BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

I find this a very strange study to have done.

https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2020/0630/1150450-english-tv-commentary-shows-racial-bias-study-claims/

I've also noted that most sprinters who are black get complimented on their speed and explosive power out of the blocks. It's just racist to claim that the majority of world class sprinters are black. They obviously only want proportional representation.

It's definitely not a predisposition that certain races have for certain tasks (not all mind you, but enough to see a trend).

Racism.

****ing white privilege.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Am I reading the correct website?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Is this the correct organisation?

I will highlight below what most sensible people reject:




We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Mothers, parents and children is a very strange use of language....

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So what exactly has turned you off the movement afresh this time? And is it worth considering that peope who keep being turned off the movent at every turn were actually only in favour of BLM as long as they didn't achieve any actual change? They were never in favour in practice so they're not exactly any loss to the movement.

An interesting opinion I had come across is that there is an assumption that BLM is aimed at white people where in fact this message is aimed at black people or as well, if Black people dont think "BLM" then you have a problem.

If I was to be critical of the BLM movement it would be at worst a suspicion that they are just in it for the fight and are not about solutions, secondly if they are about solutions they are sabotaging themselves by making it a black only problem. Contrast with how the gay movement approached AIDS in the 80's. They didnt make it a gay problem, they said this is a society issue.

If the focus is meant to be about perceived bad Police treatment against blacks in the US then they really should make it a "white" problem too as the police there arent shy about killing unarmed white people.

Mr. Karate

Geuze wrote: »

Am I reading the correct website?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Is this the correct organisation?

I will highlight below what most sensible people reject:




We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Yep, they seek the destruction of our societies under the guise of seeking equal rights. What has burning down businesses, toppling statues and looting for new new sneakers, HD TVs have to do with George Floyd?

Sonics2k

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Yep, they seek the destruction of our societies under the guise of seeking equal rights. What has burning down businesses, toppling statues and looting for new new sneakers, HD TVs have to do with George Floyd?

Absolutely nothing, and you know well that massive amounts of the rioting was done by people not associated with the peaceful marches, it included some black people, but a crap tonne of white dudes who had nothing to do with it and even some cops.

Meanwhile you can actively see BLM members and supporters desperately trying to stop the looters and rioters.

There was so many videos proving the above, but it seems you ignored it.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

An interesting opinion I had come across is that there is an assumption that BLM is aimed at white people where in fact this message is aimed at black people or as well, if Black people dont think "BLM" then you have a problem.

If I was to be critical of the BLM movement it would be at worst a suspicion that they are just in it for the fight and are not about solutions, secondly if they are about solutions they are sabotaging themselves by making it a black only problem. Contrast with how the gay movement approached AIDS in the 80's. They didnt make it a gay problem, they said this is a society issue.

If the focus is meant to be about perceived bad Police treatment against blacks in the US then they really should make it a "white" problem too as the police there arent shy about killing unarmed white people.

Yeah it would be much easier to ignore of they were a hugely broad group that campaigned for world peace, cures to cancer, heard disease, racism, poverty, crime, the environment, unlimited free energy and whatever else you're having.

In reality the more pointed they make the message the more penetration they can have. And I think you'll agree that they've made waves in the last few weeks. Huge social and government change, discussions around the dinner table and I tenet (as we're doing right now).

So is it fair to say they your criticism amounts to criticism of the fact that it's been successful?

Do you suppprt BLM yourself?

Mr. Karate

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Yep, they seek the destruction of our societies under the guise of seeking equal rights. What has burning down businesses, toppling statues and looting for new new sneakers, HD TVs have to do with George Floyd?

It's about disrupting society.

It's within their own literature and they're quite open about it. It's an extension of how the Black Panthers behaved. The logic being that traditional peaceful protests don't accomplish much because they're allowed to fade into the background... whereas causing "a scene" grabs the attention of everyone, therefore making their protests memorable. There's no limit on what they consider acceptable behavior as long as their "message" is promoted. Which is why they receive a lot of criticism, because their organisation is too similar to a militant approach, again, similar to the Black Panthers.

GreeBo

weldoninhio wrote: »

Have you actually read their manifesto and aims?? I don't think you have, and therefore you, and the likes of you, are useful idiots for them.

Yes I have, thanks.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah it would be much easier to ignore of they were a hugely broad group that campaigned for world peace, cures to cancer, heard disease, racism, poverty, crime, the environment, unlimited free energy and whatever else you're having.

In reality the more pointed they make the message the more penetration they can have. And I think you'll agree that they've made waves in the last few weeks. Huge social and government change, discussions around the dinner table and I tenet (as we're doing right now).

So is it fair to say they your criticism amounts to criticism of the fact that it's been successful?

Do you suppprt BLM yourself?

I wouldn't be particularly supportive of BLM. Are you supportive of the "police free" reclaimed zones?

GreeBo

weldoninhio wrote: »

I would say the complete opposite. Every time a black person is murdered by a cop it makes headline news and there are riots and political handwringing.

Doesn't happen every time a cop shoots a white person, which happens a lot more.

