Social Justice Black Lives Matter Discussion Thread

[TheLoveBandit]

doesnt every group of protesters want to abolish their country "as they know it" ? All that means is they want to fundamentally make changes to what the country stands for.

At the base premise, yes. Any protest is an effort to change what exists.

But then comes the following question - what do they wish to change it to? BLM specifically states it's goals, they aren't secretive about it. However, their stated goals appear to be on a poor foundation (Trayvon Martin? Ferguson?), and ideal runs counter to proven history (destroy nuclear family = highest risk of poverty, crime, etc).

What they propose as a replacement will get a LOT of pushback from the rest of America. It may not be loud yet, but it will get louder when they continue to push harder.

Change in America is possible, as evidenced by a bloody civil war, prohibition, civil rights movements, and even our current corona crisis. But to make a permanent change, the majority of the population has to be aligned. BLM's proposal will not achieve that.


EDIT: This response was developed 3h earlier, along with my last post. I just couldn't submit until now, so I apologize if there is any incongruence to the replies in between.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

RedState article, bias is undeniable....so are the videos.

Dozens of BLM and Antifa Full On Attack Police in Chicago, Police Reinforcements Make Them Regret It

Here’s the thing. This may have been a protest at one point. But now these “protests” are just covers for the riots. This was a full-on planned assault on the police, not protest that got out of hand. Planned attack. And planned attempt to rip down the statue.

It’s about time media start reporting the reality of it, that these are criminal attacks. They could have killed cops with what they did, who knows how many were injured because of this.

Somebody tell me again about all the out of control cops at these peaceful rallies, please. I'm having issues connecting that concept with what's happening out there.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

First, do you really think the cop wants to stop her? Probably wanted to wait until she was done. As for the slipping in the paint....tell me you're perfect and don't make mistakes.

NYPD are notoriously terrible police force... and quite frankly it's almost hilarious. The whole point of "black lives matter" is to give black people their civil rights, and the irony of a white cop slipping and falling on the paint is not lost on me.

By putting their hands on her, yes, they wanted to stop her. They were not keeping 6 feet of distance trying to get her attention (which, because many of them are not wearing masks, would be preferred).

If I'm invading your 6 feet of personal space during a pandemic and putting my hands on you and trying to interrupt your manic meltdown, then yes, I'd probably be trying to stop you. I can't imagine another motive for the actions.

I might not be perfect but during the pandemic, I would keep my 6 feet of personal space. Which might or might not have prevented falling. Who knows?

Second, and this is more of an issue for me, WHY are cities allowing BLM to be painted on the streets, and more importantly why is this protected?

I guess because black lives matter? As a nihilist I don't really think any life matters, but most people are on the "life is good / life matters" train so in that realm of thinking, yes, it would make sense for most of society to rally around minority groups in this way.

Why is it protected? I don't know? Why do Republicans who care so much if I'm totally naked in public all of the sudden care if someone tells them to cover their face? Deep psychological stuff? I couldn't know.

It would help global warming to change the color of streets to reflect the sunlight; from a purely ecological perspective the BLM mural is probably actually doing some good, so what do I care? I don't have to live in a shithole country like NYC - NYC is terrible and I would never live there.

The woman having a meltdown made one solid point, that DeBlasio (and almost every mayor of NYC from the past and from the future I am sure!) does not care about black [... and likely poor, other minority groups etc...] people.

It is a political statement, and if given permission and protection, should afford the same to the KKK or any other group. It is a political statement, one that divides. And, one that purports to speak for a portion of society when we see members of that group (this woman as an obvious example) where it does NOT represent that portion of society. I disagree with allowing this vandalism to be sanctioned and protected, as I do not want that door opened for all the other special interest groups to be cast wide open....but if local gov'ts allow it, they MUST allow the others and that isn't happening.

How is BLM a "political statement"? It is a philosophical / sociological / societal statement. Black people are not a government, a country, etc. They're people. It would be racist to say that all black people vote the same, or cast the same vote, or are in one political party conspiring against whites (this would sound like how people think of Jewish people as conspiring etc).

