POLITICAL POLL #1: If current trends continue, will BLM succeed in advancing the position of the black community in the US? (socioeconomics, safety etc.)
My current stance is NO. Give me arguments for both positions.
POLITICAL POLL #1: BLM
Posts
Total:
40
-->
@MisterChris
i guess it sort of depends on what advancing looks like and what time frame.
For policing issues, almost certainly no in the short to medium term. The republicans will fight any meaningful attempts at police reform. And the establishment dems have no interest in it either. They will pass some token legislation to make it look like they are trying to do something. But they like the policing system the way it is. They would prefer to tone down the blatant racism, but the underlying systemic racism is working as intended.
but I do think real change is possible by holding the dem establishment's feet to the fire. Alot of the most powerful dems are in very blue districts. This allows them to get settled and hold their position for decades. The only way to get real change is to scare them badly enough that they actually listen to people. AOC removing Joe Crowley and now there have been more. Primary attempts against "the squad" failed miserably. Jamal Bowman seems to have beaten Engel, a powerful establishment Dem. Carolyn Maloney, another powerful establishment dem, is having a very tight race. Mondare jones looks like he may win in New York's 17th. It looks like the establishment candidate (amy McGrath) is going to win in a close race in kentucky. But the fact that the establishment fully back her and she brought in millions and millions and only narrowly won has still got to be concerning for the establishment dems.
The question will be how much do people turn on the establishment candidates and support people who want real change. If people continue the whole "blue no matter who" nonsense then there will never be any change because the establishment dems will have no reason to change anything.
God no, vandalizing a statue of... the first black regiment in the civil war helps them???
-->
@MisterChris
nope, they have alienated anyone on the fence with their violence and hardened those not sympathetic even more.
the inconsistency and down right contra actions to their supposed objectives has caused them to lose a great deal of support and turned people against them.
pretty good example are the blm supporters who had to pull guns to protect their home, or the reporter who supported blm until he was murdered by someone shooting into the crowd. the violence speaks pretty loudly as does the silence denouncing the violence.
-->
@MisterChris
probably, damn libtards have way too much time on their hands.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
nope, they have alienated anyone on the fence with their violence and hardened those not sympathetic even more.
what? no they haven't. Black lives matter had nothing to do with looting or rioting. The only people who believe that are idiots who watch fox news and believe the stream of lies that comes out of them. But those people are mostly a lost cause anyway. Those are the same people who would scream "White Power" at protesters.
the inconsistency and down right contra actions to their supposed objectives has caused them to lose a great deal of support and turned people against them.
what inconsistency?
pretty good example are the blm supporters who had to pull guns to protect their home, or the reporter who supported blm until he was murdered by someone shooting into the crowd. the violence speaks pretty loudly as does the silence denouncing the violence.
I have no idea what you are talking about. But BLM isn't a specific group with a leader. Lots of people in the BLM movement denounce violence all the time. But right wing people will still come out and pretend like the movement is violent and doesn't denounce violence.
-->
@MisterChris
It depends where they head in the future
-->
@HistoryBuff
To clarify, You think the police system is intentionally systemically racist?
-->
@MisterChris
To clarify, You think the police system is intentionally systemically racist?
Depends on what you mean by intentionally.
The practices and philosophy of the police is not something that has radically changed in recent years. It has grown over the course of decades and centuries. For much of that history(and arguably to this day), the police have been used as a tool to suppress people.
One of the earliest forms of policing in the US were slave patrols. While these officially ended after the civil war, you saw the rise of Jim Crow laws where the police continued to be used to segregate and subjugate black people.
Today the culture of the police still sort of in this mind set. They see themselves as above the law since they are the enforcers of it. And in alot of ways they really are. Cops look after their own, so few get charged when they break the law and alot of them win on appeal anyway and get their jobs back. They have an insular culture that protects corruption and abusive behavior, thus perpetuating it. They hear all of the dog whistle racism from politicians and know that they can get away with acting on it.
So to loop back to your question. I don't think there is a cabal of men designing the police to be racist. But I think that a lot of racist men over the years designed police procedures and policy. Those men created a culture that protects racists from punishment and ensures that the culture perpetuates itself. And with the militarization of the police since 9/11 (ie giving them tanks, armor etc from military surplus) this has only intensified the problem.
So the design is systemically racist. Those design choices were intentional. But no one person or group of people specifically designed the entire system to be racist.
-->
@HistoryBuff
BLM isn't a specific group with a leader.
then how did companies like amazon donate millions to them?
hateful people claiming to represent them give interviews and no one rebutts their claims of who they are, what they represent.....
looks pretty specific with a leadership to me.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
then how did companies like amazon donate millions to them?
