You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I also think it's useful to separate individuals from a group. With almost everything in life there is more variation between individuals within a group than between groups. i.e. knowing what group someone is from tells you very little about them as an individual. It's one of the most powerful arguments against racism really - if you know (or believe) that group X has more of Y, that tells you absolutely nothing about any individual you meet. Within group X, Y could vary by 100% but between group X and Z only by 3%. So it's mad to use any racist belief to inform your interactions with people.
In the case of George Floyd, it's also dangerous to draw group wide inferences based on those individual circumstances. Without assigning blame, the combination of those police officers on that day with George Floyd had tragic results. But to extend that event to say the police systematically kill black people does not seem to supported by data and the variation between the people involved and their groups will be massive.
As I said above, black people are killed in disproportionate numbers.
So what was your point again?
Our police aren't self-funding either which makes a fundamental difference. Defunding isn't just about reducing budgets, its about changing the funding model so that the money is given by the community (via local government) rather than taken (via fines and citations).
Ebennet, excellent example. Some people are bad teachers regardless of how well read they are on a subject.
Black people are shot and killed disproportionately by the police in America per capita.
There is no conclusive evidence that an individual black person being arrested by the police is at a higher risk of being shot and killed. 13% vs 20%. The tragic anecdotes misrepresent this.
The levels of violent crime and murders committed by blacks is very high. 13% vs 50%. This speaks more to problems of inequality than indiscriminate targeting by police. Black suffer the most from this crime, driving inequality further.
The above points challenge some of what BLM stands for but not others, and the problem of BAME inequality is abhorrent.
Why does this matter? Well the US is fighting a culture war that plays to Trump based on unsupported claims. We're sort of importing it and I think that's not good and won't achieve it's aims.
In regards to NYPD budget:
"Spending on personal service (salaries and wages, including overtime) is 88 percent of the NYPD’s budget, with other than personal service spending (including items such as contract costs, operating expenses for equipment, and vehicle maintenance costs) consuming the remaining 12 percent."
"The NYPD fiscal year 2020 headcount is 54,003 employees. Of those, 36,178 are uniformed employees and 17,825 are civilian employees. In addition to administrative positions, civilian employees include 9-1-1 call responders, school safety agents, and transportation enforcement agents. "
When trying to understand NYPD policing views, budget imho is irrelevant. Its the "broken windows" theory aggresively enforced by Guliani that defines NYPD view on policing. Up to this day it is still a point of discussion, since when the policy was implemented, crime stats went down, however it is argued that this was a countrywide trend. A recent study(2017) showed that major crime complaints actually went down when this was temporary halted-although it has some big fat error bars in the data.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5
So it’s mad to use any racist belief to inform your interactions with people.
Yet people still do, some knowingly, I believe many on an unconcious level (I know I was guilty of that, I'm sure I still am, but I'm working on it!).
But to extend that event to say the police systematically kill black people does not seem to supported by data and the variation between the people involved and their groups will be massive.
I think "systematically" carries too heavy an emphasis. But black are being killed by the police in disproportionate numbers, and it's right that this be addressed, the shame of it is that it's taken mass protests to even start to address it.
The levels of violent crime and murders committed by blacks is very high. 13% vs 50%. This speaks more to problems of inequality than indiscriminate targeting by police. Black suffer the most from this crime, driving inequality further.
Whilst I agree on the problems of inequality, given that black people are shot and killed disproportionately by the police in America per capita, what's your assesment of equality in the legal system?
I have got absolutely no idea what equality in the legal system is like in the US. If you're suggesting that it accounts for some of the difference in %s of violent crime that's a big claim. You would need to isolate race from other factors to do the study which would hard.
Also, if I was a scientist I would not touch questions like that with a shitty stick. 1) Because of how difficult it would be to study and what would even do with the results and b) you'd run the risk of being Charles Murray'ed if you weren't careful or results didn't say what was expedient
But black are being killed by the police in disproportionate numbers, and it’s right that this be addressed,
Can you provide actual numbers for that beyond black Vs everyone else? You can't just look at the numbers of people killed by police because that doesn't tell the whole story. If the majority of violent or armed crime is committed by black people then the likely hood is the police are going to be shooting at black people compared to white or Hispanic or Asian.
If you are armed and you commit a crime the likely hood of you getting shot is going to be higher than if you don't commit a crime.
