Black Lives Matter

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
All I know is that we are going to see what a real police state looks like if people don’t stop killing cops. I assume that’s the opposite of what the morons in BLM want. [/quote]

  1. It’s no worse now than at any other point in our lifetimes: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html
  2. Those demanding change will, of course, get what they want…in the same way that Brendan Fraser’s wishes were granted in Bedazzled. They will get plenty of oversight-oversight that will further cut down on officers’ discretion(and probably result in the firing of those few who say, “Fuck it,” and use discretion anyway). They will get plenty of cameras-cameras that bring the federal overseers into their homes every time they call police, and footage that can be used to investigate every inch of their homes.

The folks wanting Andy Griffith will succeed in completely eliminating Andy from police work. In his place, there will be some Barney Fifes, and many more that make citizens long for the days that Barney was as bad as it got.[/quote]

Ya, I agree Nick.

22

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
As someone with some liberal beliefs, I could originally understand the movement back during the Michael Brown situation, and even the Eric Garner case as well. However, I can’t help but see the movement as existing for the wrong reasons now. They’re seriously overlooking the bigger picture, which is that, yes, ALL lives matter. This movement is continuing the segregation barriers, though unintentionally (unless it’s intentional on their part).
[/quote]

Just a side note: I would characterize those cases in the exactly opposite way. The evidence suggests plainly that Wilson was legally authorized to use lethal force. On the other hand, Garner’s treatment was ludicrous and inexplicable.

As for the question above, no, BLM the movement is not responsible for cop-killing. Obviously. Deray M. and the other prominent protesters (along with their thronged masses of acolytes), buffoons and idiots though they are, are not calling for violence. It isn’t libertarianism’s fault when a nut blows up a federal building, and it isn’t BLM’s fault when a nut shoots a police officer (or when a couple dozen nuts chant a perversion of that the vast majority of the crowd is chanting).

More generally, BLM is what all these kinds of thing are these days: a group finds a worthy (though still reductive/incomplete) cause, builds a narrative, begins granting the narrative preference over fact and reality, veers into fantasyland and idiocy.

“Reductive” is the operate word in this post. BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?

23

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
BLM is (primarily) about interactions between police and black people in America[/quote]

Yes, I agree…

But, some advice for all of the black lives that matter (and they do). Here it is: Stop committing crimes and more black lives will be saved.

It really is that simple.

About 65% of federal prisoners are black. Now, you either believe that the cops from every part of the country are really, really after black people and no matter what they are going to lock more of them up because all cops are racists…

Or…you take the more sane approach and know that there are more blacks committing crimes than other racial groups.

In addition to that black on black crime is far higher than white on black crime even though blacks comprise a much smaller percentage of the population.

But of course facts don’t really matter in this argument do they?

24

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But of course facts don’t really matter in this argument do they?[/quote]

They certainly do, but all of them do, not just some.

This issue is both one of statistics and goes much, much deeper than that, and a fight that has been boiling for, at least 150 or so years.

There are a ton of things I want to say about this, mostly bashing the living shit out of democrats. But I’m trying to avoid the deep dive back into political arguments. I’m still unplugged for a few days.

25

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But of course facts don’t really matter in this argument do they?[/quote]

They certainly do, but all of them do, not just some.

This issue is both one of statistics and goes much, much deeper than that, and a fight that has been boiling for, at least 150 or so years.

There are a ton of things I want to say about this, mostly bashing the living shit out of democrats. But I’m trying to avoid the deep dive back into political arguments. I’m still unplugged for a few days. [/quote]

The left wing media makes sure that many of those facts do NOT count. Do you realize that there are people walking around both black and white that actually buy into the idea that Darren Wilson shot that thug in the back?

“Hands up don’t shoot” while a total fabrication actually caught on. And the liberal media did NOTHING to dispel it.

So, some facts count and some don’t. And some lies seem to count as well.

26

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
As someone with some liberal beliefs, I could originally understand the movement back during the Michael Brown situation, and even the Eric Garner case as well. However, I can’t help but see the movement as existing for the wrong reasons now. They’re seriously overlooking the bigger picture, which is that, yes, ALL lives matter. This movement is continuing the segregation barriers, though unintentionally (unless it’s intentional on their part).
[/quote]

Just a side note: I would characterize those cases in the exactly opposite way. The evidence suggests plainly that Wilson was legally authorized to use lethal force. On the other hand, Garner’s treatment was ludicrous and inexplicable.

As for the question above, no, BLM the movement is not responsible for cop-killing. Obviously. Deray M. and the other prominent protesters (along with their thronged masses of acolytes), buffoons and idiots though they are, are not calling for violence. It isn’t libertarianism’s fault when a nut blows up a federal building, and it isn’t BLM’s fault when a nut shoots a police officer (or when a couple dozen nuts chant a perversion of that the vast majority of the crowd is chanting).

