BLM Tears Down 'Blue Lives Matter' billboards

[Ganos Lao]

So if the KKK spent their time just talking about how bad the niggers were rather than outright lynch black people, you wouldn't bat an eyelash? You're pretty much saying that you're fine with nonviolent displays of racism.

Sure, whatever you want to read into what I said.

You're just saying it's fine that racism exists as long as it's done by a certain group against another certain group. I guess you just have more of a tolerance for bullshit than I do, though.

That's clearly not what I said. But again, read in and extrapolate whatever you want. You've already displayed your lack of historical understanding, saying that there is a "black man's KKK".

I "read into" what you said because it's exactly what you just said.

Also, would you prefer if, instead of calling them the black man's KKK, I called them the black man's Stormfront or something like that? Really, the overall point I was really making that they're no better than the KKK.

[The New Sea Territory]

BLM supporters think that only whites can be racist. The ironic thing is, that BLM is actually racist against white people.

[Insert Source Here]

Not one, two, or twenty BLM protesters. You made a claim that the movement is racist.

[Costa Fierro]

Police will not harass communities that are prepared to defend themselves.

Because that worked out so well for the Branch Davidians didn't it?

Police aren't going to stop "harassing" communities because they arm themselves. If the criminals have bigger guns, then the police will have to have even bigger guns and armor to stop those guns. Eventually it comes to a point where the police are patrolling low income areas in armored personnel carriers or having to use the National Guard to intervene in what is ordinarily civilian operations. At what point between the police only being armed with pistols and police resorting to conducting regular patrols in armored personnel carriers with assault rifles, grenade launchers and enforcing curfews do you not think "this is stupid"?

[Zapad Rossiya]

Sorry for coming in late chaps, but I must express my views.

Your opinion is so wrong that it literally makes me cringe. Anarchists are also completely mad. I still can't grasp myself around why someone would like to live in a society where there are no laws, where you could be robbed or even killed and no one would do anything. But that is not the point.

Please, tell me more about what I and other anarchists believe! Clearly, you must be deeply familiar with the works of Kropotkin, to make such an insightful statement about my political philosophy.

The point is, without police officers, people would be going on a crime spree. The least you can do is show a little respect to the officers who protect you on a daily basis from potentially being killed. The fact that a certain police force may oppress a certain minority community is definitely something that must be discussed, but to brand all police officers like that makes me sick.

I'll respect officers when they respect black people and the homeless.

More importantly, the "respect" argument is a distraction from actual issues.

Thankfully I can sleep at night knowing people with such horrible views like yourself will never get your way, as we have a majority of normal people in this world.

Again, you keep coming back to branding all police officers as not respecting the homeless and blacks. You are again generalizing all cops. All cops are definitely NOT like that. I personally know a few cops who would never even dare do such a thing, and very well think of everyone as equal regardless of race, religion, financial status and the such.

Then again, I do live in Russia......we have more of a problem with corruption. But rest assured all cops are NOT like you try and brand them as

[Ganos Lao]

I think a cycle of violence is the essence of human history, and it's not going away. If we are going to be realistic, we have to accept that violence is an aspect of human societies.

Now this? This I can agree with wholeheartedly.

[Liriena]

No and no.

they do. The leader of the group posted that they will riot against whites if trump wins so i would call that pretty racist, also if they were trying to make things better send emails to your state rep. for a possible bill to be brought to senate ect.

They don't. You could regard me as a BLM supporter, and I do not think that only white people can be racist (after all, Robert Mugabe actually exists). And last I checked, BLM did not have a single, official, clearly-defined leader. It does have some key figures, though. Ergo, you're going to have to be more specific or, maybe, actually provide a source for that alleged post. Also, BLM activists have met with elected officials and candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

[A Humanist Science]

It will always be action that scares the police, the government or the mainstream culture into respecting a community or subculture.

(I've snipped the rest of your response away just cause this particular sentence is really getting more to the point)

Well yeah. But this statement is essentially a tautology. At least, it's probably unfair to try to paint "liberal reform" as being that position by which, somehow, new laws and structures just fall out of the sky without initiation or action. We could pretty easily make a long list of liberal reformers calling people to flood the streets, factories, and halls of government.

[Wallenburg]

Yeah, that's too much. Most cops are good. You can't go around doing this because of a minority of terrible police officers.