EVERYTHING is dividing society. "Wear a face mask" divided society. The confederate flag from god knows how many years ago divided a society. GONE WITH THE WIND DIVIDED SOCIETY.

I don't really see the mural as a threat to "my America" as I do China, DPRK, Iran and Russia, and Trump's inability to make real change in the real world. He's not a nationalist; he DID NOT lock down the borders, HUNDREDS of Chinese came in (undoubtedly some with COVID-19) after the "China travel ban" do you really think "Black Lives Matter" is going to amount to anything when painted on a street? No, it's not. The real world is going on, I'd stop staring at the streets and what they say, and start looking at the bigger picture/countries around us.

Trump is the real problem. The EXACT STREET it is painted on is in front of his building (right?) - this isn't a political statement, it's a way to troll Trump for being a racist (which by the way WOULDN'T MATTER IF HE COULD JUST FOCUS ON BOMBING OUR ENEMIES INSTEAD OF CRITICIZING THE PROTESTERS - HE COULD HAVE JUST GIVEN THEM SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO PROTEST ABOUT - A WAR - BUT NO, FIGHT FOR WHITE SUPREMACY TRUMP!! WHY NOT??? ) ugh.

Sorry. You probably have a different view on all of this. But there are 10 MILLION MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN RACE RELATIONS GOING ON. It's almost as petty as worrying about gays marrying, or women having abortions... there are much bigger things going on.

Let me ask this.. did someone want to say "All Lives Matter" or "White Lives Matter" or "Latino Lives Matter" and paint that on some other road, and get REJECTED? If so, let me know... I really don't think anyone needs / wants to do that or has tried.

But what do I know?

 

[Xorkoth]

I'm not sure another 100y will strip that term of this meaning, despite any other uses it may gain (ie, between blacks).

Great post by the way. Just wanted to add to this, even if another 100 years does strip it of its negative connotation somehow, it still leaves the fact that right now, today, it carries a terribly negative connotation and hurts people when it is used.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I'm still struggling with the antifa stuff in the BLM thread, as I personally believe antifa hijacked the initiative, but they are both present in these riots and trying to change America so I'll just leave this here.

Apologies for quoting the whole damn thing, I'm having trouble cutting to make is bite sized. Bold emphasis mine.

ABOUT THOSE SPOOKY FEDERAL COPS IN PORTLAND

Dear Portlandia progressives: a federal government big enough to take care of you is a federal government big enough to "take care of you."

Scary unidentifiable police, federal black sites, and procedureless snatching of individuals from the streets are the wholly predictable and natural consequences of the very policies you advocated for decades. Why do you imagine a big government with lots of power will restrict itself to the cozy "social issues" and economic takings you support? Government can seize the means of production, but not seize you? You wanted everything run from DC, and you got what you wanted. Plus you certainly would be every bit as outraged if federal agents concerned about the undermining of America surreptitiously snatched up a few "white supremacists," right?

Progressives of all parties have cheered the relentless centralization of state matters—and rejection of the Tenth Amendment—for nearly 150 years. The shaky and infirm Incorporation Doctrine federalized the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court federalized social and economic issues, and the the alphabet soup of federal agencies created by progressive administrations federalized the regulatory state. Foreign policy was ripped away from Congress and commandeered by bureaucratic Deep State actors at the DOD, CIA, NSA, and the State Department. Thousands of new federal crimes were created by statute. These statutes in turn created a vast federal police state, one heavily influenced and provisioned by the residual weaponry and machinery of our overseas wars.

So now you wonder why the Feds are sent in to quell an uprising in Portland?

Who wanted to make the world safe for democracy? Remember Woodrow Wilson, suddenly a bad guy because of racism? At least Truman had the honesty to admit regrets about creating the CIA. Who wanted federal control over the retrograde Southern states? Who dismissed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as relics? Who derided states' rights and nullification as legal cover for bigotry? And for the millionth time, "states' rights" does not mean states have "rights" relative to their citizens; it refers to their retained powers in a federal system—so enough with the dishonest smears.

Who shrugged at Waco and Guantanamo Bay, for that matter? Or when Obama signed the NDAA?