More generally, BLM is what all these kinds of thing are these days: a group finds a worthy (though still reductive/incomplete) cause, builds a narrative, begins granting the narrative preference over fact and reality, veers into fantasyland and idiocy.

“Reductive” is the operate word in this post. BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?[/quote]

Yes, as is clear in the quote you excerpted. What, specifically, are you getting at? A refutation of something I’ve said?

27

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But of course facts don’t really matter in this argument do they?[/quote]

They certainly do, but all of them do, not just some.

This issue is both one of statistics and goes much, much deeper than that, and a fight that has been boiling for, at least 150 or so years.

There are a ton of things I want to say about this, mostly bashing the living shit out of democrats. But I’m trying to avoid the deep dive back into political arguments. I’m still unplugged for a few days. [/quote]

The left wing media makes sure that many of those facts do NOT count. Do you realize that there are people walking around both black and white that actually buy into the idea that Darren Wilson shot that thug in the back?

“Hands up don’t shoot” while a total fabrication actually caught on. And the liberal media did NOTHING to dispel it.

So, some facts count and some don’t. And some lies seem to count as well.
[/quote]

I don’t know how to say this without it sounding like I’m defending people ignorant of factual circumstances, so I’ll just bear the brunt of sounding as if I am…

I understand that, and it’s unfortunate. However, at this point, to many involved and invested in the BLM movement, the specifics aren’t as important as the overall point, and the Brown incident is but one of many, many, many over many, many, many years.

So while yes, it appears that the MB shooting was a “good shoot”, and I’m not about to fault anyone for shooting an unarmed person the size of MB attacking them, LEO or not, the facts and circumstances of that particular shooting aren’t really the point anymore. Even if it was the apparent jumpstreet of the BLM movement. Because, to many involved, at least to my understanding, the people interested in good faith, this all started a long time ago…

Right, wrong or indifferent…

28

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
As someone with some liberal beliefs, I could originally understand the movement back during the Michael Brown situation, and even the Eric Garner case as well. However, I can’t help but see the movement as existing for the wrong reasons now. They’re seriously overlooking the bigger picture, which is that, yes, ALL lives matter. This movement is continuing the segregation barriers, though unintentionally (unless it’s intentional on their part).
[/quote]

Just a side note: I would characterize those cases in the exactly opposite way. The evidence suggests plainly that Wilson was legally authorized to use lethal force. On the other hand, Garner’s treatment was ludicrous and inexplicable.

As for the question above, no, BLM the movement is not responsible for cop-killing. Obviously. Deray M. and the other prominent protesters (along with their thronged masses of acolytes), buffoons and idiots though they are, are not calling for violence. It isn’t libertarianism’s fault when a nut blows up a federal building, and it isn’t BLM’s fault when a nut shoots a police officer (or when a couple dozen nuts chant a perversion of that the vast majority of the crowd is chanting).

More generally, BLM is what all these kinds of thing are these days: a group finds a worthy (though still reductive/incomplete) cause, builds a narrative, begins granting the narrative preference over fact and reality, veers into fantasyland and idiocy.

“Reductive” is the operate word in this post. BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?[/quote]

Yes, as is clear in the quote you excerpted. What, specifically, are you getting at? A refutation of something I’ve said?[/quote]

I’ll ask you again, if you don’t know the answer it’s okay:

Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?

29

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But of course facts don’t really matter in this argument do they?[/quote]

They certainly do, but all of them do, not just some.

This issue is both one of statistics and goes much, much deeper than that, and a fight that has been boiling for, at least 150 or so years.

There are a ton of things I want to say about this, mostly bashing the living shit out of democrats. But I’m trying to avoid the deep dive back into political arguments. I’m still unplugged for a few days. [/quote]

The left wing media makes sure that many of those facts do NOT count. Do you realize that there are people walking around both black and white that actually buy into the idea that Darren Wilson shot that thug in the back?

“Hands up don’t shoot” while a total fabrication actually caught on. And the liberal media did NOTHING to dispel it.

So, some facts count and some don’t. And some lies seem to count as well.
[/quote]

I don’t know how to say this without it sounding like I’m defending people ignorant of factual circumstances, so I’ll just bear the brunt of sounding as if I am…

I understand that, and it’s unfortunate. However, at this point, to many involved and invested in the BLM movement, the specifics aren’t as important as the overall point, and the Brown incident is but one of many, many, many over many, many, many years.

