM doing when people have already started to associate them with riots and looting?
What march is that associated with?
Riots that followed the assassination of MLK almost by definition were not associated with MLK in the sense that he had any responsibility for them.
Rioting and looting by the protesters is not nitpicking. It is a description of the actions of the BLM protesters. A description that cannot be leveled at assholes like the Tea party or even Trumpsters.
At this point the BLM folks have come to realize how bad violence is for their movement and I see a lot of “can’t we all get along” type statements coming from the BLM crowd but I fear it is too late for them. They are a violent movement, they were built on violence and incitement to violence and we cannot reward that in any way if we can possibly help it.
What more do you think BLM can accomplish at this point? I don’t think we need BLM to condemn police brutality. I don’t think we need BLM to pay attention to cases like Walter Scott.
If your ballpark is that big then I suppose everything is in the same ballpark. Heck wage slavery during the industrial revolution is in the same ballpark.
In your opinion is the difference between BLM and the civil rights movement just a difference of degree and not a difference of kind?
And thanks for saying I’m smart. Can you tell my wife and kid?
I am not against what BLM stands for. I am just very very intolerant of rioting and looting. I lived through the LA riots and saw a lot friends lose their businesses, their homes, their livelihoods and their faith in America. I try not to underestimate the impact of police brutality on the black community but I think some people are underestimating the impact of rioting and looting. There is no excuse and I don’t think anyone should excuse or tolerate or deflect blame for this sort of violence.
Sometimes, and sometimes they grew out of protests.
You’ve already made this case. If they’re against police violence, then yes, they are associated with BLM.
For both, the culpability lies with those who act violently and those few who advocate for violence. Not the movement as a whole. The BLM movement, and most of its supporters and advocates, do not bear responsibility for any of the recent violence.
Because most BLM leaders and supporters don’t want violence and advocate against it. If bad actors start violence in the midst of a protest, that’s not the fault of the protesters – it’s the fault of the bad actors.
And most of the recent violence has been against black people, not by protesters. The protests are protesting against violence, and most of them advocate against it.
A movement filled with old people who are generally financially getting by is going to have fewer violent hangers-on and wannabes than a movement filled with young people who are generally quite poor.
I wish they did better – I wish it was a perfect movement that only picked perfect victims. But it’s not, and it never will be. Their aims are still just. Smart and decent people should be able to recognize this.
I’ve showed you several. Not all marches or protests have names or Wikipedia articles. Hell, I’ve been to BLM protests in DC that, AFAICT, weren’t covered in the news (except, maybe, in passing). They were still protests (and peaceful protests, by the way). In the 60s there were probably hundreds of protests that weren’t named or well covered by the media – and many of them were mentioned in my cites.
I’m not going to waste time finding more examples for you to nitpick and decide aren’t perfect enough. Several of my cites fit, specifically saying that there were protests against mistreatment and then violence.
What other movements protested violence and brutality in recent times? BLM is a “violent movement” if the Civil Rights movement was a “violent movement”. I don’t accept that, and you shouldn’t either. You shouldn’t be trying to find reasons to discount and belittle a just movement that has done a lot of good things.
They’re still talking to police departments, many of which are receptive. They are responsible for keeping law enforcement and justice system reform as a political issue, and one that both parties are close on in many ways, and in the right direction.
And bullshit that we can conclude there are no questionable shootings under the radar. We still don’t know about so many over the past several years because many police departments don’t keep or share that data, and most aren’t captured on video.
Again, not all marches and protests (and many protests are stationary, and don’t “march”) have names. Most probably don’t. Even today.
No, it’s a description of the actions of a very small number of people who did bad things at the same time as some small number of BLM protests. We don’t know if those bad actors were protesters – they may have been criminals looking for an opportunity to do bad things.
But we can certainly call some Trump supporters violent, considering the small number of violent incidents at Trump rallies. And unlike BLM, this was advocated for by their leader.
