So you got no facts to back you up. That’s fine. believe whatever makes you feel comfortable in your bubble.
I think there must be more to this analogy that you are not communicating because right now I don’t see how it is a particularly good analogy.
How about the shooting in Charleston? Or the myriad (hundreds or maybe even thousands) of instances of petty vandalism and minor assault that occur every year?
This dwarfs anything associated with BLM.
BLM has made this issue prominent in recent years. It wasn’t until they made it prominent that body cameras started to spread, and many police departments actually changed their policies. They’re not the only organization doing good in this area, but they’ve been the most successful lately.
Wow. You really agree Freddie Gray was “justifiably killed”? I guess this is why we’ll probably never see eye to eye on this issue. And “they” who rioted were a few assholes, not the entirety (or any significant portion) of BLM.
If you really believe that Freddie Gray was justifiably killed then there’s no point in talking any more. Truly inhuman.
The shooting at Charleston was a KKK incident?
Cite?
Or are you attributing all racism to the KKK?
Some part of the KKK also condemned the Charleston shootings, does this condemnation disassociate them from the violence the way it does for BLM?
White supremacy is not an organization it is an ideology and would be wrong regardless of whether or not violence is used to achieve the goals of white supremacy. White supremacy will be wrong no matter how peaceful the organization is. If the KKK dissolved tomorrow and another racist organization took up the cause, it would STILL be wrong because racism is wrong.
Protesting police brutality is not an organization and is a worthy cause. Protesting police brutality through violence is wrong, no matter how worthy as long as we have a functional democracy. BLM is wrong because it is violent, not because its cause if flawed. If BLM dissolved tomorrow and another organization took up the cause, that new organization would not be wrong. Its time to dump BLM and start over with a less violent organization.
Does this mean we can associate the assassination of cops with BLM? Can we associate everything that anyone ever does because they’re angry with the police with BLM? Of course nt. But we CAN associate riots that are incited by BLM rhetoric and grow out of BLM protests with BLM.
I think we saw this disconnect in our different views about the Civil Rights Movement. You associate all the violence and riots during the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King Jr. despite the fact that he focused on non-violence and none of his protests ever devolved into violence because they shared some common frustrations. IIRC, you similarly BLM riots to all liberalism.
I think you can attribute violence that grows out of BLM protests and is incited by BLM rhetoric to BLM. I don’t think you have to look any further to some broader movement in liberalism.
I don’t agree. I think the general outrage throughout society in general from watching videos of cops dropping tasers on corpses to cover up murder, or throwing 12 year old girls in bikinis to the pavement and sitting on them are far greater drivers of this change in policing.
I’m sorry, I misspoke. I was thinking of Michael brown for some reason. The cops were negligent in the Freddie Grey case.
The “they” who rioted in Baltimore were responsible for:
“Civil unrest continued with at least twenty police officers injured, at least 250 people arrested, 285 to 350 businesses damaged, 150 vehicle fires, 60 structure fires,[12] 27 drugstores looted”
You can continue to minimize the violence but the only people who buy that excuse are people who are looking for a reason to excuse the violence.
I’m sorry I misspoke. I was thinking of Michael Brown. A death while restrained and in police custody is not justified.
I said “KKK and other white supremacists” – and yes, I think they are inextricably bound up together.
Feel free to try and start such an alternate anti-police-mistreatment organization. I doubt you will, since your concern over police brutality and bad policies seems far, far less than your concern about the (orders of magnitude less) small amount of bad behavior that has occurred at some small number of BLM events.
You’re wrong, not surprisingly, about my views on the CR movement. No, MLK Jr. is not responsible for any violence associated with marches and events he led or was allied with. Neither is BLM.
The perpetrators of such acts are responsible.
Yes, they are different from the KKK and other white supremacists. Different goals, different actions, different histories.
Of course you don’t agree. Why would you? That might mean acknowledging that BLM has actually accomplished anything positive.
That’s beyond the realm of possibility, I take it? How could any movement that has had some violence occur at their events possibly accomplish something positive? It’d be like saying that radical abolitionists were part of the abolition of slavery, even though some radical abolitionists were violent!
Any such violence is inexcusable. Where have I excused it? You just want me to blame BLM, and I won’t, since I’m not going to attribute bad behavior to a larger group that explicitly says they oppose such bad behavior. Some assholes just join in, which will occur in a large, rather unorganized group consisting mostly of poor and younger people.
God forbid people protest such injustice in large numbers, though, since such large-scale protests make it impossible to prevent every possible instance of violence.
Your view makes it trivially easy to discredit any protest – just throw in violent assholes. Any anti-BLM group could decide that, from now on, they will pay violent assholes to disrupt every anti-police-brutality event from now until the end of time. That means that useful idiots like Damuri Ajashi will disavow the organization, and any allied organizations, and never have to actually commit to action opposing police brutality.