Whilst I agree on the problems of inequality, given that black people are shot and killed disproportionately by the police in America per capita, what’s your assesment of equality in the legal system?
Your statement is not clear. One has nothing to do with the other. Unless your argument is that a black person has a higher likelihood of being stopped, and therefore over represented in situations where lethal force is justified.
There is prejudice in non-lethal force: " Using official statistics from New York City’s Stop, Question and Frisk program, he finds that blacks and Latinos are more likely to be held, pushed, cuffed, sprayed or struck than whites who are stopped. "
In terms of lethal force:
"Given a situation in which the police officer is likely to be justified in using lethal force, is he more likely to choose lethal force if the subject is black?" The answer is no
discussion page:
https://www.bruegel.org/2016/07/racial-prejudice-in-police-use-of-force/
Journal:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399
If you’re suggesting that it accounts for some of the difference in %s of violent crime that’s a big claim. You would need to isolate race from other factors to do the study which would hard.
Well, we know that, in the UK, black people on average get longer sentences that white people, and on average serve a higher percentage of their sentence in custody. I don't know if anyone's directly researched race in the judicial system but I might have a look at US figures.
@poah & tomd. You're pedanting yourselves in to looking a bit racist tbh. Repeating the numbers shot and killed is to misunderstand the issue, that's one output of a system that favours white over black, look at prison population, the crime figures you've mentioned yourselves, arrest statistics, economic outcomes all point to the fact that black people are systematically discriminated against. It's not that hard, really. You're clinging onto one element, that was the spark to the movement but it's about much more than that.
Can you provide actual numbers for that beyond black Vs everyone else? You can’t just look at the numbers of people killed by police because that doesn’t tell the whole story. If the majority of violent or armed crime is committed by black people then the likely hood is the police are going to be shooting at black people compared to white or Hispanic or Asian.
If you are armed and you commit a crime the likely hood of you getting shot is going to be higher than if you don’t commit a crime.
Sure.
Black people disproportionately killed by US police
Black people shot by police twice as likely to be unarmed than white people
The second link is to a Nature report that references a research paper that's paywalled, so not looked at the numbers myself. I think it should also be noted that US police figures are incomplete because they don't like giving them out, make of that what you will.
So if you grant me for a minute that the video of George Floyd is not representative of the treatment of black people by the police in the US.
So a worthwhile and noble cause was energised on the back of alternative facts. If you take a consequentialist view you can maybe argue that that's OK. I don't see it that way, and I don't think it's ethically right to stir up fury at the wrong thing. I think we can aspire to better and there is no need to use videos like this to make the case racial equality.
What do we do the next time, and there will be a next time soon, that video emerges of a black person being horribly killed by police? Do we go and have a good riot and undermine the police in the western world even more?
I cannot believe folk on here so badly miss the point! FFS the racist policing in the US is not in any doubt at all. Its proven.
The BLM protests have been outstandingly peaceful, despite the presence of right-wing agitators, and the widely-reported police brutality of people of all colours at the protests has done much to undermine the police themselves.
So a worthwhile and noble cause was energised on the back of alternative facts.
"Alternative facts" such as "Black people are shot and killed disproportionately by the police in America per capita", right?
So a worthwhile and noble cause was energised on the back of alternative facts
It's interesting that this is the thing you are most concerned about, in all of this. I say, interesting, actually it's just shitty.
Black people: 'we want to end systemic racism and inequality'
White guy: 'yeah but you're doing it all wrong'
@tomd there's a wealth of evidence that black people suffer disproportionately at the hands of the police. The vast majority of this discrimination is not reflected in the shot dead statistics. George Floyd was not shot dead, Rodney King was not shot dead. You've found yourself a straw man, well done.
I also see on American forums a lot of folk trotting out the argument that black-on-black violence is much higher than comparators and 'there's no smoke without fire' in terms of provoking police brutality, etc.
All this ignores the wider point - which various posters above have already made - that this is the tip of a much bigger iceberg involving discrimination in education, cross-generational transfer of wealth, employment, health and probably lots of other factors too that I'm not immediately aware of as a white male.
Thestabilser where is this wealth of evidence? The only study I can see suggests 93% of low enforcement deaths involve firearms which sort of undermines the idea that police are going round routinely suffocating people to death.
