Black Lives Matter

[zorro_]

I think the concept is good but as the movement grew and brought in more "members", BLM people have basically become SJWs, refusing to acknowledge statistics and launching emotional and ad hominem attacks against other people and organizations. As well, they seem to possess a feeling that their cause is the most important, or should constantly be acknowledged. I live in Canada, and during this year's pride parade, BLM demanded that they should have a float in the parade. Even more, they demanded that the police should not be allowed to have a float at the parade. Both demands are a complete joke, but it's just so hilarious that the BLM people believed they should be included. Pride is about sexual orientation not race.

 

[SuF]

Let's remind ourselves that African Americans are a minority group. Why do we expect a minority group to speak for everyone when they are the ones being affected more than other groups? Shouldn't activists from other racial groups start their own movement?

As I've already stated they are being affected LESS (both in terms of absolute numbers and as a percentage) than whites in regards to police shootings. Regardless, the issue they are complaining about has nothing to do with race and they are being racist by making it about race. They should focus on fixing the actual problem instead of just calling everyone racists while being racists themselves.

 

As I've already stated they are being affected LESS (both in terms of absolute numbers and as a percentage) than whites in regards to police shootings.

Let me reiterate. White people make up 62% of the country's population. Self white interaction has the highest encounter rate out of any race. Absolute numbers are a hoax, especially if the two things being compared are nowhere near close in populous size. This is why we must account for each person individually. African Americans make up 13% of the country's population, but account for 24% of those fatally shot and killed by police, whereas white people make up 49%. If we're considering each person, this means African Americans are 2.5x more likely to be shot than a white American. I'm no mathematician, but how are African Americans affected less in this way?

Regardless, the issue they are complaining about has nothing to do with race and they are being racist by making it about race.

How is it not about race? Being 2.5x likely to be shot and or killed by police than a race which makes up more than half of the country's population despite making up only 13% is pretty telling. How is it racist to bring this up?

They should focus on fixing the actual problem instead of just calling everyone racists while being racists themselves.

What is the actual problem? They aren't calling everyone racist. How are they being racist?

 

[SuF]

Let me reiterate. White people make up 62% of the country's population. Self white interaction has the highest encounter rate out of any race. Absolute numbers are a hoax, especially if the two things being compared are nowhere near close in populous size. This is why we must account for each person individually. African Americans make up 13% of the country's population, but account for 24% of those fatally shot and killed by police, whereas white people make up 49%. If we're considering each person, this means African Americans are 2.5x more likely to be shot than a white American. I'm no mathematician, but how are African Americans affected less in this way?

How is it not about race? Being 2.5x likely to be shot and or killed by police than a race which makes up more than half of the country's population despite making up only 13% is pretty telling. How is it racist to bring this up?

What is the actual problem? They aren't calling everyone racist. How are they being racist?

A recent study by a black Harvard professor found that in similar situations whites are about 20% more likely to be shot than black people: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

Black people commit more crime, are generally more violent, are generally poorly and live in worse neighborhoods so of course they have more interactions with the police and of course that means that they are disproportionality shot when you just look at their percentage of the population. It is absolutely meaningless to just compare those numbers because if X group made up 10% of the population and accounted for 100% of the crime I would expect them to be the ONLY people shot by police.

It's not about race because cops aren't shooting them because they are black. They are shooting them because they are violent thugs that are breaking the law and threatening the police. There is of course unconscious biases that people have that might make it so black people are more likely to experience poor police behavior but that is such a small problem compared to the larger problem of cops being assholes and shooting people. If you solve the bigger issue 99% of the shootings go away for everyone and of course you will still have the 1% that were actually racist. What BLM is doing is racist because they are turning a non-racial issue into one. They are purposely dividing us and that is not ok and they should be called out for being the awful people they are.

 

A recent study by a black Harvard professor found that in similar situations whites are about 20% more likely to be shot than black people: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

The study was performed accounting for 3 states, Texas, Florida, and California. Not only that, but this study ranges from 2000-2015. Police brutality got worse in the last 5 years.

