Ah, good point. It could always be worse, I guess.
I believe one of the co-founders of BLM disagrees with it. So do a good many Dopers. Weird, huh?
Regards,
Shodan
Do you think it’s possible to both admit that racism exists and also recognize that some problems are caused by African Americans themselves?
Not when one issue is deliberately used to distract from the other. If you go to the doctor with chest pains, and all he wants to do is treat some other, unrelated health problem you have, you are not being well-served as a patient.
Even whackadoodle Glen Beck now says that if you don’t understand the meaning of black lives matter, the problem is with you. (Paraphrasing.)
To answer the OP’s question, there’s nothing inherently wrong with BLM, but there’s a lot of people invested into seeing it as wrong.
Some within the organization takes it too far, and that’s unfortunately because it hurts the message. But the difference between someone like that girl in the video shouting to beat up white people and a police officer who shoots a black guy unjustly is that we ALL agree she’s wrong. When police kill black people, we don’t all immediately condemn it as wrong. Some people do, eventually. Some people do, with qualifications. And some people never will.
That is because they are often justified.
We might agree that she’s wrong, but her fellow #BlackLivesMatter protesters didn’t seem to think so. They seemed to be heeding her instructions.
What, if any, affiliation does anyone in that video have with BLM? How did you determine this?
I was just going off the title of the video on YouTube, but, I suppose the #BlackLivesMatter movement doesn’t really have a public membership list to check people against, and even if they did, it’s rather difficult to determine the identities of the individual members of the mob (I think that’s part of the point of being in a mob).
Nobody disagrees with the premise itself, that all lives matter. Most sensible people, including I imagine many leaders of the BLM movement, disagree with the chanting of the slogan “all lives matter” as a purported retort to “black lives matter”, as doing so indicates a complete misunderstanding of the entire point of BLM.
The title of the video on YouTube which came from you. I mean, you’re the one who found it for the rest of us.
Let’s say, for hypothetica purposes, that I have a disagreement with the NRA. To what extent do you think that my criticism of the NRA should be focused on the principles, actions, and intents of the NRA as an organization (such as the positions espoused by the leadership or its governing officers) as opposed to statements made a gathering of NRA members at some convention or whatnot?
I suppose that hinges largely on whether your criticism is of the principles, actions, and intents of the NRA’s leadership and governing officers, or those of the hypothetical NRA members. If the NRA members had burned down a gas station or two during a riot that sprouted out of their convention, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear serious criticism leveled at the actions of the NRA members.
So you don’t know if any the people in are affiliated with BLM because anyone can put any title they want on a video.
If you want to make the case that that BLM is a violent group, you need to actually show violence being committed by members of that group.
Ok, what determines group membership?
I don’t what determines membership, but the real problem is that you don’t seem to know either. However, you have no problem labeling violent people as BLM, and then using that as evidence that BLM is a violent group.
Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. had a rifle, so he’s probably a member of the National Rifle Association, so the NRA is a violent group. Does that seem like a solid argument to you? If not, why not? How is that argument significantly different from the one you are advancing?
Based on this bit of failed sophistry, the American Heart Association really does not care if the entire population dies from cancer as long as heart disease is addressed and Wounded Warrior Project has no interest in the health and survival of any veteran who did not happen to get the Purple Heart or who got one in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII.
It is a stupid claim based on bad logic and an absence, (denial?), of facts.
Its nine according to this:
Which is nine more than in the whole history of policing in the UK.
You have said that you agree with the majority of the goals of the BLM movement.
Your bias insists otherwise.