Then the Civil Rights movement was “built on violence and incitement to violence”.
This is utter bullshit. You’re just choosing to see things this way, maybe because of your intense fear of rioting. Rioting is terrible, but it’s the fault of the rioters and those that advocate for it, and no one else. The movement as a whole is not responsible, and you should get over your broad brushing prejudices. It’s unintelligent and indecent.
Push for demilitarization of the police; highlight questionable shootings and other violent incidents; push for reform and elimination of for-profit policing like Ferguson; and many more. In essence, continue doing what they’re doing.
You really don’t think sexual assault and rape are in the same ballpark? :eek:
Probably, if I understand your meaning. BLM is much less organized, but they are advocating for similar forms of justice. Perhaps a more organized movement would be better disciplined, but I can’t control that. I support the movement because they’ve done a lot of good and because I believe that they’re right that there is a systemic problem of police violence and mistreatment that disproportionately harms black people. You should too – and that doesn’t mean that you can’t criticize the violence. Some of the harshest criticism of rioting comes from BLM supporters and leaders.
I’m not excusing or tolerating or deflecting blame for rioting. Rioting is terrible. Rioting is the fault of rioters and anyone who advocates for riots, and that’s it. It’s not the fault of the movement as a whole. You can criticize rioting while still supporting a just cause and specifically calling out bad actors within or near that cause.
Defense wants to exclude the video from evidence in the shooting of Walter Scott. They are sticking to the story that Scott struggled with the officer and took his taser from him, which is not what the video shows. They claim that it is “factually deficient”.
Damuri Ajashi - The Ultimate Tone Policer. :rolleyes: Basically says he doesn’t care if injustices continue or even if people die because he refuses to listen to the message when people are impolite.
I dunno, that’s just another excuse for refusing to accept that the world is less than perfect and he doesn’t want to hear anyone say otherwise!
Can you point to a few that riots/looting grew out of a demonstration or march?
So if I protest police violence today, then I am associated with BLM?
Of course those who are merely associated with violence are not as responsible as those who actually perpetrate that violence but up until recently, the violence seemed to be viewed by some in BLM as a way of getting results. Cities terrified of riots and looting would capitulate to BLM demands out of fear of riots and looting. We saw a BLM leader threaten a prosecutor with riots for failing to indict a police officer. We saw Michael Brown’s step father exhort the protestesrs to “burn the bitch down” If one video of a police officer shooting a black man in the back indicates that there are really gazillions of these incidents, then doesn’t one incident of a NAACP BLM leader saying these things mean there might be more than one incident of veiled threats of violence being made in less public circumstances? Or do all bad acts get caught on tape while almost none of the police bad acts do?
Most police aren’t killing black men. If a police officer kills a black man that’s not the fault of the police generally, its the fault of that one single police officer. Now, I understand that there is a difference between the random people that show up to a protest and a policeman that is hired and trained by the police department but you are attempting to entirely exonerate a movement for actions by members of the movement and insulating the blame in the offending members. The violent protesters start out as protesters and become violent. Perhaps as a result of inciting language during the protests.
Wait. What? Most of the violence has been against who?!?! Why does it matter who the protesters are beating up and killing? Is it OK if they are just killing their own?
The tea party was full of militia types (in fact there was a self styled “tea party militia,” I saw some of these idiots at gun related events I would go to). Sure there were plenty of the “get off my lawn” crowd just as there are plenty of mothers and grandparents and pastors and church choirs at the BLM marches.
The fact that they pick so many bad examples and martyrs and the fact that they are plagued by violent riots and looting points to the conclusion that these folks are driven more by emotion that logic. It really calls into question whether their “facts” are facts at all or just highlighting a disproportionate level of black killings that can largely be explained by other factors. I personally think that there is almost certainly SOMETHING there. I am almost equally certain that whatever is there is being blown out of proportion by the media. We have a pretty good bead on pretty much every police killing since Ferguson, and the fact that we see so few actually bad police shootings in a world when police kill about 1000 people a year indicates that the problem is not as obvious as some of the people leading these marches seem to think.
