Black Lives Matter

I didn't mean to imply you did say that.

We do need to look into these things more closely because there could be hidden motivations that we are unaware of. Like I said before, there is decent evidence that the drug war was started by Nixon specifically to target minorities. I would call that pretty racist.

 

It is pretty clear that the fight against racism was already heading in the right direction as acknowledged by the amount of white people that would have had to vote for a black president. Imo there was no need for this movement. Seems to only create tension between white and black people.

 

I think it's more about justice than equality at this point.

The Black Lives Matter movement doesn't condone shooting police. A man who decides to do this isn't a representation of the BLM movement. Just because a black person kills a cop, doesn't mean that the BLM movement agrees with this. There can be black person who believes in the BLM movement and thinks that cops should be killed, but that just means that they're confused about their own beliefs.

Do we take poverty and how black families have been oppressed for centuries into account when we talk about committing non-violent crimes? Or even violent crimes? Generations of families have been raised differently based on where and why they started out here in America.

Just because something causes tension, doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. Just because something causes tension, doesn't mean that it's the creation's fault (in this case, the BLM movement).

 

I mean that's assuming everyone is a racist. You can still have a black president with 40% of the country being rampant racists and you can still have people who are fine with a black president but still wouldn't want their kid to date a black guy. I don't think electing Obama means much of anything for the state of racism in the country.

 

"Please, stop killing us when we didn't do anything wrong!"

How is that asking for privilege?

Also when you say "SJW", are you trying to say that people shouldn't fight for social justice?

 

According to the Harvard study I linked somewhere, blacks are already 20% less likely to be shot by police in similar situations than white people. Why is it that people think that people think that black lives don't matter when white people are the ones being targeted and ignored by everyone?

 

They're not wrong when they say that their lives should be valued. They very well deserve to live each of their lives down to the very last breath. However, when they go around chanting "dead cops now", then there is a problem. By doing so, they are demonstrating that they have little to no regard for the lives of others, which essentially means that they want their lives to be valued more than that of others. It's just wrong for a movement that is supposedly pushing for equality to devalue others.

 

From the article:

"Moreover, the results do not mean that the general public’s perception of racism in policing is misguided. Lethal uses of force are exceedingly rare. There were 1.6 million arrests in Houston in the years Mr. Fryer studied. Officers fired their weapons 507 times. What is far more common are nonlethal uses of force.

And in these uses of force, Mr. Fryer found racial differences, which is in accord with public perception and other studies.

In New York City, blacks stopped by the police were about 17 percent more likely to experience use of force, according to stop-and-frisk records kept between 2003 and 2013."

 

Ah okay - is it the official position of BLM that they all want to kill cops?

And I've seen that video, it doesn't answer my question at all.

 

You're twisting my words here; I'm not saying that their main agenda is to kill cops. I understand that their goal is to bring liberty and justice to blacks who were wrongly killed by cops, but what about the others? When you are looking to better the lives of one group but simultaneously devalue the lives of another, how different is the world from when you started? I guess what I'm trying to say is that the means that they are employing to achieve their ends is rather counter-intuitive and maybe even counter-productive.

 

It is not fair to categorize an entire movement by the actions of a few that claim to be part of said movement.

Where are you finding this agenda to devalue another's life? The desire to bring attention to struggles faced by others no where devalues other struggles; rather, it simply brings attention to their own.

Edit: to the people I haven't responded to, I will do so tomorrow

 

> Movement happens and they try to promote doing X
> Extremists or a certain amount of individuals who claim to be part of movement go to the extreme and do Y
> Media has a better story and more viewers if they show Y happening instead of X
> General population make their beliefs based of what they see in the media (therefore Y)

I mean look at modern day feminism, from what I see portrayed on the internet I don't have anything to base my opinion other than the fact that they are all men hating supremacists.

 

Again, I am aware of what the BLM agenda is and I'm all for it. What I'm concerned about is the way through which some people are furthering this agenda. Call me narrow-minded for adhering only to the minority of the movement, but even then, like what this movement is all about, just because it's a minority doesn't mean we can ignore it.

 

There is no correlation between systematic oppression and nominating a black president. This is equivalent to saying "I'm not racist, my friend is black."