There do seem to be differences in interactions with law enforcement but again it's not clear what the causation of that is.
There are none so blind as those who will not see
There do seem to be differences in interactions with law enforcement but again it’s not clear what the causation of that is.
Black people are uppity and they deserve it? What do you mean by 'differences in interactions'.
Honestly it's not surprising accusations of racism get bandied around when people like you keep coming out with all this selective disingenuous BS.
Whichever numbers you look at non black are higher. But the elephant in the room with with Police killings is the fact that despite being less than 50% of the population, 95% of those killed are male.
Men are over-represented by 20 times. The overwhelming evidence is for systematic bias by gender, not race.
Men are over-represented by 20 times. The overwhelming evidence is for systematic bias by gender, not race.
Oh, just ____ off.
Oh jeez.
Black people are uppity and they deserve it? What do you mean by ‘differences in interactions’.
Honestly it’s not surprising accusations of racism get bandied around when people like you keep coming out with all this selective disingenuous BS.
If you could point where I've been selective I'd appreciate that, rather than imply I'm a racist. As to your straw man, no one really no knows beyond anecdotes how law enforcement interacts with different ethnic groups. If you have the information please share it, otherwise you're going by intuition.
Go and talk to some black people in US and ask them how they feel about the police, how scared they are of getting stopped as it will lead to a different outcome than a white person.
White kids don't have to be taught in how to handle the police if they stop you. This is part of black and hispanic duty as a parent in US.
I even picked it up in the US roller skating documentary that was discussed here a few weeks back. Mainly covered roller skating from a black point of view and there was a scene where a family leaving a skating rink were noticeably scared/overly cautious just walking by a police car. Would a white person have the same feelings walking by a police car...
As to your straw man, no one really no knows beyond anecdotes how law enforcement interacts with different ethnic groups.
Dismissing evidence as anecdotal when it is long-standing, plentiful and consistent does seem a bit "determined not to agree", if you don't mind me saying so.
There do seem to be differences in interactions with law enforcement but again it’s not clear what the causation of that is.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, I'm going to assume it's a duck until proven otherwise.
Would a white person have the same feelings walking by a police car…
In a similar vein, I haven't seen a single video by a white person of a black person on a phone to the police saying "send help, a white person has just attacked me".
Tomd, your discussion has been had and the questions you have raised have been addressed on the George Floyd thread.
It seems that a few members have posted on this thread in order to gaslight and take it off topic.
I admire the OP for talking about inequality and asking the original question. Many people have thought that we've moved on and that racism had ended with the millennium, so it's come as a surprise to see the protests. Racism is difficult to discuss because of white fragility and blindness, we see racism as just hate but it's also apathy, discrimination, disinterest, ignorance, privilege, power...
Racism can be seen and felt in every aspect of life in the UK, it's not just a few bad eggs and the police. As white people don't experience it we don't often see it, and because the system is set in our image and we are the benefiters and perpetrators we often become defensive, as Jambo said "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
The protests and ongoing momentum have come about largely because of frustration with the system, it's lacking accountability and legislation which render the Equality Act useless. We've played by the rules but the game is rigged, BLM movement has encouraged people to share lived experiences and unite under a hashtag. By doing so publicly they are holding the system accountable, Scottish education is a an example of a corrupt system where I've identified clear institutionalised racism.
Edinburgh is currently in the news with Miguel Chui and John Andrew having called out racism in two of its schools. The council has called in lawyers to advise, but there's no legal aid for the victims.
In a similar vein, I haven’t seen a single video by a white person of a black person on a phone to the police saying “send help, a white person has just attacked me”.
The central park video really nailed the point, and by not actually involving tragic violence probably made it clearer than anything else.
The white woman understood that the police force was for her, that whether she was right or wrong didn't matter. All that mattered was his blackness, that alone would be likely to result in a positive result for her and a negative result for him.
Its hard to thinker of a clearer recent example of what systemic racism look like.
Well said ^^^^
Edit: originally in relation to faerie's post though richmtb is right too
At the risk of triggering you,
Ah, you're one of those.
if you know (or believe) that group X has more of Y, that tells you absolutely nothing about any individual you meet.
Whilst technically true, if you pat 15 dogs and the first 14 bite you then you're going to be wary of going near the fifteenth even if it transpires that it's soft as muck. Now replace "dogs" with "police officers."