Actually, can you just show me a couple. I didn’t see where you listed MLK marches that ended in rioting and looting. Where is their MLK?
A quote would be nice so I know exactly what you are referring to. I’m not asking for exact precision. I am asking for a couple of MLK protests that resulted in rioting and looting, just two would do it. How was it that he was able to prevent rioting and looting at his protests? Weren’t there random people that joined his protests? I use MLK because he was effective, more effective than the Watts riots and he was able to prevent rioting and looting during his marches.
So we can explain (excuse?) the violence of BLM because they are protesting violence and brutality by police departments… that are receptive to them? You seem to be saying that because they are protesting violence, they should be held to a different standard than people who are protesting a black president or racist anti-immigrant rhetoric. Why do you think that people protesting violence should be held to a different standard of violence than protesters who are protesting other forms of injustice or protesting the decline of white privilege?
No, not bullshit. Every police killing since Ferguson has been scrutinized and anything that is questionable has been raised. We have seen demonstrations on shooting where the victim had a fucking gun, no video just outraged friends and family saying that the victim was a sweetheart.
Every shooting is known to the public somewhere somehow. Its really hard to hide a police shooting, especially these days. I would bet a money that we know about every shooting death by an on duty police officer and almost every police shooting.
I would bet a bit less money that every one of the killings have been scrutinized by someone looking for a story.
Lets call them demonstrations then. What I don’t want to include is a bunch of suburban white high school cheerleaders who take a knee during the national anthem while a WWII color guard holds the flag.
How many people do you think participated in the Baltimore riots, a small number? The rioters may have been criminals but they were also protesters. I don’t think ALL protesters are rioters and looters. But they need to find a new vehicle for pushing their message.
No Trump riots… yet. And while BLM doesn’t have a central leader like Trump, some of their leadership have been making veiled threats about violence and the rhetoric during some of the marches are very inciting.
I think of the Civil Rights movement being built on a woman refusing to give up her seat on a bus and a bus boycott. I think of the Civil Rights movement being inspired by Gandhi. But I suppose you are right. There were parts of the civil rights movement that were violent but it is easy to distinguish the illegal, violent elements of the CRM from the legitimate elements of the movement like MLK.
Maybe where we are disconnecting is that I don’t see BLM as the entire movement. You seem to see BLM as the alpha and omega of the entire movement and that there can be no successor or parallel movement. A movement based on morality must be moral and the connection that BLM has to riots and looting is too direct for a lot of people to take them seriously.
I agree that most of the protesters are peaceful and peace loving. But they are involved with an organization that is tarnished by violence.
The militarization of the police starts to seem useful when you have riots and looting across the country.
I don’t think we need BLM to highlight anything anymore. We are hearing stories on the news at the same time BLM activists do.
I don’t know about the for profit policing. I know that police around here sometimes seem to have a quota for tickets. If collecting on those tickets leads to shootings, there needs to be something done about that.
More than half the highly questionable shootings that BLM has marched for turned out to be justifiable shootings. It doesn’t help that they are so indiscriminate about when they get outraged. Sure it pumps up the number of demonstrations they can have but it does very little for their credibility.
I assume you are talking about Trump’s sexual assaults. Here is the top of the google list when I google Trump sexual assault:
He grabbed her ass. I think that is in a different ballpark than sticking his dick in her vagina against her will. I don’t think its acceptable but one warrants many many years in prison, the other warrants less than a year.
Sure, the criticism comes NOW. It comes now that it is clear that the violence is bad for the movement. Where was all the outspoken criticism of violence when shit was going down in Ferguson? That shit went on and on and on for months and was renewed every time the media blew up a story about an unarmed black man (or boy) getting shot by the police. It was useful to them back then to get attention and grow the movement, now its not…
Sure there are peaceful protesters and they can be peaceful protesters in another movement but BLM is tarnished by too many bad decision and bad actors. Maybe they can be rehabilitated but I don’t see how they will be anything more than thugs to a large enough swath of the population that we aren’t going to get federal legislation like the voting rights act or the civil rights act out of it. We will get a few local government that get scared into capitulating to their demands because they don’t want the city to burn as the NAACP has warned them.