Black people commit more crime, are generally more violent, are generally poorly and live in worse neighborhoods so of course they have more interactions with the police and of course that means that they are disproportionality shot when you just look at their percentage of the population. It is absolutely meaningless to just compare those numbers because if X group made up 10% of the population and accounted for 100% of the crime I would expect them to be the ONLY people shot by police.

Let me give you some statistics from 2015.

• Police killed at least 102 unarmed black people in 2015, nearly twice each week.
• Nearly 1 in 3 black people killed by police in 2015 were identified as unarmed, though the actual number is likely higher due to underreporting
• 37% of unarmed people killed by police were black in 2015 despite black people being only 13% of the U.S. population
• Unarmed black people were killed at 5x the rate of unarmed whites in 2015
• Only 10 of the 102 cases in 2015 where an unarmed black person was killed by police resulted in officer(s) being charged with a crime, and only 2 of these deaths (Matthew Ajibade and Eric Harris) resulted in convictions of officers involved. Only 1 of 2 officers convicted for their involvement in Matthew Ajibade's death received jail time. He was sentenced to 1 year in jail and allowed to serve this time exclusively on weekends. Deputy Bates, who killed Eric Harris, will be sentenced May 31.

Police killed more than 100 unarmed black people in 2015

It's not about race because cops aren't shooting them because they are black. They are shooting them because they are violent thugs that are breaking the law and threatening the police. There is of course unconscious biases that people have that might make it so black people are more likely to experience poor police behavior but that is such a small problem compared to the larger problem of cops being assholes and shooting people. If you solve the bigger issue 99% of the shootings go away for everyone and of course you will still have the 1% that were actually racist. What BLM is doing is racist because they are turning a non-racial issue into one. They are purposely dividing us and that is not ok and they should be called out for being the awful people they are.

There is nothing wrong with shooting unarmed people? You still haven't told me how BLM is being racist. How is this not a race issue if you say there is bias? Bringing to light an issue that affects themselves means they are dividing the country? The country has always been divided. Learn the history.

 

[SuF]

The study was performed accounting for 3 states, Texas, Florida, and California. Not only that, but this study ranges from 2000-2015. Police brutality got worse in the last 5 years.

There is nothing wrong with shooting unarmed people? You still haven't told me how BLM is being racist. How is this not a race issue if you say there is bias? Bringing to light an issue that affects themselves means they are dividing the country? The country has always been divided. Learn the history.

2000-2015 includes the last five years so the numbers already reflect the uptick you've described (although I haven't ever heard of a reputable source that shows that).

The stats you've quoted are meaningless because they lack context. What your stats have done is basically this: 258 black people were killed by police in 2015 but 494 white people were killed so clearly white people have it worse! No. It's completely meaningless without more context.

Unarmed is not the same as not a threat. If you are attacking a police officer, like Michael Brown did, the cop is absolutely in the right shooting you dead. If you don't want to get shot don't attack a cop, it's really not that hard.

I thought I had already explained how BLM is racist but I guess I'll say it again. BLM is turning an issue that has very little to do with race into an issue that is exclusively about race. I think that's racist. They are also full of black supremacists (see the Dallas shooter). Let's quote their homepage:

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a necessary prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

We are unapologetically White in our positioning. In affirming that White Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a necessary prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

Just because they are black does not make it not racist, see:

White pride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Black pride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The BLM does not care about the vast majority of black murder, which are done almost exclusively by blacks. That's racist. They do not care about white people who get shot by police. That's racist.

Do I have to go on or is it clear that having a movement dedicated to one race is basically always going to be horribly racist?

 

2000-2015 includes the last five years so the numbers already reflect the uptick you've described (although I haven't ever heard of a reputable source that shows that).

That is a given, however I meant statistics from before that time are also grouped together so you still don't get a clear understanding. If I showed you statistics from the past 5 years, it would neutralize his study, if not void it.

Police brutality has cost billions of dollars in just the last 5 years alone

Spoiler: Compare year 2000 to 2010-upwards

Source

The stats you've quoted are meaningless because they lack context. What your stats have done is basically this: 258 black people were killed by police in 2015 but 494 white people were killed so clearly white people have it worse! No. It's completely meaningless without more context.

Why do you still state absolute numbers? For each time you do so, you should also present the populous %. The statistics I presented actually show the opposite.