A quick google search would have answered your question.
Amazon announced June 3 that it will donate a total of $10 million USD to several organizations focusing on social justice and the betterment of African American lives.
According to a statement, the recipients of the donation are the ACLU Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, Equal Justice Initiative, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, NAACP, National Bar Association, National Museum of African American History and Culture, National Urban League, Thurgood Marshall College Fund, UNCF (United Negro College Fund) and Year Up. The organizations were selected with the help of Amazon’s Black Employee Network (BEN) and combat “systemic racism through the legal system as well as those dedicated to expanding educational and economic opportunity for Black communities.”
According to a statement, the recipients of the donation are the ACLU Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, Equal Justice Initiative, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, NAACP, National Bar Association, National Museum of African American History and Culture, National Urban League, Thurgood Marshall College Fund, UNCF (United Negro College Fund) and Year Up. The organizations were selected with the help of Amazon’s Black Employee Network (BEN) and combat “systemic racism through the legal system as well as those dedicated to expanding educational and economic opportunity for Black communities.”
hateful people claiming to represent them give interviews and no one rebutts their claims of who they are, what they represent.....
1) thats like me pointing to 1 KKK member and saying "not every conservative denounces that KKK member, so all conservatives are KKK members". It is obviously bullshit. BLM is a diverse movement made up of tons of completely unrelated groups and people. Expecting them to be able to denounce every jackass that does something stupid is completely unfair and is a sad attempt to smear them.
2) how would you know if they rebutt those claims? As far as I know you only watch far right wing news sources which wouldn't give anyone from BLM a fair interview assuming it let them speak at all. You are pretending that because you didn't hear people say something that they didn't say it.
looks pretty specific with a leadership to me.
lol BLM has literally millions of people out protesting across the country. You think that 3 people who started a group are directly controlling that? BLM does have people who are leaders. But it is a vast and diverse movement. It is not something that can be controlled and organized from a central source.
-->
@HistoryBuff
who organized the protests? who decides who will speak to the media?
BLM isn't a specific group with a leader.
it is a specific group, obviously
But it is a vast and diverse movement. It is not something that can be controlled and organized from a central source.
it is organized, their own website shows that, just because there are splinter groups claiming an association doesn't prove it's not organized.
anyone speaking out against blm are called uncle tom, house nigger etc, who would dare publicly denounce their violence?
the 3 black children killed in Chicago this past weekend is nothing new, more black people are killed on a given weekend in Chicago than are unjustified killed by police in a year.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
who organized the protests?
no one person organized the protests. They were organized by lots of people and lots of different groups.
who decides who will speak to the media?
no one really. I mean the media talks to random people at these protests all the time.
it is a specific group, obviously
ok, in an extremely narrow sense, sure. They are a group. But it is a massive movement. There is very little control that the leaders of BLM have over what the massive number of people in the movement do. So pretending like there are people who are in charge of BLM is a complete joke. It is a massive movement with millions of supporters, not a book club.
It is organized, their own website shows that, just because there are splinter groups claiming an association doesn't prove it's not organized.
There are people who founded it that are leadership figures. however they have virtually no control over what the movement as a whole does or says.
anyone speaking out against blm are called uncle tom, house nigger etc, who would dare publicly denounce their violence?
Because BLM is a movement. It goes way, way beyond the people who trademarked that name. BLM is made up of millions of supporters, most of whom wouldn't even know who the "leaders" are. So saying you are against BLM is a bit like saying you are against black people. Or at least you are against anyone fighting for black people to have rights.
he 3 black children killed in Chicago this past weekend is nothing new, more black people are killed on a given weekend in Chicago than are unjustified killed by police in a year.
I have no idea why you think that is related to what we are talking about.
-->
@MisterChris
As long as BLM's radical progressive ideology continues to maintain that black lives matter, as if other lives do not, and simultaneously support abortion when 36% to 40% of abortions performed in the U.S.* are by black adults and minors, the disconnect is glaring at the BLM attitude. Eventually, BLM will collapse under the weight of its hypocrisy.
-->
@fauxlaw
As long as BLM's radical progressive ideology continues to maintain that black lives matter, as if other lives do not
It has literally never done that. The point is that black lives matter, full stop. They are not saying that other lives do not matter.
simultaneously support abortion when 36% to 40% of abortions performed in the U.S.* are by black adults and minors, the disconnect is glaring at the BLM attitude.
this doesn't even make sense. Black lives matter. Fetuses are not people. Therefore they are not black lives.
Eventually, BLM will collapse under the weight of its hypocrisy.
I have yet to see any hypocrisy in their position.
-->
@HistoryBuff
They are not saying that other lives do not matter.