Impolite is fine. Rioting and looting, not so much.
Rioting and looting is more than just bad tone or raised voices. You are destroying the livelihoods of families. You are harming people who had nothing to do with your grievance.
How do you get the notion that I don’t care if injustice continues? I don’t want injustice to continue but I don’t know that the last two years have revealed as much injustice as people seem to think. Michael Brown seems to have been a case of justifiable homicide and many of the initial outrage at many of these police shootings turned out to be justifiable homicides.
I don’t want a perfect world but you seem awfully cavalier about violent riots and looting being perpetrated by protesters in the name of preventing violence against the protesters.
I’ve reordered some of your post (without altering any of it) to push the similar points together.
I’m not going to go back through all my cites again, which I provided to you in good faith. And I’m not going to fall for your goalpost shifting that MLK must be involved in the specific protest. There were several events in my cites that were described as protests against mistreatment of black people that then became violent.
I would say yes.
This was a tiny minority of BLM leaders and people. And they should be criticized. But they don’t represent BLM as a whole – not even close. The vast majority criticize violence and have from the very beginning.
I’m doing the same thing for BLM that I do for the CR movement – not blaming the broader movement for the actions of a tiny minority. Some very small number of those involved said or did bad things. But that doesn’t mean the broader movement isn’t both correct, for the most part, and positive.
Most of the violence is against black people. There has been far, far move violence and brutality directed by police (and the justice system in general) against black people over the past several years than by rioters in associated violent incidents. Even if you throw in the handful of cop killings.
I don’t know the specific demographics, so I’m just estimating, but I think BLM is probably a lot younger, and a lot poorer, on average, than the Tea Party was.
I don’t believe this – based on the reports of black Americans, I think there are tons of shootings that have occurred and, had video been available, we would be condemning. I think Sean Groubert and Walter Scott style shootings have been unfortunately very common over the last several decades, but weren’t caught on video, and the cop was believed over the victim (or the victim died and couldn’t tell his story). And their fellow cops supported them no matter the facts. I think it’s not credible that the only bad shootings like that happened to be caught on video.
I don’t hold them to a different standard at all – violence is terrible, and advocating for it is terrible. It should be condemned harshly. I just condemn the individuals, and not the movement.
What you’re describing makes it trivially easy to destroy any movement at all with very little effort – just spend a little money, sprinkle in a few violent assholes into a movement you don’t like, and voila, you have discredited the entire movement with very little cost. I don’t know if this is happening, but it doesn’t matter – I’m not going to condemn the entire movement for the actions of a few no matter how or why the few bad people do bad things.
Perhaps. BLM (and affiliated organizations which support BLM) is the only significant organization that is fighting law enforcement mistreatment of black people. Just like the CR movement, I think they are moral except for a few bad actions by a few bad people. I understand that many paint with a broad brush and associate them with violence, and I wish that there had never been any rioting. But I also believe most people who discount BLM would have done so regardless, because I believe they generally trust the police and mistrust young black people. Not all, but most. I believe most intelligent and decent people are able to separate a movement from the actions of a few assholes, and see the injustice that they are opposing.
I was talking about sexual assault in general, including groping and more. And that’s definitely in the same ballpark as rape. If you see it as minor enough to be “out of the ballpark”, then I think you might not understand the harm it does to (mostly) women. Grabbing a boob (for example) at a workplace could mean that you just condemned a woman who felt safe at work to years or a lifetime of never feeling safe in the office again.