Unarmed is not the same as not a threat. If you are attacking a police officer, like Michael Brown did, the cop is absolutely in the right shooting you dead. If you don't want to get shot don't attack a cop, it's really not that hard.

If the officers life is in danger, yes.

I thought I had already explained how BLM is racist but I guess I'll say it again. BLM is turning an issue that has very little to do with race into an issue that is exclusively about race. I think that's racist. They are also full of black supremacists (see the Dallas shooter). Let's quote their homepage:



We are unapologetically White in our positioning. In affirming that White Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a necessary prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

Just because they are black does not make it not racist, see:

White pride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Black pride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The BLM does not care about the vast majority of black murder, which are done almost exclusively by blacks. That's racist. They do not care about white people who get shot by police. That's racist.

Do I have to go on or is it clear that having a movement dedicated to one race is basically always going to be horribly racist?

Quote from their page:

Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks’ contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

The two aren't equivalent in approach. The vast majority of white murder are almost exclusively by whites. This is no different for any other race.

I'm still not seeing how BLM is racist.

 

[SuF]

1) That is a given, however I meant statistics from before that time are also grouped together so you still don't get a clear understanding. If I showed you statistics from the past 5 years, it would neutralize his study, if not void it.

Police brutality has cost billions of dollars in just the last 5 years alone

Spoiler: Compare year 2000 to 2010-upwards

Source

2) Why do you still state absolute numbers? For each time you do so, you should also present the populous %. The statistics I presented actually show the opposite.



3) If the officers life is in danger, yes.



4) Quote from their page:



The two aren't equivalent in approach. The vast majority of white murder are almost exclusively by whites. This is no different for any other race.

5) I'm still not seeing how BLM is racist.

1) It would not in anyway void the study as the study doesn't care about the absolute numbers, only the percentages in the absolute numbers which I have no reason to believe have changed all that much.

2) I posted the absolute numbers to show you why they don't work since you also posted absolute numbers, of course they are meaningless. The statistics you posted are absolutely not the opposite and the ones that were not absolute numbers are missing context so they are also meaningless and let's show you why:

You quoted: "37% of unarmed people killed by police were black in 2015 despite black people being only 13% of the U.S. population"

and what that shows me is black people are LESS LIKELY than White people to be shot by police. Why? Look:

2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.

Blacks commit a even more disproportionate amount of violent crime in the country so they will have more interactions with police and are more likely to be a danger to police than white people. If blacks were equally likely to be shot by police as whites then black people would make up 45-62% of the people that police shoot instead of just 37%.

3) Which it clearly was in the Brown case but BLM still holds him up as a poster child.

4) I don't think what you've quoted is relevant to what I've said and I do not believe blacks are systematically targeted in police killings. I think the statistics show that they are likely systematically NOT targeted.

5) Clearly I know the definition of racism. Post in good faith or do not post at all, please.

 

1) It would not in anyway void the study as the study doesn't care about the absolute numbers, only the percentages in the absolute numbers which I have no reason to believe have changed all that much.

2) I posted the absolute numbers to show you why they don't work since you also posted absolute numbers, of course they are meaningless. The statistics you posted are absolutely not the opposite and the ones that were not absolute numbers are missing context so they are also meaningless and let's show you why:

You quoted: "37% of unarmed people killed by police were black in 2015 despite black people being only 13% of the U.S. population"

and what that shows me is black people are LESS LIKELY than White people to be shot by police. Why? Look:



Blacks commit a even more disproportionate amount of violent crime in the country so they will have more interactions with police and are more likely to be a danger to police than white people. If blacks were equally likely to be shot by police as whites then black people would make up 45-62% of the people that police shoot instead of just 37%.

3) Which it clearly was in the Brown case but BLM still holds him up as a poster child.

4) I don't think what you've quoted is relevant to what I've said and I do not believe blacks are systematically targeted in police killings. I think the statistics show that they are likely systematically NOT targeted.

5) Clearly I know the definition of racism. Post in good faith or do not post at all, please.

1. Older averages would not be in concert with newer ones. If you add newer numbers to averages already stabilized, there is minimal difference. Using decade old data to prove a current event wrong in which rates have changed dramatically is the equivalent of showing an older picture of an object to prove it's in a certain condition in real time.