At this writing, federal agents operating in the City of Roses appear to be from the Department of Homeland Security (sic). Here is what Ron Paul, a true man of peace yet despised by progressives, had to say back in 2002, shortly after the DHS was created with overwhelming support in Congress:

The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal. The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents. Of course the Homeland Security bill did receive some opposition from the President’s critics. Yet did they attack the legislation because it threatens to debase the 4th amendment and create an Orwellian surveillance society? Did they attack it because it will chill political dissent or expand the drug war? No, they attacked it on the grounds that it failed to secure enough high-paying federal union jobs, thus angering one of Washington’s most powerful special interest groups. Ultimately, however, even the most prominent critics voted for the bill.

Similarly, Dr. Paul was scorned and attacked by progressives of all parties in the early 2000s for labeling the Bush/Ashcroft/Yoo junta as a "police state." He was dismissed for opposing TSA at the airport, for opposing FISA warrants, for his Fourth Amendment absolutism, and especially for warning how American forays in the Middle East would come home in a multitude of ways.

Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. No standing federal police agencies or apparatus are required to enforce these; in fact the latter appears to be the express policy of our central bank. There should not be federal agents, overt or covert, in Portland. The riots taking place there are criminal matters for local authorities and local authorities alone. If residents and local politicians prefer to give the mob freedom to run amok over both public (taxpayer) and private property, while also threatening the physical safety of ordinary citizens, Uncle Sam has nothing to say about it. But the same people who demanded endless growth in the federal police and regulatory state ought to be more circumspect today. A cynic might call them hypocrites.

This is, in part, why I struggle with the progressive mantra of 'more gov't' to help the less fortunate. It adds to an entity already out of control, and arguably being commanded by the least competent to do so. Everytime I hear of progressives wanting more gov't power I think to myself "do they not understand their enemies will inherit that power at some point?"

Recognize, the laws referenced that created DHS were a response to 9/11. An opening of extended gov't authority to do whatever it wanted in the name of 'national safety'. I had to look up NDAA referenced in the quote as I wasn't familiar with it. The reference goes to PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS INDEFINITE DETENTION BILL INTO LAW:

...
“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”
...
In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today.
...

 

[What 23]

My friends and I used to call each other N. We thought it was funny. We were all white. Some of my friends would call other white people, who they saw walking in the street while driving, “N” also. Sometimes, they called them “Travis”.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

bold emphasis by me

A California city erases ‘Black Lives Matter’ mural after ‘MAGA 2020’ one proposed

...

Not only did the city authorize the mural, it even supplied him [Dan Pease] with yellow poster paint.

But city crews power-washed the 17-foot mural away on Thursday, despite plans to let the temporary paint fade away over time, according to the station.

The city erased the mural after attorney Maria Rutenberg requested permission to paint a “MAGA 2020” mural nearby, Climate Online Redwood City reported.

Rutenberg said she “saw that Courthouse Square was being used as a public forum, and, as a Redwood City resident, wanted to participate,” according to the publication.

Then city officials notified Pease they planned to remove his mural for violating traffic and vehicle codes, Climate Online Redwood City reported.

“I’m not upset the piece is being taken down because it’s just words on the street,” Pease said, The San Mateo Daily Times. “It doesn’t represent real change.”

...

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Trump: "you don't need a face mask just social distance" to "ok but wearing a face mask is patriotic and look I did it once..."

then Wheeler: "I don't need to social distance I HAVE A NON-ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY DISPOSABLE BLUE EAR LOOP MASK" [gets face to face with protesters]

It has been argued logically by people of color on the news that white people cannot be allies to BLM because they are not black, and stand nothing to gain - and being an ally implies there is something to be gained by all parties when this is not the case. (This is not necessarily my opinion but it was a logically constructed argument that I was willing to digest) - it's clear Wheeler wants to get re-elected, and it doesn't matter if he is spreading covid (tear gas - coughing/sneezing - particles fly further, face mask is not perfect in these situations where people are not social distancing).

I have to further ask - why is the mayor taking part in protests he said "they wished were almost done happening... BEFORE THE FEDS CAME IN"...? He is pouring fuel on the fire by supporting the protesters (if, allegedly he doesn't want them to happen, why is he participating?) and he's not social distancing... what a moron.