[Novus America]

if we give gettos guns and more guns than they already have it will be somolia 2.0

Somalia seems to be an inevitable conclusion from people who generally aren't well versed in radical politics.

It's not warlordism but it would be perpetuating a cycle of violence and exacerbate police violence against African Americans.

Hey! An original, non-strawman argument! Thank you! (not sarcasm).

I think a cycle of violence is the essence of human history, and it's not going away. If we are going to be realistic, we have to accept that violence is an aspect of human societies. MLK's nonviolence did not accomplish anything on its own, and it did not break this cycle. Violence or the threat of violence, on the part of both Southern police and radical groups, raised the stakes and forced the government to tackle civil rights. Violence was an integral part of the Civil Rights movement, even if King didn't like it.

Also, I don't think that this (it would exacerbate violence) claim can be backed up. Meanwhile, reform hasn't been working.

Again this is wrong. Things have improved greatly, and most of the big civil rights improvements occurred before the violence. Much during the low crime areas of the 50s and early 60s.

The violence only caused backlash.

And we have already seen a spike in violence after riots.

[Brilliania]

BLM supporters think that only whites can be racist. The ironic thing is, that BLM is actually racist against white people.

No and no.

So what you basically mean is "Only white people can be racist!". Absolutely bullshit.

[The New Sea Territory]

Sure, whatever you want to read into what I said.



That's clearly not what I said. But again, read in and extrapolate whatever you want. You've already displayed your lack of historical understanding, saying that there is a "black man's KKK".

I "read into" what you said because it's exactly what you just said.

It's fucking not. Read:

Nor do you seem to be aware of how this black organization in question considers them a "race of devils" created by the mad scientist Yakub.

A lot of talk, no action.

Please, will you tell me more about they are a fine and upstanding organization because they're nonviolent douchebags?

I wouldn't say they were nonviolent, or even that great.

My first point was that the Nation of Islam did not lynch thousands of white people, thus they are not comparable to the KKK. Not that, because they were "nonviolent", their racism does not matter.

My second point was that the Nation wasn't nonviolent. They were incredibly shady and involved in violent actions.

Also, would you prefer if, instead of calling them the black man's KKK, I called them the black man's Stormfront or something like that? Really, the overall point I was really making that they're no better than the KKK.

Call them whatever you want, you're still making claims based on words, not actions.

[The New Sea Territory]

No and no.

So what you basically mean is "Only white people can be racist!".

Clearly!

[Brillian Utam Territories]

This thread is full of bullshit.

[The New Sea Territory]

It will always be action that scares the police, the government or the mainstream culture into respecting a community or subculture.

(I've snipped the rest of your response away just cause this particular sentence is really getting more to the point)

Well yeah. But this statement is essentially a tautology. At least, it's probably unfair to try to paint "liberal reform" as being that position by which, somehow, new laws and structures just fall out of the sky without initiation or action. We could pretty easily make a long list of liberal reformers calling people to flood the streets, factories, and halls of government.

Then these liberal reformers are breaking from their normal means of "change" and actually doing something helpful.

[Wallenburg]

This thread is full of bullshit.

Welcome to NationStates.

[Ostroeuropa]

The core message of BLM is based in a falsehood.

That falsehood being... what? That there is no racial bias in the criminal justice system? Because I have at least one DoJ report that says otherwise, and probably more material on Google Scholar than I'd care to single-handedly review.

Black people are not disproportionately shot by police officers.

[A Humanist Science]

MLK's nonviolence did not accomplish anything on its own, and it did not break this cycle.

His call for people to openly resist and intentionally disobey unjust laws, both morally correct and nonviolent, but not passive in the "white reformist" sense, might have helped a little.

[Ganos Lao]

-snip-

Making claims based on words, not actions? So the action of propagating the view that "whites = devils" means nothing to you?

Gotcha. I guess that's good for the guys at sites like Chimpmania. Their racism's A-OK because it's all just words, it's not the action of spreading said words that really matters.

Just don't go lynching people and you're A-OK.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe in patting racists on the back because they just use words, not actions, as you've put it.

They are comparable to the KKK because both are racist movements. Stop fucking cherrypicking shit and understand this already.

[The New Sea Territory]

Again, you keep coming back to branding all police officers as not respecting the homeless and blacks. You are again generalizing all cops. All cops are definitely NOT like that. I personally know a few cops who would never even dare do such a thing, and very well think of everyone as equal regardless of race, religion, financial status and the such.