Is that why they'll argue against all lives matter? https://www.parents.com/kids/responsibility/racism/reasons-all-lives-matter-doesnt-work-in-terms-simple-enough-for-a-child/
Fetuses are not people.
Considering that the fetus, actually from the moment of conception when two gametes become a zygote, the DNA says human, aznd specifically, the DNA of a black zygote says black skin, and not anything else. "Human," as in people.
Of course you don't see hypocrisy. You're not looking.
-->
@fauxlaw
Is that why they'll argue against all lives matter?
Imagine if a guy broke his legs. Why would you ask "what about my legs?" All Lives Matter is a protest to BLM and Conservatives wouldn't be saying ALM if it wasn't for BLM.
Considering that the fetus, actually from the moment of conception when two gametes become a zygote, the DNA says human, aznd specifically, the DNA of a black zygote says black skin, and not anything else. "Human," as in people.
This is a good point. I'd point out however that allowing cheap access to abortion would improve the lives of black people who have already been born. Abortions are much, MUCH cheaper than raising a child. So if your opinion is a pro-choice one it's reasonable to understand how this benefits black people.
-->
@fauxlaw
Is that why they'll argue against all lives matter?
1) what do you think you are showing me? Point #1 is them saying that they are not arguing that only black lives matter. Why are you presenting evidence that disproves your idea?
2) The people who say "all lives matter" in this specific context are usually right wingers or racists (or both). If someone tells you their house is on fire and they want your help putting out the fire and you respond with "well what about my house, isn't it just as important as yours?" when your house is not on fire, then you are probably an idiot.
Considering that the fetus, actually from the moment of conception when two gametes become a zygote, the DNA says human, aznd specifically, the DNA of a black zygote says black skin, and not anything else. "Human," as in people.
cancer has human DNA too, it doesn't make it a person. Being a person is much more than DNA.
Of course you don't see hypocrisy. You're not looking.
no, i don't see hypocrisy because I'm not blinded by whatever prejudice is making you see it where it doesn't exist. You have yet to show me any hypocrisy but insist it is there.
-->
@Username
But I am not pro-choice. What would benefit all lives is if the nuclear family remained intact. Our society began its increase in social issues when Dad, and occasionally Mom, bailed.
-->
@HistoryBuff
cancer has human DNA too, it doesn't make it a person.
Yes, it does, but your trailing comment is really the point. A cancer cell having some human DNA does not mean that cell will produce a human. "An inventory of the genes associated with cancer yielded 291 cancer genes based on mutation data available in the literature: ∼1% of the coding sequence (Futreal et al. 2004). It was noted that 90% of these genes were somatically mutated, 20% germline mutated, and 10% could be found in both categories. The division between germline and somatic genes is a mysterious dichotomy that remains unexplained in the most current inventory." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698498/
Understand?
Will BLM succeed in advancing the position of the black community in the US?
Probably not for the following reasons:
1) The main reason: BLM is far too decentralized and not working towards common goals to be able to accomplish anything of significance. The BLM chapter in Jacksonville could have a way different agenda and set of goals than the BLM chapter in Seattle, or the BLM chapter in Phoenix, or the BLM chapter in New York City, and this is true for every other BLM chapter in any other American city you can think of. The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's moved all kinds of legislation and reforms because it was highly centralized behind Dr Martin Luther King Jr who basically coordinated and set the strategy for the entire movement. There is nothing close to an organized leader of BLM as there is to Dr King, so any changes that BLM does lobby for would be regional at best rather then national, assuming policies could even get passed to begin with.
1) The main reason: BLM is far too decentralized and not working towards common goals to be able to accomplish anything of significance. The BLM chapter in Jacksonville could have a way different agenda and set of goals than the BLM chapter in Seattle, or the BLM chapter in Phoenix, or the BLM chapter in New York City, and this is true for every other BLM chapter in any other American city you can think of. The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's moved all kinds of legislation and reforms because it was highly centralized behind Dr Martin Luther King Jr who basically coordinated and set the strategy for the entire movement. There is nothing close to an organized leader of BLM as there is to Dr King, so any changes that BLM does lobby for would be regional at best rather then national, assuming policies could even get passed to begin with.
2) The ongoing Coronavirus shitfest causes more deaths in the United States right now in a single day than police brutality does in years. If the momentum behind BLM somehow outlasts the pandemic then maybe it could really change things, but because it is number 2 on everyone's minds behind the Coronavirus, hardly any changes will be achieved. The way the media is set up and functions is that attention is paid to whatever is causing the most death and destruction at that time, so as long as the Coronavirus is around, people will be more concerned with the progress in keeping that contained and their own safety from the virus rather than the progress in keeping police brutality contained and their own safety from the cops, no matter how many marches and protests there may be.