You think there is a riot everytime?
You clearly have no clue about the reality of the situation.

Also the distinction is police shooting an innocent black person.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah it would be much easier to ignore of they were a hugely broad group that campaigned for world peace, cures to cancer, heard disease, racism, poverty, crime, the environment, unlimited free energy and whatever else you're having.

You stawmanned my point there

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you suppprt BLM yourself?

Yes of course , all lives matter

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wouldn't be particularly supportive of BLM. Are you supportive of the "police free" reclaimed zones?

Some aspects I'm very supportive of. The protest in general I'm very supportive of. The police free zones are certainly getting a lot of publicity and that's great.

Obviously it's not a realistic long term goal and it's not something that I'd support bring generalised to the rest if the country. It's a great point of protest though. So, yes and no. On balance, yes. Great work is being done.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

How did I take away from the purpose of BLM? Yeah... I didn't.

It's completely pointless discussing anything with you because you insist on inserting crap that I haven't said, and the seeking to argue your own inserted crap.

"You want to make the whole debate solely about racism... I'm more interested in the complete situation."

*You* want to make the BLM matter about something other than *they* want it to be about.
How is that anything other than you diluting their stance and taking away from their purpose?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

"You want to make the whole debate solely about racism... I'm more interested in the complete situation."

*You* want to make the BLM matter about something other than *they* want it to be about.
How is that anything other than you diluting their stance and taking away from their purpose?

I referred to issues that concern the black community other than direct racism, and if you had really done your research, then you would know that BLM have some references (to those particular areas) in their literature.. As such, what I spoke about was relevant to the thread, just not concerned with the area you want to talk about.

So... go ahead complaining about racism with others, and if someone wants to discuss other areas of concern, then, they don't need your permission to do so. It's all still related to BLM and equality for Black people in the US.

Also, as far as I'm aware, BLM didn't start this thread, so discussing anything here is not taking away from their purpose.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

You stawmanned my point there

You criticised ut because it's just about black people. What should it be about, in your view?

GreeBo

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Yep, they seek the destruction of our societies under the guise of seeking equal rights. What has burning down businesses, toppling statues and looting for new new sneakers, HD TVs have to do with George Floyd?

Tar, meet brush.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't be particularly supportive of BLM. Are you supportive of the "police free" reclaimed zones?

If police were repeatedly targeting and in some cases killing you and were not protecting or serving you, your opinion of a police free zone might change.
If you renamed it a "Racist Free" zone would you get more support?

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

If police were repeatedly targeting and in some cases killing you and were not protecting or serving you, your opinion of a police free zone might change.
If you renamed it a "Racist Free" zone would you get more support?

Yea, but the police aren't doing what you're claiming though. There isn't systematic racism against blacks in the police.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You criticised ut because it's just about black people. What should it be about, in your view?

the police keeping everyone safe as much as humanly possible, not just black people, it wasnt cryptic

SozBbz

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yea, but the police aren't doing what you're claiming though. There isn't systematic racism against blacks in the police.

Tell that to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Elijah McClain, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Alton Stirling, Philando Castile.....and these are just some of the high profile cases.

Bur since internet randomer Abuses Toilets says theres nothing to see here, then clearly its all anti white nonsense.

briany

The thing about calling for peaceful protest is that peaceful protest feels like an alternative term for 'protest we can ignore, and then ridicule'. Thinking back to the 99 percent protests, there was a serious whiff of, 'Yeah, I'd love to go down and protest meself, but some of us have work during the week...'

And the problem with violent protest, or even protests where a proportion of protesters become violent, is that they contain violence and then the protest is quickly dismissed as pure thuggery, and nothing more than a nihilistic orgy of vandalism and theft.

So, really, there's a playbook either way. You're either a hippie bum who needs to get with the program, or you're a hoodlum who needs to go to jail.

Apologies if someone has made this point already;

The reason for it being 'Black Lives Matter', instead of 'All Lives matter', is that, after a long history of white people in charge, we don't need to fight for our place at the table.

Complaining about the movement being only about 'black lives' is like complaining that there's no Straight Pride parade.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies if someone has made this point already;

The reason for it being 'Black Lives Matter', instead of 'All Lives matter', is that, after a long history of white people in charge, we don't need to fight for our place at the table.

Complaining about the movement being only about 'black lives' is like complaining that there's no Straight Pride parade.

That reminds me, it's almost time for the yearly Loyalist equality parades up north. Who's going?

Foxtrol

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Yep, they seek the destruction of our societies under the guise of seeking equal rights. What has burning down businesses, toppling statues and looting for new new sneakers, HD TVs have to do with George Floyd?

So you're associating the BLM group on the worst people that claim links to the BLM message.

By that logic I presume you also associate the people that use the WLM and ALM with the White Supremacists, Nazi's and Far Right groups that love those messages.

Glinda

The trouble with 'White Lives Matter' or 'All Lives Matter' is that they aren't used as a stand-alone statement, they are a reply to the statement that black lives matter. So, they are a contradiction or a rebuttal of the statement they reply to.