This brings be back to a point I made on the first page:

You must be fuun at parties. Anecdotes aren't typically taken seriously except in a few cases.

All debates about cops end up being nothing but anecdotes, even if no one says anything. Most people who criticize BLM do so because they see cops as generally good people, because of their experiences.

[Bhikkustan]

It will always be action that scares the police, the government or the mainstream culture into respecting a community or subculture.

Yes, that happened with the Paris attacks and 9/11 didn't it.

[Liriena]

No and no.

So what you basically mean is "Only white people can be racist!". Absolutely bullshit.

How in the Cosmos' name could you interpret me answering "no" to the sentence "BLM supporters think that only whites can be racist" as meaning "I belive only white people can be racist!"

No, I do not believe only white people can be racist. Robert Mugabe actually exists, for one.

Some people do believe that only white people can be racist, but that definition racism is based on the idea as racism only being possible where there's a power disparity, and they see white people as generally being on the more powerful side of that disparity. I see some merit in that interpretation, but don't share it in any large part.

[Liriena]

Black people are not disproportionately shot by police officers.

Probably true, but doesn't negate the prevalence of other forms of racial bias in law enforcement.

[Kubra]

They were in the wrong. Most police officers do a good job and even if they don't, they don't deserve to get shot. Neither do people who get arrested unless they're a threat.

Government goons deserve no respect, especially when they harass minority communities.

Except not all cops do that
you find that the measure of a cop is mostly what they do. You meet a cop at a bar and ask em what they do, if it's driving round a poor as shit neighbourhood or doing fingerprinting then they're gonna be the biggest dick, stop talking to them.

doing radar on some dumb back road that basically no one goes to? Talk to em more, they care even less about the job than you do.

I got a drinking buddy that does security at a city psychiatric hospital, apparently sometimes being an actual cop is about the equivalent as being a better paid rent-a-cop. He's actually pretty chill, cuz that lot is taught how to handle patients diplomatically as best as possible before going for the tackle

I guess what I'm saying is push come to shove most cops would probably shove off, I assume there's some sort of asshattery test that determines who works the ghetto beat.

[The New Sea Territory]

MLK's nonviolence did not accomplish anything on its own, and it did not break this cycle.

His call for people to openly resist and intentionally disobey unjust laws, both morally correct and nonviolent, but not passive in the "white reformist" sense, might have helped a little.

It did help.

Only because white elites feared radical sections of the movement and pressured the government to solve the problem ASAP. The same thing happened in India with Gandhi and revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh (only the added bonus of the British wanting to leave anyway).

[Costa Fierro]

I think a cycle of violence is the essence of human history, and it's not going away.

The thing is that human society has also developed to the point where we think that unnecessary violence can be prevented. Arguing that violence is part of the human condition from an evolutionary perspective is ignoring that things can be achieved without the use of violence.

If we are going to be realistic, we have to accept that violence is an aspect of human societies.

And realism also involves the use of non-violence. If you are a member of an oppressed group of people and you begin acting violently, what's the state going to do in response? Grant concessions or crack down on violence?

MLK's nonviolence did not accomplish anything on its own, and it did not break this cycle. Violence or the threat of violence, on the part of both Southern police and radical groups, raised the stakes and forced the government to tackle civil rights. Violence was an integral part of the Civil Rights movement, even if King didn't like it.

However the violence was used against African Americans, not by them, or at least not by the majority of them.

Also, I don't think that this (it would exacerbate violence) claim can be backed up. Meanwhile, reform hasn't been working.

I'd probably reiterate what I said earlier in this post and in another response. The idea that police, or even the state, would respect communities because they were armed and because they would be willing to use said arms is not really understanding how the power relationship works between those in power and those who want it.

You have police who have power at the moment over minority communities, the most vocal and the most visual of which is the African American community. Arming said community would present a challenge to the power the police have. What the police would then do is then seek to achieve more power by having an advantage over the community, with more powerful firearms and better protection. So the community responds to this and so on and so fourth. Creating an arms race between law abiding citizens and the police is not going to solve anything, other than continue the cycle of violence and perpetuating the continued impoverishment of minority communities. The state will almost never respect a community that challenges its power and its authority.