Republicans and Democrats are clueless idiot.

If you REALLY support the protesters why not encourage them to social distance while protesting - if you DON'T want the protests happening don't join them?

No wonder Trump is going to war with Wheeler and I'm sure Trump will win if that's how crazy their mayor is. Says one thing - does another. I'm sure there's footage of Wheeler encouraging staying at home and social distancing - but he doesn't have to do it. What a moron. And he gets tear gassed. Zero sympathy here. "I want it to stop!" So why were you filmed getting tear gassed in a crowd of protesters? Or rather, why say you want the protests to be over if you are attending them?

I'm just glad I don't live there.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

bold emphasis by me

A California city erases ‘Black Lives Matter’ mural after ‘MAGA 2020’ one proposed

BLM was already divisive enough as witnessed by the multiple NYC vandalisms - I don't know why so many locales pushed forward with street based BLM murals (I am sure murals not on streets may be, somehow, less divisive...) and I figured there would be a "conservative equivalent" in time.

Since the city erased the BLM one, is this now acceptable? Did the local government come to their senses in not politicizing public property with social / moral messages?

 

[Xorkoth]

It has been argued logically by people of color on the news that white people cannot be allies to BLM because they are not black, and stand nothing to gain - and being an ally implies there is something to be gained by all parties when this is not the case. (This is not necessarily my opinion but it was a logically constructed argument that I was willing to digest) - it's clear Wheeler wants to get re-elected, and it doesn't matter if he is spreading covid (tear gas - coughing/sneezing - particles fly further, face mask is not perfect in these situations where people are not social distancing).

I don't think it's a good argument... a better life for all citizens of a civilization means a better life for us all, due to less resentment and less poverty, which leads to less violence and crime, and less reliance on social safety nets/more positive contributions to society from citizens.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I don't think it's a good argument... a better life for all citizens of a civilization means a better life for us all, due to less resentment and less poverty, which leads to less violence and crime, and less reliance on social safety nets/more positive contributions to society from citizens.

Well why would I as a white man know better about BLM than black people? Isn't that racist to think I would know better as a non-black, especially given they were logical sounding arguments, and given in good faith?

I am not against BLM - I just don't think I qualify as an "ally". Just saying.

Quite frankly all eight billion lives do not impact yours, nor do you impact all people on Earth. I'm going to side against your argument for this reason. If white people can be allies for BLM, I wouldn't know how to logically convince myself or others of that.

 

[Xorkoth]

You didn't say anything about knowing better, you were saying (or the person's argument you were quoting was saying) that white people can't be allies to BLM. Obviously a white person can't know better about what black people face than a black person, but I don't see why white people can't be allies to black people and to BLM. All it requires is that you believe in a group's mission and support it.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I don't see why white people can't be allies to black people and to BLM. All it requires is that you believe in a group's mission and support it.

I explained it above, but you are entitled to your belief. I am not invested one way or the other and don't purport to have the answers.

Conservative women’s group sues de Blasio for allowing BLM mural, but blocking theirs

A conservative women’s group sued Mayor de Blasio and the city Department of Transportation for allowing a Black Lives Matter mural to be painted in front of Trump Tower — but blocking them f…

nypost.com

@TheLoveBandit it looks like conservative groups also want messages, are not getting them, and are suing.

Expect BLM to get wiped off streets soon, I suspect.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I would find myself more in Xork's position - one can be an ally of a movement without being a direct member. Think of any group, they all have fund raising which ANY person can donate to. If I were a white lawyer, I could offer to get BLM members out of jail for protest arrests at no charge. There are ways to aid a cause, to be an ally, without being a member.

 

[Deru]

It has been argued logically by people of color on the news that white people cannot be allies to BLM because they are not black, and stand nothing to gain - and being an ally implies there is something to be gained by all parties when this is not the case.

