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

MarkEadie wrote: »

They are victims of crime in Chicago. Therefore they must be black. I think that's something you'd hear from the patriotic alternative videos he has linked in the past. Completely illogical and racist

You can relax now , I'm vetting every uploader in the future . It might come as a shock to the BLM supporters but since the protests have started there's been an extra thousand black men killed than the previous year....

https://www.everytown.org/issues/gun-violence-black-americans/


Young Black men and teens made up more than a third of firearm homicide victims in the USA in 2019, one of several disparities revealed in a review of gun mortality data released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The analysis, titled "A Public Health Crisis in the Making," found that although Black men and boys ages 15 to 34 make up just 2% of the nation's population, they were among 37% of gun homicides that year.

That's 20 times higher than white males of the same age group.

Of all reported firearm homicides in 2019, more than half of victims were Black men, according to the study spearheaded by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Sixty-three percent of male victims were Black.

The contrast is even more stark when the rates were compared with white people: Across all ages, Black men were nearly 14 times more likely to die in a firearm homicide than white men, and eight times more likely to die in a firearm homicide than the general population, including women.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/06/these-black-lives-didnt-seem-to-matter-in-2020/



At least 8,600 black lives were lost to homicide in 2020, an increase of more than 1,000 compared to 2019.

In 2020, every major institution in the United States — including social-media platforms, sports leagues, universities, Hollywood, and major corporations — pledged their allegiance to the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Protesters spanned the country, outraged at the killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.

It is understandable that the nation was so united in shock and horror after Floyd’s death, and his tragic case called attention to the need for some sensible police reforms.

But if we truly believe that “Black Lives Matter,” we cannot and must not focus only on a small percentage of those lives taken (less than half of a percent) during conflicts with the police. And we certainly should not be adopting policies that could lead to even more deaths in the black community.


Last year saw the largest year-to-year increase in homicides ever recorded in US history. The homicide rate in 34 cities was 30 percent higher in 2020 compared to the previous year, according to a Jan. 31 report by the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice.

Victims of these homicides are disproportionately African American. At least 8,600 black lives were lost to homicide in 2020, an increase of more than 1,000 compared to 2019 (7,484). Violent crime is concentrated in primarily low-income, marginalized black communities where the police are underresourced and Democratic leadership has abysmally failed. In Chicago, 80 percent of gun-violence victims in 2020 were black. According to the latest data in New York City, 71 percent of shooting victims are black — even though black people constitute just 26 percent of the city’s population. The tragic reality is one black life was killed less than every hour in America last year

And yet, the probability of an African American being killed by a civilian is more than 30 times higher than that of being killed by a member of law enforcement. In Chicago’s marginalized neighborhoods last year alone, more than three times as many black children died of homicide than the total number of unarmed black Americans killed by the police in 2020.

A group of aggrieved black residents have even sued the city of Minneapolis for the lack of police protection in their communities.

“We hear gunshots every night, people’s houses being riddled with bullets,” Don Samuels, one of the residents involved in the suit, told Time magazine. “There is this kind of fantasy component that the police are not necessary and that is a life and death factor.”

https://time.com/5902962/minneapolis-residents-sue-city-police-presence/

Host out at ESPN after video surfaces of them arguing their co host only got the job because they were black.

https://www.mediaite.com/sports/just-in-espn-removes-rachel-nichols-from-nba-finals-coverage-in-fallout-from-controversial-leaked-video/

Even when a black or minority person succeeds in the US, it’s overshadowed by aspersions like this. Even Barack Obama mentioned here previously as a whataboutism to “prove” racism doesn’t exist, was himself the subject of racism from established media in the guise of asking about his birth certificate etc. because he was black and spent time out of the country as a youth. No similar level of scrutiny met Ted Cruz who was patently born on foreign soil. There were also allegations he only won because of his skin color.

The birther conspiracy was not racist, was just plain stupid. And Obama was smart enough to actually encourage and benefit from it.

Cordell wrote: »

The birther conspiracy was not racist

By what evidence do you plan to exonerate it as not racism? Why are only brown politicians forced to prove their nationality? Donald Trump, a principle antagonist for the theory decides only to question the nationality of politicians who are non-white: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/us/politics/trump-twitter-squad-congress.html, he also questioned the birth certificate for Kamala Harris.

By what motivation do you make the categorical claim that it was not racist? The evidence is prima facie.