2. The statistics I gave accounted for each individual person. That is the opposite of what you posted. All of a sudden you care for context and in the same breath take context out of statistics that benefit your argument. None of these statistics are 100% accurate, it's an estimate.

Also, we're still talking about unarmed people being shot by police, correct? The statistics you're giving is not relevant to the statistic I gave and that you quoted. Crime is more apparant in poorer areas of inner cities. That is something that needs to be fixed, but the correlation isn't there. If an unarmed black person gets shot by police, does crime statistics showing black people commit crime at a disproportionate rate warrant the shooting? This is where you're getting at.

3. It's still a high profile case of an unarmed black person being killed by a police officer. At most, the situation could've been handled better.

4. I was showing BLM's course of action. I was countering your claim that BLM's objective is not caring about police brutality in a general sense, only caring about police brutality when they are the ones affected (which isn't a bad thing considering they are a minority group). If you re-read the quote you will understand, hopefully.

5. Clearly you do not if you're claiming BLM is racist, but have yet to give an example that is by defintion racist.

 

[whydontyouhaveaseat]

If "BLM" cared about blacks killing other blacks, then I could understand their point. They only have an issues when it's police officers killing blacks in either an unjustified/justified situation.

I get their is a problem with racism in this country, but they are going about it the wrong way and ironically BLM in itself is racist/discriminatory in the fact they ignore black on black crime.

 

[SuF]

1. Older averages would not be in concert with newer ones. If you add newer numbers to averages already stabilized, there is minimal difference. Using decade old data to prove a current event wrong in which rates have changed dramatically is the equivalent of showing an older picture of an object to prove it's in a certain condition in real time.

2. The statistics I gave accounted for each individual person. That is the opposite of what you posted. All of a sudden you care for context and in the same breath take context out of statistics that benefit your argument. None of these statistics are 100% accurate, it's an estimate.

Also, we're still talking about unarmed people being shot by police, correct? The statistics you're giving is not relevant to the statistic I gave and that you quoted. Crime is more apparant in poorer areas of inner cities. That is something that needs to be fixed, but the correlation isn't there. If an unarmed black person gets shot by police, does crime statistics showing black people commit crime at a disproportionate rate warrant the shooting? This is where you're getting at.

3. It's still a high profile case of an unarmed black person being killed by a police officer. At most, the situation could've been handled better.

4. I was showing BLM's course of action. I was countering your claim that BLM's objective is not caring about police brutality in a general sense, only caring about police brutality when they are the ones affected (which isn't a bad thing considering they are a minority group). If you re-read the quote you will understand, hopefully.

5. Clearly you do not if you're claiming BLM is racist, but have yet to give an example that is by defintion racist.

1) I'm not sure exactly what you are saying but I think it is highly unlikely that the pattern of police violence has changed so dramatically in the last 5 years that the 20%+ difference the Harvard study found is invalid.

2) I was not talking about unarmed people because BLM is not just about unarmed people. I was not using my example to prove my point. I was using to show why it was useless to prove a point.

3) He is held up as the poster child by BLM even though the cops actions were entirely justified. They are literally saying his life is more important than the cop's because he was black and the cop was white. I see the support of Brown has entirely grounded in racism and black superiority.

4) I disagree with their premise so I would obviously disagree with the actions they take based on that premise.

5) We aren't going to agree because we clearly have some fundamental differences in what we consider racist.

 

[SuF]

If "BLM" cared about blacks killing other blacks, then I could understand their point. They only have an issues when it's police officers killing blacks in either an unjustified/justified situation.

I get their is a problem with racism in this country, but they are going about it the wrong way and ironically BLM in itself is racist/discriminatory in the fact they ignore black on black crime.

Just ignoring black and black crime by itself may not be racist, although it could be. It all depends on the reasons and context for why the are just focusing on a certain issue as opposed to another. Granted I agree with you and think they BLM is ignoring black on black crime because they are racists and want to blame someone that isn't black.

 

[whydontyouhaveaseat]

@SuF Yeah it's partially racist particularly since most of these incidents are with white officers, and that is all that seems to bother them. But when it's a black officer it becomes more of the issue on discrimination simply against police officers, that's what I was getting at.