If I met a friend in the street and they said 'Hey, Glinda, it's my birthday!" and I replied with "lots of other people have their birthday today too" it would be rude and dismissive. If I mentioned at another time, away from that conversational context, that lots of people have their birthdays on the same day it would be perfectly neutral.

If someone studying Ireland's history of Mother and Baby homes said to you "it was awful, so many little children died", and you replied with "People die every day" it would be rude and dismissive. Because, in that context, it's a rebuttal of the significance of the thing they just said. Away from that particular conversation, it doesn't have the same connotations, and it's a perfectly acceptable statement.

The reason 'black lives matter' needs to be said right now is because, quite clearly, some very powerful people think they don't, or at leaast not as much as white people's lives. Trying to broaden the spotlight out and away from the problems being discussed in this particular conversation (i.e. problems black people want to talk about urgently, because they are being killed) absolutely is diluting and diverting from the main issue. Not that there arent other important issues, but this is it's own thing, and deserves it's own space.

People shouting about how their own particular (unrelated) problem should be brought into the centre of the discussion are deflecting from the very real problem at hand. That's why it's an issue.

Foxtrol

weldoninhio wrote: »

I would say the complete opposite. Every time a black person is murdered by a cop it makes headline news and there are riots and political handwringing.

Doesn't happen every time a cop shoots a white person, which happens a lot more.

The only thing quoting cop shooting data does is show a person doesnt understand how bad the data is.

If you were truly interested in less white people getting shot by cops you'd support BLM, as the majority of their requests for reforms are common sense, what we take for granted in Ireland, and unarguably would help everyone in every community.

AbusesToilets

SozBbz wrote: »

Tell that to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Elijah McClain, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Alton Stirling, Philando Castile.....and these are just some of the high profile cases.

Bur since internet randomer Abuses Toilets says theres nothing to see here, then clearly its all anti white nonsense.

There are an equal number of white people to match those cases. It's not about race, poor policing in many instances, but not because the institutions of law enforcement are set against the black community.

https://samharris.org/can-pull-back-brink/

https://time.com/4404987/police-violence/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c-E_i8Q5G0

Some pieces that go into more detail with respect to facts around the conversation. The video is on Tony Timpa dying in similar circumstances to George Floyd, perhaps worse for the fact that he called 911 himself for help.

AbusesToilets

Glinda wrote: »

The trouble with 'White Lives Matter' or 'All Lives Matter' is that they aren't used as a stand-alone statement, they are a reply to the statement that black lives matter. So, they are a contradiction or a rebuttal of the statement they reply to.

If I met a friend in the street and they said 'Hey, Glinda, it's my birthday!" and I replied with "lots of other people have their birthday today too" it would be rude and dismissive. If I mentioned at another time, away from that conversational context, that lots of people have their birthdays on the same day it would be perfectly neutral.

If someone studying Ireland's history of Mother and Baby homes said to you "it was awful, so many little children died", and you replied with "People die every day" it would be rude and dismissive. Because, in that context, it's a rebuttal of the significance of the thing they just said. Away from that particular conversation, it doesn't have the same connotations, and it's a perfectly acceptable statement.

The reason 'black lives matter' needs to be said right now is because, quite clearly, some very powerful people think they don't, or at leaast not as much as white people's lives. Trying to broaden the spotlight out and away from the problems being discussed in this particular conversation (i.e. problems black people want to talk about urgently, because they are being killed) absolutely is diluting and diverting from the main issue. Not that there arent other important issues, but this is it's own thing, and deserves it's own space.

People shouting about how their own particular (unrelated) problem should be brought into the centre of the discussion are deflecting from the very real problem at hand. That's why it's an issue.

So, when is it appropriate for other issues to grace the limelight? Given that addressing many of the actual problems surrounding this issue is process that will likely take decades. For example, we're not talking about the issue of climate change, even though is the single most pressing concern for us as a species. We're not talking about the 100,000 people dying per year due to the opioid epidemic. We're not talking about the humanitarian disaster in Yemen, or Syria. We're not talking about the massive homeless population in our country, or the ridiculous cost of healthcare.

Is a person now a racist because they don't center their live around the issues of the black community, or dispute the ideas that White people should feel ashamed or responsible for every problem in the US, and the world at large?

SozBbz

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There are an equal number of white people to match those cases. It's not about race, poor policing in many instances, but not because the institutions of law enforcement are set against the black community.

Well white people account for over 76% of the US population, while black people are just over 13%.

So if as you say, there is an equal number, then black people do indeed have a problem.

Source - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There are an equal number of white people to match those cases. It's not about race, poor policing in many instances, but not because the institutions of law enforcement are set against the black community.

Some pieces that go into more detail with respect to facts around the conversation. The video is on Tony Timpa dying in similar circumstances to George Floyd, perhaps worse for the fact that he called 911 himself for help.

Then you should be supporting BLM demanding police reform.

They aren't demanding separate rules on how police deal with different races. They aren't saying they want to ban choke holds for black suspects but the cops can keep choking whites.

It seems like BLM are much more directed in helping all communities than you are, where your focus is just on invalidating the perspective of the black community.