Because, yes, the YouTube videos etc may be outliers. I've said many times that with any demographic it's usually a minority that give the rest a bad name. But there's a lot more videos out there of the US police giving a subdued victim a beating when said victim is black as opposed to white. Even if you're going to basically recycle the "not all men" BS argument, that should be sufficient indicator that there may be a problem here.
Faerie
My mother understands racism in fact she taught me about it. She is not denying racism in any way. She just could not see why "all lives matter" was not the stronger statement and I could not find the words to explain to her. ( she is extremely clever and good with words so an inadequate explanation would not do and any waffle from me would have me shot down in flames)
Once again tho STW helped by giving me simple words and analogies to explain this and then in typical STW style the conversation was derailed
If you guys think I am a stroppy argumentative pedant then think who I learned this from - the master of argumentative pedantry - my mother! 🙂
Whilst technically true, if you pat 15 dogs and the first 14 bite you then you’re going to be wary of going near the fifteenth even if it transpires that it’s soft as muck. Now replace “dogs” with “police officers.”
It kind of breaks down in that you're using a process of inductive reasoning to determine that all dogs you encounter bite, based on the sample of the past 14 that you've encountered. It's probably a pretty safe assumption to make to get you through life. When you have a sample of 10,000,000 arrest per year, and you know that 0.0001 will result in a fatal shooting but you can't link that probability to race then it doesn't apply in this case. Presumably with all the body cams and things like that now you could study arrests to identify more subtle discrimination but I don't know that it's been done.
Because, yes, the YouTube videos etc may be outliers. I’ve said many times that with any demographic it’s usually a minority that give the rest a bad name. But there’s a lot more videos out there of the US police giving a subdued victim a beating when said victim is black as opposed to white. Even if you’re going to basically recycle the “not all men” BS argument, that should be sufficient indicator that there may be a problem here.
Did you really sit and tally them up? If we were going to draw conclusions about the world based on videos online you'd assume the world was a pron filled cat den.
When you have a sample of 10,000,000 arrest per year, and you know that 0.0001 will result in a fatal shooting but you can’t link that probability to race then it doesn’t apply in this case.
Well - we've already agreed that black people are disproportionately killed by police. That is ONLY not significant if you think that killings are the ONLY proof of racism.
Presumably with all the body cams and things like that now you could study arrests to identify more subtle discrimination...
That would be great, if they didn't keep "falling off", or "breaking".
When you click on that piece of work, which presumably you are using to support your case that "the difference between white policeman killing black civilians vs other ethic groups of civilians isn't as big as some would have you think"
There's a retraction at the top right of the report...If you click on the link, the authors of that report carefully explain that the authors wish to note the following..:
“Our article estimated the role of officer characteristics in predicting the race of civilians fatally shot by police. A critique pointed out we had erroneously made statements about racial differences in the probability of being shot (1), and we issued a correction to rectify the statement (2).
Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research.
While our data and statistical approach were appropriate for investigating whether officer characteristics are related to the race of civilians fatally shot by police, they are inadequate to address racial disparities in the probability of being shot.
Given these issues and the continued use of our work in the public debate on this topic, we have decided to retract the article.”
This appears to be a case of Inigo Montoya's selection criteria for claiming reports say one thing, when they are trying hard, in fact, not to draw those conclusions. If you've found that report yourself, be more careful. If you are using other sites to do that research and you are just copying and pasting, be more careful about which sites you choose to reference. So, as you've challenged others, please find the data that supports your claim that black civilians are not more likely to be shot by white cops.
It kind of breaks down in that you’re using a process of inductive reasoning to determine that all dogs you encounter bite, based on the sample of the past 14 that you’ve encountered. It’s probably a pretty safe assumption to make to get you through life.
Are you starting to understand now why:
White kids don’t have to be taught in how to handle the police if they stop you. This is part of black and hispanic duty as a parent in US.
Addressing systemic inequality is a large part of the BLM movement
I’m sorry but this clearly isn’t true at least in the UK. A few weeks ago BLM were protesting about slavery 200 years ago. Since then it has come to light that slavery of Asian people in the uk today is going on and we haven’t heard a word from BLM on the subject. Is it because they are not interested in modern slavery, just historic, or is it because the victims are from a different community? It’s hard to come up with an alternative explanation
Only if you're sufficiently obtuse to sincerely believe BLM is only interested in slavery from 200 years ago.