There was criticism of violence from the beginning. The vast majority of BLM leaders and advocates always advocated for peaceful protests and denounced violence. If BLM is tarnished then it’s only because you refuse to separate the individuals from the movement, which you are willing to do for the CR movement. I find that unacceptable, indecent, and unintelligent.
I think broad brushes are always wrong. You should too.
Oh, there is a difference. Don’t kid yourself. Blacks or Native Americans demonstrate, they are violent troublemakers. Bundy and his “we forgot our food gang”, or that white “alt right” clown who recently shot the cops in Idaho, well hell, they’s just good Murricans bein’ patriotic and shit.
God damn right there is a difference. I’m a dumb ass white guy and even I see it.
One thing to think about while we’re at it. Maybe it’s only a few bad cops… BUT when those few keep doing things and are repeatedly protected, WTF do you expect to happen? The “thin blue line” and the “code of silence” exist. The “system” is broken.
When there is no justice to be had, there is revenge. It’s simple human nature.
OK so anything that happened during the civil rights era is CRM to you. I disagree.
So you think we’re stuck with supporting BLM or abandoning the cause of highlighting police bias altogether? I disagree.
A tiny minority of cops shoot black men without justification and they should eb criticized, heck, throw them in jail I say. But they don’t represent cops as a whole. The vast majority of cops criticize unjustified shootings and have done so from the very beginning. So lets not paint cops with a broad brush and assume there is a problem with policing in America. The problem lies with just a few cops. Amirite?
I think that violence undermines the organization. You think it can and should be ignored (more or less) in determining the legitimacy of the organization. I don’t think the problems facing BLM comes close to the problems facing the CRM. Most of the members of BLM have a meaningful ability to vote that members of CRM did not always have. Most of the members of BLM have avenues for expressing their dissatisfaction with their governments that members of the CRM didn’t have. I don’t condone violence in the 60’s but we did not have a functional democracy back then so I can understand how that might be the only avenue that some people felt they had because marching seemed to be a good way to get beat up by the cops.
Oh OK, I thought you were talking about violence that occurred during the riots and looting.
In your calculation of who is the victim of violence, are you including the justifiable use of force by police in the execution of their duties? Or are you just saying that police brutality exists so that somehow excuses or lowers the bar for violence committed by BLM protesters? Sometimes two wrongs do make a right. Is this one of those times?
I don’t know about age but they were probably poorer just because blacks on average have below average wealth. The Tea Party was not particularly wealthy but not poor.
No of course they weren’t all caught on video but every shooting has been scrutinized. Anything fishy about these shootings have been brought to our attention. And now with the prevalence of body cams we will catch more and more of these incidents on video.
Can we similarly limit the criticism of police to the actions of the handful of police officers that have unjustifiably killed black men? Of course not, these killings didn’t occur in a vacuum just as the BLM violence did not occur in a vacuum.
Well, BLM is not beyond redemption. If BLM can keep its shit together in the wake of an acquittal of someone like the Walter Scott shooter, then perhaps they have changed their ways. If they can’t then I don’t see why anyone should take them seriously beyond their threats of violence.
The ACLU would like to have a word with you.
The SPLC would like to have a word with you.
The Department of Justice would like to have a word with you.
Every fucking media outlet in the country other than Fox news would like to have a word with you.
Or are these organizations also all affiliated with BLM?
I will raise my hand and admit that if I am walking through a parking lot at night, I feel less nervous walking by a bunch of cops than I would walking by a bunch of young black men. I realize that for many black people, the opposite is true.
I can separate BLM from the cause they represent. I have a lot more trouble separating BLM from the actions of BLM members.
I still feel like she would feel significantly less safe if someone stuck their penis in her vagina without her consent. Like not even in the same ballpark.
I find the race riots that occurred DURING the Civil Rights Movement separable from the Civil Rights Movement itself. I also apply a different standard for the use of violence when democracy is not open to you a la Jim Crow, literacy tests, poll taxes, etc.
So you never characterized the Tea party based on the behavior or comments of particular tea party members? You would probably be the only on this board.