But MLK and other Civil Rights advocates (including the race rioters) are NOT inextricably bound up together?
I don’t think one is necessary.
I think that the one thing that BLM has shown us is that much of the concern about police mistreatment of black men is overblown. Protest after protest, riot after riot, we see that in the vast majority of police shootings, the police behaved appropriately.
What violence (by protesters) was there at MLK led marches?
When your protest includes violent rhetoric then of course you are responsible for that violence.
So by that logic the KKK is not responsible for the hangings and lynchings under Jim Crow. Just the folks who actually engaged in hanging and lynching?
You prefer a violent group with virtuous goals to a peaceful group with reprehensible goals? I don’t give a shit how reprehensible your speech is as long as you are peaceful. You seem to think that violence is acceptable on a sliding scale depending on the merit of the underlying speech.
I think they were useful at the start of the movement to increase awareness of the issue at the beginning and then they turned violent.
There is nothing wrong with the movement. Just BLM. Just as there was nothing wrong with the Civil Rights Movement but the violent riots are subject to criticism (but less criticism than the BLM riots because democracy was not working under Jim Crow).
So when the KKK say they oppose violence, does that exonerate them from the bad behavior of a few bad apples?
And yet MLK had many large marches without such inevitable incidents of violence.
That’s a lot of conspiracy theorizing. So why weren’t the MLK marches violent? The FBI was certainly interested in discrediting him. Why didn’t they use false flags and agents provocateur to discredit him?
Why wasn’t the Tea party violent? Why wasn’t the women’s march violent? Why wasn’t the march for life violent? Why weren’t they afflicted with the inevitable violence associated with large protests (and each of these were significantly larger than the protests in Baltimore). There is nothing inevitable about this violence and when you dismiss it as the acts of a few when so many other large protests go off without a hitch, you are for all intents and purposes excusing the violence.
No, it’s because you are a fucking moron.You are the message board equivalent of a pigeon shitting on the chess board and then strutting while thinking you won the game. You didn’t. You have shit this thread up so bad that no one (except iiandyiiii) can be bothered to argue with a stupid racist asshole like you. Congratulations, you dumb fucking piece of shit.
Where did I say they weren’t?
No we don’t. We see this, perhaps, in a few. We see in many that the evidence may not be strong enough to indict or convict, but there still might have been serious wrongdoing. And we see in many others that the policy and law might have been followed, but the police actions were still immoral and discriminatory.
There aren’t MLK Jrs growing on trees. There aren’t unique movements and unique moments in history available for all to benefit from. There’s just the messy present, and messy leaders, and messy movements – virtually all of them. Even the CR movement had some violence on the margins. But MLK Jr. was perhaps a once-in-a-thousand-years talent, and without such a person, it might just not be possible to get 100% of people in every single march and event (or nearly every single one) to behave absolutely perfectly.
I think you’re holding them to unrealistic standards. Downtrodden people are more likely to respond with anger, and angry people (justifiably angry!) are more likely to lash out. It sucks, but that’s the real world. There will probably never be a perfect protest movement.
Right – which is why BLM, with peaceful rhetoric, isn’t responsible for the violence of a few assholes at a few of its events.
No, since the KKK explicitly advocated for such behavior, from the top on down.
There is no “violent group with virtual goals” and no “peaceful group with reprehensible goals”. BLM is a largely peaceful group with peaceful goals, and the KKK is a largely violent group (based on their history) with violent rhetoric and goals.
My paragraph above about MLK Jr. applies here.
The KKK is an explicitly violent organization, with violent rhetoric and goals. Even if they say they oppose violence, that doesn’t take, since their other rhetoric and goals haven’t changed. There’s no way for such an organization to “oppose violence” except by ceasing to exist. The Nazi party can’t be reformed; neither can the KKK. Neither can white supremacism in general.
See above.
There was some level of violence that occurred at events and marches associated with all of these movements. Somehow, not surprisingly, anything bad associated with black people is magnified by the media, culture, and our society in general. Most BLM events and marches do, in fact, “go off without a hitch”, but that doesn’t matter to folks who demand unrealistic perfection in the causes and groups they would support. There will never be a perfect movement, and there will probably never be another one that came as close to perfection as the CR movement led by MLK Jr.
I suspect that any time a cop kills someone that isn’t actively shooting at them, we are going to hear claims of immorality. So lets go with discriminatory.
You name a discriminatory shooting and I will name 3 that are not.
[quote]
There aren’t MLK Jrs growing on trees. There aren’t unique movements and unique moments in history available for all to benefit from. There’s just the messy present, and messy leaders, and messy movements – virtually all of them. Even the CR movement had some violence on the margins. But MLK Jr. was perhaps a once-in-a-thousand-years talent, and without such a person, it might just not be possible to get 100% of people in every single march and event (or nearly every single one) to behave absolutely perfectly. -/quote]
They are not required to behave perfectly or even peacefully, just non-violently. Don’t burn stuff or loot stuff.