Systematic - done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

Oppression - the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.

Stop-and-Frisk Data | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State

The data shows racial profiling being exercised for the past 13 years. This is indicative of the number of innocent people frisked vs the amount of black people frisked in disproportionate fashion.

Black people make up 25% of New York, a lower amount than whites at 44% and hispanics at 27%, yet are frisked at a significantly higher rate. Why is that? They are being targeted.

http://newsone.com/1859475/black-people-receive-60-longer-sentences-for-same-crimes/

That is in reply to your claim of a white man suffering the same consequences for committing a crime as a black person.

I also assume you haven't heard of Brock Turner.

 

Are you assuming he was only given such a overwhelmingly small sentence because of the color of his skin?

Obviously things like him being from a wealthy family, and his potential as a swimmer came into play.

 

Only because of the color of his skin? No. You simply don't go from having to face up to 14 years in jail, to prosecutors asking for 6 years, to facing 6 months, to only having to face 3 months because of the color of your skin. Wealth, status, background, and other variables are considered. However, if we were to replace Brock Turner with an indigent black person with a similar athletic status and background, the outcome would not be the same.

 

Of course but BLM seems to specifically concentrate on police shootings, which is horribly misguided.

Stop and frisk is stupid in so many ways and basically it allowed people's biases to go unchecked without any oversight. Since blacks commit a vastly disproportionate amount of crime it is natural for people to lump them all together and act like they've all committed crime. There is no way around this and the correct solution is to put up barriers to bias for everyone, not just for blacks. BLM needs to stop whining about non-existence institutional racism and realize it's just people's natural and justified biases and take a deep look inward at the black community and a deep look at policing tactics that affect everyone, not just blacks. BLM thinks black people are special and they simply aren't. Shitty policing affects everyone and it only affects blacks more because of their shitty violent culture.

 

Ehh, if a problem is shoved aside and other areas are then focused on, are we not ignoring the other problem?

I have already addressed terrorism, it is practically non-existent in the U.S. It is irrelevant when it comes to the daily lives of Americans.
Mass shootings are more psychological if anything and they also contribute to a fraction of gun deaths.
Global warming is not even accepted to exist by the nominee of the Republican Party rwhich is supposed to represent millions in the U.S. (the only leader of a major party in the world who declares this); rather, it was a myth started by the Chinese to hurt the U.S. Economically!!
Drugs has actually been getting quite a bit of coverage due to the huge rise in heroin overdoses.
Human trafficking is largely ignored in part due to the idea that most of the people in the u.s. Are not effected by it. The U.S. Is also a tier 1 country so again human trafficking is hardly the chief concern.

I'm not really going to argue these are not necessairly issues; rather, that just because they are issues, does not mean they should detract from other issues. Priorities may need to be made, but statistically there are a lot more police involved shootings then the likes of mass shootings and if people are not interested in certain news, it will likely not be covered.

This may come down to the media you consume, but I see very little regarding BLM & LGBT until something in particular happens and then it blows up for a week or two and then dies back down. I would argue it is the same with most of these issues; if people cannot be scared, or find relevance today, then it is disregarded. There is only media coverage when there is an interest in what is occuring.

You stated that people are being arrested more because they commit the crimes more? This implies that if you commit the crime, you will be arested which is definitely not the case.

Once I get back to my computer I will link you to a very good paper that argues Obama only won by such a low margin due to racism.

Being on the right direction again does not make it obsolete + a presidential election hardly incorporates the entire will of the people. The U.S. Has notoriously low electoral participation and even at a 56% win with 60% of the population, you have a solid 40% not accounted for.

It is common and the feminist movement is the perfect example, but still doesn't make it right and I find it as a way to detract from actual grievances by whatever sect of the population and what they are arguing for/against.

Calling it a minority would even be a stretch. We currently have 3 publicized events of an actual attack on police officers (NY last year, then Dallas and Batton Rouge) out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of protests that have occured. You think it is fair to attempt to categorize a movement based off a fraction of a percentage?

 

His sentence was no surprise and was average given his background: Mad about Brock Turner's sentence? It's not uncommon - CNN.com

It looks a lot like him being a sports guy had a much bigger impact on his sentence than him being white.

 

Did you not read what you replied to?