By ignoring the black on black crime, which in itself has a way higher margin of deaths, they are excluding it from their protests because it does not fit their "Agenda". It's ridiculous and I find it appallingly hypocritical.

 

[mage3158]

Police officers (regardless of their race) are also less likely to shoot black people than white people in similar situations according to a new study by a black Harvard professor.

You really need to get into a habit of posting sources.
It sounds like you're going off memory and I'd like to see some evidence of what you claim.

It's also very important to see what situations they used, what methodologies were employed and whether or not the study was peer reviewed.

 

[SuF]

You really need to get into a habit of posting sources.
It sounds like you're going off memory and I'd like to see some evidence of what you claim.

It's also very important to see what situations they used, what methodologies were employed and whether or not the study was peer reviewed.

I posted the source in a later post. It was easily found on Google if you searched for "Harvard study on police shootings": http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...e-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

 

[mage3158]

I posted the source in a later post. It was easily found on Google if you searched for "Harvard study on police shootings": http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...e-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

Doesn't matter, if you intend to use a study for your argument include it in your post. Especially since your argument was not completely correct.


And it seems that according to your study there is prejudice when it comes police brutality, but not in terms of lethal force (which is the same as against white people). So complaining about racially bias police brutality is fine.

 

[Program]

I don't care if it's easy to find, if you want to use a study as an argument include it in your post.

There's no point in citing sources. If you read this thread and others, the response to cited sources is "nu uh becuz nu uh". Or "you're data is inaccurate because it doesn't agree with mine and it doesn't consider all the circumstances." Which is true of the data sourced by everyone.

No one knows the facts. State your opinion and bow out. You can't prove anything unless you do a massive study that takes into account every variable. I've never seen a "Oh wow, I didn't see it that way and I didn't see that research. You're right" on this site since I joined. Waste of time arguing beyond stating your opinion and leaving.

 

It's a misguided movement and the fact that anyone that tries to even remotely speak out against it or maybe question it even a little bit is automatically labeled a racist and forced to apologize is ridiculous.

I'm not saying black people in America don't have their own struggles/battles and there definitely are instances of racism where they're unfairly judged/targeted. But at the same time I'm getting sick of the me against the world attitude a lot of them seem to have, at least from what you see in the media and I've seen it myself through personal interactions before (only a few times albeit). There is still racism in America and in some cases it's really bad but there's a LOT less racism in America than many other parts of the world.

From watching the news/listening to certain public figures that are black speak about this I can sometimes actually hear the contempt in their voice, obviously particularly against white people. It's even more annoying that they're always applauded and hardly any rebuttals are ever made against their line of thinking because that would be seen as negative/would receive backlash.

It's pretty similar to some of these feminist ideas, like remaking every movie that was popular with a male cast with a female cast to prove women can be just as good or better at things than men. Like with BLM, it can be a fair idea but imo the approach/logic is flawed.

Here's also something interesting that Blade once made a thread about

Couldnt have said it any better, this is exactly how I feel.

Edit: It's surprising how many people are CNN headline news warriors.

 

[Program]

Can we stop discussing this. It is completely off-topic and these posts should probably all be deleted. There is a difference between asking my opinion on whether I am attracted to a type of people and my views on a movement that quite controversial today in the U.S. They do not compare and a discourse on a movement is significantly different than discussing attractiveness between individuals.

If you want to respond to this, PM me please. None of this is needed on a SFA thread regarding BLM.

If that's how you feel, why didn't you pm me that? Hypocritical.

Anyway, another thing I think about the BLM is that it's a really small issue in comparison to many other issues we have in our society. People put it in the public spotlight, while bigger issues fly under the radar. If for no other reason, I see it as a bad thing because of that.

 

[SuF]

Doesn't matter, if you intend to use a study for your argument include it in your post. Especially since your argument was not completely correct.


And it seems that according to your study there is prejudice when it comes police brutality, but not in terms of lethal force (which is the same as against white people). So complaining about racially bias police brutality is fine.

Yeah I will try. I think I was on mobile when I wrote that post so I didn't feel like trying to find the source.

My understanding of BLM was that they were entirely focused on police shootings which is why I did not mention the other statistics.