It’s hard to come up with an alternative explanation
This is simply the "what about my legs?" argument again.
Or maybe that not all movements can be expected to take on board everything that's wrong with the world. Some people are really looking hard to find fault aren't they.
A few weeks ago BLM were protesting about slavery 200 years ago
Is that what they were doing? Really? 🙄
Well they were doing a good job of vandalising anything they could that had to do with slavery.As far as I can tell slavery is this main focus or perhaps it was their other stated aim of abolishing police forces and the criminal justice system whilst having no suggestion as to what might replace it
Whataboutery is a good catchphrase for not wanting to discuss a point. I presume it means you can’t come up with an answer. I simply don’t believe BLM are not aware of the slavery recently reported in UK cities and as a group have chosen to do nothing about it. They were able to organise protests very quickly about the past so why not current slavery? I’m not suggesting they take on all the world problems I’m just surprised one as close to their cause wouldn’t be of interest to them
Because that isn't particularly what the movement is about? It's about addressing systemic racism directed towards black people.
Do you criticise Save the Children for not doing anything to help animals?
Edit: ah I see you're just wilfully ignorant. Leave voter by any chance?
Well they were doing a good job of vandalising anything they could that had to do with slavery
One statue that the locals had been battling for years to take down - d'you think that's all they could find?
Whataboutery is a good catchphrase for not wanting to discuss a point. I presume it means you can’t come up with an answer.
Is that pre-emptive? No-one's accused you of whataboutery, have they?
I simply don’t believe BLM are not aware of the slavery recently reported in UK cities and as a group have chosen to do nothing about it. They were able to organise protests very quickly about the past so why not current slavery?
"Chosen to do nothing about it"? These are largely unorganised displays of solidarity with the movement, saying they support/do not support specific causes is pretty ignorant
I’m not suggesting they take on all the world problems I’m just surprised one as close to their cause wouldn’t be of interest to them
No you're not, you're just happy to use it as an argument.
Well they were doing a good job of vandalising anything they could that had to do with slavery
... of their ancestors.
Jesus wept.
I was of the opinion that the BLM movement had done a great job of making people who haven't experienced racism, understand it better (and be more willing to call it out when they see it).
Now I'm not so sure.
Since then it has come to light that slavery of Asian people in the uk today is going on and we haven’t heard a word from BLM on the subject.
This is a great example for the OPs mum on how some people use the "all lives matter" argument to try to diminish BLMs legitimate message.
As far as I can tell slavery is this main focus or perhaps it was their other stated aim of abolishing police forces and the criminal justice system whilst having no suggestion as to what might replace it
I've only just realized that these two quotes are from the same poster.
The only reason you would think that the BLM movement was about any of these things is if you had spent less than 20 seconds in the last 2 months trying to understand it.
They are pulling down statues of slave owners in the UK (and confederate generals in the US) because a statue is about celebrating somebodies life and achievements TODAY. And it's not right that TODAY we celebrate the lives of people that brought death and mystery to so many people. Pulling down a statue is not "changing history" (which is usually an associated argument) - that person existed, their life is documented in the history books exactly how it was, and the statue would have stood for X many years already - nothing can change that. However, the protesters are saying that this persons life should not be celebrated TODAY with a statue.
Nobody (except perhaps a tiny fringe) are suggesting "abolishing police forces". Whats being demanded is "defund the police". This means that police in the US should not be asked (and therefore funded) to perform specific roles/tasks that would be better handled by a different group. They are basically saying that sending a roided-up 200lb gorrilla with an assault rifle into every situation is not appropriate, and does more harm than good. Consider that the police in the US view themselves very differently to police officers in the UK - pulled over for a routine traffic violation? The police officer will have his holster unclipped and his hand on his gun when he asks you to wind down the window. There have been several situations recently where the police have shot unarmed people with mental heath problems, because they are not sufficiently trained.
Nobody is suggesting abolishing the criminal justice system - people are asking for reform so black people aren't routinely given longer/tougher sentences that white people convicted of the same crime..... which seems fair enough.
Anything in that you disagree with?