3) Public opinion on police. The Civil Rights movement against segregation in the 1960's was pretty clear cut in that segregation was an evil policy that was intentionally designed to keep black people from enjoying the same rights as white people. For that reason it was easy to sympathize with black people and over time led to the removal of those segregationist policies. The picture this time around is not as black-and-white. Police officers most of the time are good people trying their best to do a difficult job, so when a handful of bad cops really fuck it up, public focus shifts to the bad cops in particular rather than the system as a whole. Because police departments operate differently than each other (Baltimore and Phoenix being garbage PD's while Trenton NJ's being one of the best) it again shifts focus to the individual cops who caused shit to happen or the city Police department that cop is a member of, not really all Police Departments or the system as a whole. Because the police in general can be a sympathetic figure/group, it will be harder for BLM to bring about any change in policies unless they are very carefully thought out and nor perceived as a giant over-reaction.
Hell no. Democrats don’t support equal rights. Proposition 209 repealment in California if you don’t believe me
-->
@fauxlaw
it really should be black lives matter, except in Chicago, Baltimore, D.C. etc
if you say all lives matter they lose their victim status and can't say wowas me.
all lives matter is incluse/equal/unifying, they don't want that.
No. By supporting organizations like ANTIFA, they are counteracting the points they make. The US is not a fascist country despite how many Liberals tell you it is. The thing is ANTIFA wants everyone to get free hand outs for doing nothing but sell drugs on the street. It's not going anywhere. The defunding of police, as seen from statistics, has been a failure. We need law enforcement to function. If there is a shooting or the r word, do you really expect a social worker to do anything? He's just gonna get shot. We need law enforcement until we have no criminals. There are r word-ists, murderer, thieves, etc. It's about reforming a system that is broken. Most people can't argue the system is failing. We need policy that can change this. If you change the system so it becomes more fair and responsible. It may take a bit, but it will serve more effect than this plan
Liberals should also sacrifice gun control if they want to defund police. The citizens should protect themselves if the government will not protect them from evil people. If any person steps on my property for no reason, I have a right to shoot and kill that person out of defense. The social worker should also carry a gun if something were to happen. You can't have both and expect to have a functional society
-->
@Vader
Liberals should also sacrifice gun control if they want to defund police.
That is spot-on, but it will never happen because there is nothing, nada, nil of any progressive policy that does not not fight with another. The whole of it is a conglomerate of nonsense, and progressives would do nothing to spoil that banality.
-->
@fauxlaw
They just fight losing battles all the time! The hypocrisy is off the charts! It's over 9000!
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The 3 black children killed in Chicago this past weekend is nothing new, more innocent black people are killed on a given weekend in Chicago than are unjustified killed by police in a year.
I have no idea why you think that is related to what we are talking about.
And that my friends, is media-manufactured outrage.
-->
@MisterChris
POLITICAL POLL #1: If current trends continue, will BLM succeed in advancing the position of the black community in the US? (socioeconomics, safety etc.)My current stance is NO. Give me arguments for both positions.
All one needs to do is go on the BLM website and glance at their mission statement. They have goals, but no solutions. The movement is merely a pretext to ingratiate "black lesbianism and black transgenderism" with the so-called "black community" all while citing the sacrificial lamb--oddly enough--known as "black males" as their impetus. The only thing that BLM will advance is lesbian separatism.
-->
@HistoryBuff
The practices and philosophy of the police is not something that has radically changed in recent years. It has grown over the course of decades and centuries. For much of that history(and arguably to this day), the police have been used as a tool to suppress people.
In the hands of dictatorships, certainly. But police are regular people like you and me who have decided to serve their community. You can't possibly believe that a diverse bureaucratic agency like the police have a unified agenda against black citizens.
One of the earliest forms of policing in the US were slave patrols. While these officially ended after the civil war, you saw the rise of Jim Crow laws where the police continued to be used to segregate and subjugate black people.
Slave patrols were not police. Jim Crow laws were politicians, not police. Police enforced the law, that's their job. Southern police were made up of racist people at that time, sure, and they unevenly enforced laws, sure, but that has nothing to do with systemic racism in 2020.
They see themselves as above the law since they are the enforcers of it. And in alot of ways they really are. Cops look after their own, so few get charged when they break the law and alot of them win on appeal anyway and get their jobs back. They have an insular culture that protects corruption and abusive behavior, thus perpetuating it.
I mean, MAYBE? That's just conjecture. I'm sure an element of corruption exists because, like ANY organization, there is some bureaucracy and human fallibility. But I've seen no evidence of widespread, systemic racism in the police force. Looking at stats, they provide no support for that conjecture either.