MLK was special but he is by no means unique or once in a millennia talent. Was Louis Farrakhan also a one in a thousand year talent because the million man march didn’t break out into rioting?
Were the organizers of the march for life also one in a thousand year talents.
The women’s march.
The fucking Tea party?
He is not the only person to lead a march that did not devolve into violence.
In fact, peaceful protest is the rule rather than the exception in this country.
[quote]
I think you’re holding them to unrealistic standards. Downtrodden people are more likely to respond with anger, and angry people (justifiably angry!) are more likely to lash out. It sucks, but that’s the real world. There will probably never be a perfect protest movement.
So when you get in front of a crowd and say 'burn the bitch down" that’s peaceful rhetoric? Do you need a link to youtube videos of the sort of "peaceful rhetoric they were chanting at these “peaceful” protests? or do you have access to google.
Cite.
Except BLM.
There are a shitload of these, starting with the Republican party. Fred Phelps church. the list of reprehensible but peaceful groups is pretty long.
There is a world of difference between the stated goals and objectives of the KKK and BLM. Its not comparable. But when it comes to actual violence that exists in the real world. BLM has been responsible for more than the KKK. THAT’s how violent BLM is.
And my response regarding the million man march, the march for life, the women’s march and the goddam tea party applies here.
So where do they advocate violence? Their message may be hateful and I’m not going to defend their message, but despite all their hateful language they are more peaceful than BLM.
Fred Phelps church is a pretty hateful organization. They seem to be perfectly capable of being peaceful and hateful at the same time.
So you don’t think white supremecists can be peaceful?
See above.
So show me the videos of Tea Party riots. Show me the videos of march for life riots. Show me the cars burning during the women’s march. Show me the videos of looting during the million man march.
Not interested in discussing this any more. Your mind is closed, and your endless stubbornness is boring.
Boring end to a boring discussion with a boring poster, at least on this issue. Hopefully some day you’ll recognize that this tiny amount of violence and bad behavior – and it really is minuscule, in the scheme of things – matters very, very little compared to the generations of brutality and mistreatment that is being protested.
ditto. You seem to think I should agree with you because you feeeeeeeel (or something)
Hopefully, someday you will realize how you feel about the effects of violence are irrelevant. The greater part of the general public thinks less of BLM because of the violence associated with it and justifiably so.
No, they are not protesting generations of brutality. They are protesting present day brutality.
So I suppose we will never know why the women’s march and the million man march and the march for life and the tea party and the KKK marches don’t devolve into rioting and looting yet the BLM marches do. It must be the racist media.
We will forever wonder if there are quite as many cases of racist police shootings as you claim. So I will repeat the same offer I made to Elucidator. For every unjustifiable shooting you present, I will present a justified shooting that was protested by BLM. Surely, BLM the population of unjustified shootings outnumber the justified shootings if BLM actually protested it.
Not interested in this silliness (nor your hyperbole, exaggerations, and outright false statements about BLM), which would prove nothing either way. Just a silly game.
Public service announcement: If the most patient poster on the SDMB, IIANDYIII, can’t handle debating your dumb ass you have some serious personality defects that you should address right away.
Denver police tell protesters that it is illegal to exercise free speech without a permit.
It’s even illegal to carry a copy of the Constitution at a demonstration without a permit.
And this is how we know you are an idiot. Idiots (of the liberal variety) resort of accusations of racism when they are mad and losing an argument.
What have I said that you think is racist? The use of racism has become a crutch for liberals and has allowed way too many idiots to infiltrate your ranks because almost any idiot can shut down an average debate with charges of racism. Sorry buddy but that doesn’t fly here without something to back it up.
No, I understand. its ok. You can’t address my points about all the other non-violent movements and you keep clutching to the fiction that violence is virtually inevitable in a protest movement in order to excuse the violent nature of BLM. I’m not saying that violence is their objective but it doesn’t make them any less violent.
iiandyii is no more susceptible to facts, reason, and logic changing his opinion than any other liberal stuck in a liberal bubble. I bet Bricker (who changes his opinion based on facts on a fairly frequent basis) wouldn’t do so if he had a chorus of people in his bubbles calling the person he was debating a racist, a dumb ass, etc.
Not one of the peanut gallery can address the point I bring up any better than iiandyii and that’s fine inside this liberal bubble but that doesn’t make these facts any less potent outside the liberal bubble that SDMB has become.
You’re not interested in discussion, quite obviously, just dancing around and playing dominance games. I’ve thought you were reasonable in other threads, but perhaps I was wrong, or perhaps it’s this one issue. Or maybe you’re just a troll. Either way, what a shame.
This being, what, the third time you have announced that you aren’t interested in discussion.
Regards,
Shodan