Anyone that questions/doesn't understand the intent of BLM and comes up will stupid arguments against it is clearly part of the problem. They are ignorant at best and racist at worst.
BLM is black people getting a bit uppity about things. And we can’t be having that can we?
Anyone that questions/doesn’t understand the intent of BLM and comes up will stupid arguments against it is clearly part of the problem. They are ignorant at best and racist at worst.
This is what is wrong in the world today. Anyone that doesn't agree gets shut down and the fastest way to do that is to throw insults and accusations of racism, homophobia etc.
To be fair, I suspect that anyone that says "All Lives Matter/White Lives Matter/I don't see colour*," etc etc, is straight up showing their white fragility, which is a level of racism, although I choose not to call it as directly as that because I think it's counter-productive.
* I don't know if I would have been one of the All Lives... crew, but I have definitely said "I don't see colour" in the not too distant past. Didn't mean it in a racist content, but that didn't make it a non-racist thing to think.
This is what is wrong in the world today. Anyone that doesn’t agree gets shut down and the fastest way to do that is to throw insults and accusations of racism, homophobia etc.
Yeah, that's the main problem in the world isn't it.
I mean, it is for angry, entitled, privileged white people with no genuine problems anyway.
Yeah, that’s the main problem in the world isn’t it.
I mean, it is for angry, entitled, privileged white people with no genuine problems.
What makes you think I am angry, white or privileged?
What makes you think I am angry, white or privileged?
I wonder...
A timely news story, in light of yesterday's discussion.
Met police 4 times more likely to use force on black people
I wonder…
Could it be racial stereotyping?
This is what is wrong in the world today. Anyone that doesn’t agree gets shut down
Are you being shut down? Seems to me that you're perfectly able to say what you want on the subject, no?
Are you being shut down? Seems to me that you’re perfectly able to say what you want on the subject, no?
No I am not being shut down. I was just commenting on the post by Kerley that states that no-one should be allowed to question the motives or operation of any organization that have an anti racist agenda or they are themselves a racist. That is a VERY dangerous opinion and one that I will raise a voice against.
I was just commenting on the post by Kerley that states that no-one should be allowed to question
ISWYDT
Person 1: Anyone that questions/doesn’t understand the intent of BLM and comes up with stupid arguments against it is clearly part of the problem. They are ignorant at best and racist at worst.
Person 2: You just said I shouldn’t be allowed to question their motives
Person 1: No I said stupid arguments are probably either ignorant or rwcist
Person 2: Now you’re cancelling me!
Person 1: No, you’re cancelling ME!
Person 2: But that‘s just shutting people down
Person 1: No, YOU’RE shutting people up. Down, up? Anyway racism is so ingrained that you don’t even see when you’re doing it!
Person 2: Now you’re just trying to shut down people you don’t agree with by calling them names. That’s The Left. The Left are the real fascists with their feminazi soyboy Muslim-terrorist apologist, gulag-worshipping post-Modern Marxist communist cancel culture. Amirite? Prove me wrong you can’t.
Person 1: No, YOU’RE trying to shut down people you don’t agree with by calling them names
Person 2: No you.
Person 1: Your mom
Person 2: My face
Person 1: That doesn’t even make sense
Person 2: Your face doesn’t even make sense
Person 1: ...”
ad-infinatum
Trump wins. Brexit wins. Cancel-culture backfired, libcucks! YOOESSAY! And now here’s a word from our sponsor...
You sound quite angry...
Could it be racial stereotyping?
It probably feels that way to you.
Well, if anyone has any non-racist objections to BLM, I for one am all ears. 🙂
Well, if anyone has any non-racist objections to BLM,
Well, there’s the Marxism thing isn’t there? 😀
Ah, yes - bloody left-wingers, with their anti-capitalist "equality for all" nonsense! *shakes angry fist* 🙂
one should be allowed to question the motives or operation of any organization that have an anti racist agenda or they are themselves a racist
So, you don’t like people questioning the motives of people questioning the motives of other people? Right, got it.
I was just commenting on the post by Kerley that states that no-one should be allowed to question the motives or operation of any organization that have an anti racist agenda or they are themselves a racist. That is a VERY dangerous opinion and one that I will raise a voice against.
Maybe read what I actually said. It was about the intent/need for the movement and people being ignorant to the intent/need for such a movement.
I will put you in the ignorant category as assuming you are not against the intent of equality for black people.