So while yes, it appears that the MB shooting was a “good shoot”, and I’m not about to fault anyone for shooting an unarmed person the size of MB attacking them, LEO or not, the facts and circumstances of that particular shooting aren’t really the point anymore. Even if it was the apparent jumpstreet of the BLM movement. Because, to many involved, at least to my understanding, the people interested in good faith, this all started a long time ago…

[/quote]

That’s funny I’ve lived a lot of years and do not recall any of this being an issue until Obama took office. The person who was supposed to heal the world, bring the birds down from the air, and be at the center of lasting peace on earth…or so his supporters said back in 2008.

But he turned to be a really good rabble rousing trouble making community organizer.

So, none of this would be taking place if it were not for him. If you don’t want to talk politics that’s fine. But, facts do matter to me and the fact is Obama instigated this by what he said and by what he refused to say.

96 visits from Al Sharpton to the White House in almost 7 years speaks volumes.

30

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But of course facts don’t really matter in this argument do they?[/quote]

They certainly do, but all of them do, not just some.

This issue is both one of statistics and goes much, much deeper than that, and a fight that has been boiling for, at least 150 or so years.

There are a ton of things I want to say about this, mostly bashing the living shit out of democrats. But I’m trying to avoid the deep dive back into political arguments. I’m still unplugged for a few days. [/quote]

The left wing media makes sure that many of those facts do NOT count. Do you realize that there are people walking around both black and white that actually buy into the idea that Darren Wilson shot that thug in the back?

“Hands up don’t shoot” while a total fabrication actually caught on. And the liberal media did NOTHING to dispel it.

So, some facts count and some don’t. And some lies seem to count as well.
[/quote]

I don’t know how to say this without it sounding like I’m defending people ignorant of factual circumstances, so I’ll just bear the brunt of sounding as if I am…

I understand that, and it’s unfortunate. However, at this point, to many involved and invested in the BLM movement, the specifics aren’t as important as the overall point, and the Brown incident is but one of many, many, many over many, many, many years.

So while yes, it appears that the MB shooting was a “good shoot”, and I’m not about to fault anyone for shooting an unarmed person the size of MB attacking them, LEO or not, the facts and circumstances of that particular shooting aren’t really the point anymore. Even if it was the apparent jumpstreet of the BLM movement. Because, to many involved, at least to my understanding, the people interested in good faith, this all started a long time ago…

[/quote]

That’s funny I’ve lived a lot of years and do not recall any of this being an issue until Obama took office. The person who was supposed to heal the world, bring the birds down from the air, and be at the center of lasting peace on earth…or so his supporters said back in 2008.

But he turned to be a really good rabble rousing trouble making community organizer.

So, none of this would be taking place if it were not for him. If you don’t want to talk politics that’s fine. But, facts do matter to me and the fact is Obama instigated this by what he said and by what he refused to say.

96 visits from Al Sharpton to the White House in almost 7 years speaks volumes.
[/quote]

Are you KIDDING me, Zeb?

The Civil Rights Movement was perhaps the largest and longest “BLM” movement there ever was, and probably ever will be.

To think that somehow bringing light to certain issues, that are of real concern, somehow started with this President and his “rabble rousing” is absurd on so many levels.

Mufasa

31

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
To think that somehow bringing light to certain issues, that are of real concern, somehow started with this President and his “rabble rousing” is absurd on so many levels.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well, on some aspects I think ZEB is right. And this is 100% to Obama’s credit. (Not an achievement, as it took no direct action from him, but to his credit for sure.) I don’t think it’s outlandish to think that Obama’s victory, and re-election gave a renewed sense of hope, and at least a slight confirmation of the fact this country can and will change, can and will look beyond skin color.

Being the first Black President isn’t a small thing, and I’ve said ti before, but Obama really, really fucked up by dropping the ball when he could have had his face on Rushmore with at least an ounce of bipartisan effort, leadership and follow through focus on actually fixing things, not just getting his name on “historic” legislation that is a massive turd pile.

I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch that Obama’s presence, and the fact dude is black, does lend at least a little momentum boost to the BLM movement. That saying I’ve seen “Rosa sat so Martin could walk, Martin walked so Obama could run, and Obama ran so we could fly” is true, and Obama being anywhere between a mediocre to shit POTUS can’t take any of that away. Him winning the job, period, is a really big deal, and should inspire us, even if he didn’t bat .300 while in office.

32

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
As someone with some liberal beliefs, I could originally understand the movement back during the Michael Brown situation, and even the Eric Garner case as well. However, I can’t help but see the movement as existing for the wrong reasons now. They’re seriously overlooking the bigger picture, which is that, yes, ALL lives matter. This movement is continuing the segregation barriers, though unintentionally (unless it’s intentional on their part).
[/quote]

Just a side note: I would characterize those cases in the exactly opposite way. The evidence suggests plainly that Wilson was legally authorized to use lethal force. On the other hand, Garner’s treatment was ludicrous and inexplicable.