I would say an ally is a relationship between people or groups of people for mutual benefit or to achieve a common goal. In that case, white people could very well fall into the formal definition of "ally" - in both senses of the word. For mutual benefit, a better civilized society for all to benefit from, including white people. And even if one wants to debate a white person could achieve no benefit (and I'd have some strong debate points against that one), then it for sure would apply to achieve a common goal - if you want to see equality for all and the end of systemic racism, then you now meet the formal definition of an ally.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Federal officers in Portland may have been permanently blinded by lasers, officials say

Federal Protective Service (FPS) Deputy Director of Operations Richard Cline said at a press conference on Tuesday that a crowd of more than 1,000 surrounded the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and began removing plywood coverings before attempting to throw objects – some of them incendiary – through the windows at federal officers inside.

Cline said they also vandalized the building with spray paint, blocked adjacent intersections and set several fires.

“When officers responded to put out these fires, glass bottles were thrown and lasers – which can cause permanent blindness – were shined in their eyes,” Cline said. “We have three officers who currently have eye injuries and they may not recover sight in those eyes from those laser attacks.”

Again...peaceful protesters at work. Literally "nothing to see" at this point.

 

[Xorkoth]

That sucks for those cops and people should not be throwing bombs at anyone. Trump made the situation worse there by bringing in federal police, expressly against the wishes of the local police. It's adding fuel to the fire, the feds also cracked a kid's skull with a sniper's rubber bullet. Don't frame this as angry violent mobs causing all of this, the people are angry for a reason and sending the federal police (military really) to suppress the protests for the things they're angry about is a bad idea, both just plain dumb as well as frightening in the brazenness of executive display of power. If you don't try to dress it up "nice", what's happening is that the executive branch has decided to deploy the military in multiple cities against citizens exercising their right to assembly and protest. This affront to the right to peacefully demonstrate has been happening for some time, now. Tear gas to break up a peaceful group so Trump could do a photo op, for example, but it's far from one incident. Don't believe this narrative that all the protesters are essentially violent, deplorable mobs, it's bullshit. yeah of course there are some inappropriate things happening sometimes, those are what you hear about in the news though. The vast majority of these things are peaceful. Ground reporters have caught red-handed cops and others posing as demonstrators initiating vandalism and violence, presumably to undermine the image of the protesters. I've been watching footage from reports posting in social media of these things. Clearly some of them have gotten destructive and that's not cool, but certainly if there have been documented instances of people framing protesters in a protest for making it violent and/or destructive, this is happening at least some of those times, and is part of an effort to make people like you believe that the whole thing is baseless and should be stopped. It's a brazen affront on our constitutional rights and we should be concerned by this.

 

[yepyepwoah]

Black man kicks over BLM barricade manned mostly by black clad white kids screaming "All Lives Matter" to the countering tune of crybaby morons

Ends with "Fuck Black Lives Matter" and walks off.

I guess he is a white supremacist ally

 

[nuttynutskin]

Riots destroy new $30M affordable housing project in Minneapolis

by Bryan Brammer · May 30th, 2020 2:09 pm

Riots sparked by the death of George Floyd have destroyed a $30 million affordable housing project in south Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The six-story, 190-unit apartment project known as Midtown Corner, which was set to provide housing for low-income families and individuals in the community, was torched and burned to the ground Wednesday night in a series of 16 structural fires set by protesters, Minneapolis Fire Chief John Fruetel reported in a press conference Thursday.

The housing complex, developed by Wellington Management, was scheduled to open in the spring of 2021. The total development cost was around $37 million, including contingency funds. The land and construction costs were approximately $30 million.

The project was funded almost entirely by private funds, with only $340,000 in public money being contributed.

Riots destroy new $30M affordable housing project in Minneapolis

Riots sparked by the death of George Floyd have destroyed a $30 million affordable housing project in south Minneapolis, Minnesota.

disrn.com

Peaceful protests, etc., etc.

 

[Deru]

Federal officers in Portland may have been permanently blinded by lasers, officials say



Again...peaceful protesters at work. Literally "nothing to see" at this point.

I like what you did there

For real though, as much as I think it's horrible they got hurt, what is Trump even thinking here? He is always so disconnected from the realities of what's happening. It's infuriating to think he does it on purpose, but what if he just truly doesn't understand? My brain hurts trying to make sense of Trump's actions sometimes.