It probably feels that way to you.
Well, you did read one post from someone on the internet, and based on the view point automatically assumed they were an angry privileged white person.
No I am not being shut down. I was just commenting on the post by Kerley that states that no-one should be allowed to question the motives or operation of any organization that have an anti racist agenda or they are themselves a racist. That is a VERY dangerous opinion and one that I will raise a voice against.
No.... no he didn’t. Here you go, I’ve bolded the important bits:
kerley
MemberAnyone that questions/doesn’t understand the intent of BLM and comes up will stupid arguments against it is clearly part of the problem. They are ignorant at best and racist at worst.
No…. no he didn’t. Here you go, I’ve bolded the important bits:
So if I quote the interview where one of the founders of BLM calls herself and one of the other founders "trained Marxists" am I not understanding their intent or am I making a stupid argument?
Im interested to know. I don't have a particular problem with BLM for what its worth, but what I am for is open debate and freedom of expression.
Well, you did read one post from someone on the internet, and based on the view point automatically assumed they were an angry privileged white person.
Not quite true. I think he said entitled as well.
In all of this, can anyone point me to a centralised point for the BLM movement? Clearly there is a website, but this is clearly US focussed and therefore not controlling activism in Europe. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was a much more organic thing and thus it's not really possible to attribute narrow viewpoints to the whole thing. For me, BLM means what it says - but not defining black lives by their ending, defining life as the sum of a persons experience. And black just means not white in terms of what I should be learning from the movement.
So if I quote the interview where one of the founders of BLM calls herself and one of the other founders “trained Marxists” am I not understanding their intent or am I making a stupid argument?
Egh?
I’d probably ask what your point was.
There are tens/hundreds of thousands of people literally screaming and shouting about what the intent of the protest is, months of news coverage and interviews.
I think that’s why claiming not to understand/questioning the intent of the movement comes across as a bit disingenuous.
Egh?
I’d probably ask what your point was.
There are tens/hundreds of thousands of people literally screaming and shouting about what the intent of the protest is, months of news coverage and interviews.
I think that’s why claiming not to understand/questioning the intent of the movement comes across as a bit disingenuous.
My point is the intent on the surface is well known. But why should we just accept BLM on face value, why is digging a little deeper a "bad" or "racist" thing to do? Why is it wrong to question an organisation like this?
Edit - This is not just a group of random folks in the streets shouting slogans. We are talking about a very organised, politicised and funded organization with global clout. They should absolutely be scrutinised.
Feel free to do so - ask yourself why you want to.
Edit: Are they? Cool, I thought it was more of an organic, populist movement, but let us know what you find.
Are they? Cool, I thought it was more of an organic, populist movement, but let us know what you find.
There's plenty of content to go at, but why don't you start here. Particulary the section on funding 😉
https://www.influencewatch.org/movement/black-lives-matter/
I was just commenting on the post by Kerley that states that no-one should be allowed to question the motives or operation of any organization
But you haven't asked question about BLM, all you've argued is that "no one is allowed to argue with them" which clearly isn't the case. What questions do you want to ask about BLM as an organisation?
Influence Watch - funded by oil companies and right wing billionaires. Quite critical of BLM, who'd have thunk it.
So what if they are radical, being nicey nicey has got then nowhere. And yes capitalism is part of the problem.
I don't see a problem in criticising aspects of BLM, but when you are focussing solely on that and don't seem remotely interested in any of the issues raised by them, don't be surprised if people wonder what your agenda is.
"Influence Watch is owned by the Capital Research Center, which in turn is funded through donations. Some of their top donors are Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation... The common theme among all donors is conservative political affiliation and ties to the fossil fuel industry."
Cool, they'll be just the people I'll trust.
I don’t see a problem in criticising aspects of BLM, but when you are focussing solely on that and don’t seem remotely interested in any of the issues raised by them, don’t be surprised if people wonder what your agenda is.
Yeah, I get that. But my point in this whole thing was about freedom to express ones own opinions and not get shouted down by those whose have a different opinion. That's all. I didn't actually mention BLM.
Ooh, O see this has moved on nicely since page 1. Who's been outed as the biggest racist then?
Might be a good programme for TJ's mum to watch. Nice that she wants to understand, cos there's no saving my mum!
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-talk