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed, but when you have people given jobs because of diversity quotas and the likes, it will call into question the legitimacy of hires.

It's a horrible business.

It's, if I may, an example of something that was implemented with the best, positive, constructive, even humanist intentions, but at the end of the day is an implementation of systemic race discrimination.

The consternation for why the practice usually still remains, then, seems to be as justified as a restorative response to racism of the past which is the racism, still, or today (quite the quagmire). As in, before we can get to a society where there is no value or advantage or disadvantage to race, there has to first be a recuperation phase. There are understandably a lot of frayed nerves that businesses and oligarchs that got rich off of slavery only got richer, while minorities were still discriminated against, still marginalized, still criminalized, and even lynched and ransacked for acquiring wealth. And then, after the CRA passed, there was still myriad ways to discriminate against an applicant's race. So the wealth gap between the 2 key demographics is understandable yet staggering.



https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/

If you asked me to serve on a committee to decide whether my organization should use or not use it, frankly I'd rather be left out of casting a vote as I see both sides to that.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's fine.

I just think it's racist to give someone a job, or to deprive someone of a job solely on the colour of their skin.

It's that simple

Understandably so. And I think that's where the narrative begins splitting the hair of 'what exactly is racism' and 'positive discrimination' arguments, both of which are argued upon reasonably shaky ground. I think they hold some water, but not enough to convince people of a cultural axiom on how we talk about race and racism. That's where you get some overlap in topics with CRT, which is a hotly debated framework for examining and discussing race issues in the sphere of law and history and public policy.

Cordell wrote: »

It's not the fact that they're brown, it's because one or both of their parents were not US citizens. When you have foreign parents there is a good chance to be born abroad, and an US citizen can't be president if born abroad. So nothing about race or skin colour.

Ted Cruz was born abroad. The same cretins that challenged the eligibility of those brown candidates had all but the most tepid of comments about his legitimacy to run for President.

If we look for honest numbers, those that don't mix whites and asians, we get this https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf
Doesn't look so much like the systemic racist system built by whites for the whites anymore, does it?


Ted Cruz never ran for president, he failed in the primaries, and be sure that Trump team would have questioned his birthright if he were to be a real threat.

Cordell wrote: »

If we look for honest numbers, those that don't mix whites and asians, we get this https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf
Doesn't look so much like the systemic racist system built by whites for the whites anymore, does it?


Ted Cruz never ran for president, he failed in the primaries, and be sure that Trump team would have questioned his birthright if he were to be a real threat.

Running for president still means he ran for president. I see what you did there, but no, the FEC is still all over your ass when you announce you are running for President, you must file as a presidential candidate at that time. And, you typically announce you are "running for President," not "racing in the Republican Presidential Primary (Wooh!)" in most formal parlance it's a 'bid for the party's nomination' but absolutely no one doubts that they are running for President. That's quite the pisstake.


Further reading:

In place since 1976, the presidential public funding program provides eligible presidential candidates federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections.

How public funding works
The tax checkoff used to finance the presidential public funding program
Additional reports and resources for candidates, journalists and citizens
Guidance for presidential campaigns on public funding

https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/presidential-elections/

Cordell wrote: »

Right, so what?
In any case, I was wrong, he had his birth right questioned https://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462083872/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-ted-cruz
And he is white, so the birther thing is not racist.

Your conclusion doesn't seem to fit with the allegations against AOC.

Riiiight, so if he would have succeeded people could finally believe that BLM is a black supremacist terrorist organisation which they totally aren't.

Well, it's gonna take a lot more than another murder to convince those that are still defending BLM after all the loss of life they caused, either directly by their riots, or indirectly by pushing the defunding of the police.

So someone is responsible for murder if they called for police reform? That’s some pretty out there liberal logic. You’ll have us putting the gun manufacturers in prison like that

things got out of control when an Alabama city councilman outed himself as abjectly racist towards blacks after trying to defend racial slurs his wife had made on social media which had become the talk of the town. He proceeded among other things to according to true report and video footage, refer to his fellow councilwoman as a “House N__” as part of this exchange where things quickly devolved further. Racists in the halls of power are never a good look for an argument that there is no systemic racism

https://lawandcrime.com/politics/white-city-council-member-in-alabama-shocks-meeting-with-racial-slur-do-we-have-a-house-n-in-here/