As for the question above, no, BLM the movement is not responsible for cop-killing. Obviously. Deray M. and the other prominent protesters (along with their thronged masses of acolytes), buffoons and idiots though they are, are not calling for violence. It isn’t libertarianism’s fault when a nut blows up a federal building, and it isn’t BLM’s fault when a nut shoots a police officer (or when a couple dozen nuts chant a perversion of that the vast majority of the crowd is chanting).

More generally, BLM is what all these kinds of thing are these days: a group finds a worthy (though still reductive/incomplete) cause, builds a narrative, begins granting the narrative preference over fact and reality, veers into fantasyland and idiocy.

“Reductive” is the operate word in this post. BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?[/quote]

Yes, as is clear in the quote you excerpted. What, specifically, are you getting at? A refutation of something I’ve said?[/quote]

I’ll ask you again, if you don’t know the answer it’s okay:

Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?

[/quote]

Refer to the first word of my last post. Ought I to explain its meaning?

Now, because it would take the promise of a worthwhile contest to entice me to play along in a rhetorical game, I suggest that you drop the questions and get to the point. (There is a point waiting somewhere in the distance, yes?) Are you trying to refute something I’ve said? If so, what? Remember that specificity is your friend.

Edited because a half-joke came off wrong.

33

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
To think that I don’t think it’s outlandish to think that Obama’s victory, and re-election gave a renewed sense of hope, and at least a slight confirmation of the fact this country can and will change, can and will look beyond skin color.
[/quote]
Unless, of course, Obama’s election was a result of his (half) non-white heritage. Then, it would be further proof that we can’t look beyond skin color. Nahhh, that’s not possible…forget I mentioned it.

34

Obama promised too much shit to too many people, and too much was expected of him being the first black president. Saying whatever you need to to get elected does have consequences, and that is what we are seeing now with all this anger. What Obama has proven is that, in a bipartisan way, all politicians are utterly full of bloviating bullshit.

35

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
To think that I don’t think it’s outlandish to think that Obama’s victory, and re-election gave a renewed sense of hope, and at least a slight confirmation of the fact this country can and will change, can and will look beyond skin color.
[/quote]
Unless, of course, Obama’s election was a result of his (half) non-white heritage. Then, it would be further proof that we can’t look beyond skin color. Nahhh, that’s not possible…forget I mentioned it.[/quote]

Sure, but I’m not convinced that enough people would base their vote entirely on skin color. Did his skin color increase turnout? Probably, but after the meltdown and displeasure with 43 I think D turnout was going to be large anyway. Then when he beat Romney, and fairly soundly, I can’t begin to assume ti was based on skin color.

36

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
What Obama has proven is that, in a bipartisan way, all politicians are utterly full of bloviating bullshit.

[/quote]

Yes, and specific to BLM I offer the following question: what has voting the democrat ticket the last 50 years done for you?

The answer to which is jack and shit, and maybe they should think about listening to other people and hearing if they have a different set of ideas…

37

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, and specific to BLM I offer the following question: what has voting the democrat ticket the last 50 years done for you?
[/quote]

Their answer. Any meaningful change needs to happen at the federal level and all legislation Obama has proposed keeps getting blocked by Republicans in the house or senate. So the solution is to convince more people to vote D so there are no roadblocks in the future.

38

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, and specific to BLM I offer the following question: what has voting the democrat ticket the last 50 years done for you?
[/quote]

Their answer. Any meaningful change needs to happen at the federal level and all legislation Obama has proposed keeps getting blocked by Republicans in the house or senate. So the solution is to convince more people to vote D so there are no roadblocks in the future.[/quote]

And it’s at this point, I shake my head, and walk away. Mostly sympathetic but knowing I can’t do anything to help people that refuse to think outside the box being fed to them by the same politicians they have been voting for five decades and getting nowhere. .

39

The death of any Law Enforcement Officer is a tragedy, that certainly makes us all less safe…

But please…

Let’s tone down the rhetoric that Law Enforcement is being gunned down left and right…and stop blaming it on this President and some “movement”

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html

(Try being Law Enforcement during Prohibition; and the “Public Enemy”/Depression Era…and the facts show that deaths were pretty high during the “Reagan Years” too…

Mufasa

40

By the way, Beans…

I really have appreciated many of your post lately (and not just on this thread).

Not because I always agreed…but because they show careful thought and reason.

That’s how we learn things.

Thanks.

Mufasa