[URL="https://www.facebook.com/LastWeekTonight/videos/998956193566723/"]Facebook link for the region blocked[/URL]
And The thing is these issues will be overlooked if some people who claim to be part of the BLM act like fools and you have people shouting kill all cops
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51147623]These issues will be overlooked if nobody talks about them either, just as it were before
The middle ground is not simple to find. You cant cull idiots in a modern legal society, so you cant prevent idiots from being in BLM. Ignoring the irrational parts of BLM is an easier solution that also keeps the topic of police accountubility trending.
If anything, anti-BLM circlejerk, the general attitude of "Man FUCK cop filler BLMs man" is contributing much more to the overlooking of the issues of police accountibility[/QUOTE]
I think composition fallacy is a fallacy a lot of people ought to know about. This shit has been used against basically every social movement in history, guess what, none of them were perfect. First wave feminism was incredibly racist, the civil rights movements did have violence and blocked roads/businesses (people give BLM so much shit every time they do this lol,) and so-on.
The difference between these movements and moderates that agreed but didn't find their actions appropriate is that the movements achieved something.
Police accountability should have been the issue people have been pushing for all along. Not bitching about institutionalized racism. And not because it doesn't exist. Because you can't fix one without the other.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51147795]The difference between these movements and moderates that agreed but didn't find their actions appropriate is that the movements achieved something.[/QUOTE]
That's rather easy to say in hindsight. Plus the idea that you have to be a radical in a way or another to achieve anything is kind of misguided.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51148111]That's rather easy to say in hindsight. Plus the idea that you have to be a radical in a way or another to achieve anything is kind of misguided.[/QUOTE]
Definitions vary, the connotation of my use of moderate came from MLK talking about white moderates who agreed with equality, but weren't willing to take direct action to make it happen. Going about it like a moderate hoping to solve things purely peacefully and diplomatically doesn't always work, especially for minority groups. Direct action like protests can also be seen as radical just on its own, since they are generally disruptive by design.
And yeah, police brutality does affect all races, if one thinks BLM focuses unfairly on one race, that's perfectly fine. But people actively disparaging the movement that's achieving many things (some local governments have adopted their ideas, and many of Clinton, Johnson, Stein, and even Bernie's policies have been shaped by them) is just counterproductive IMO.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51147795]I think composition fallacy is a fallacy a lot of people ought to know about. This shit has been used against basically every social movement in history, guess what, none of them were perfect. First wave feminism was incredibly racist, the civil rights movements did have violence and blocked roads/businesses (people give BLM so much shit every time they do this lol,) and so-on.
The difference between these movements and moderates that agreed but didn't find their actions appropriate is that the movements achieved something.[/QUOTE]
Part of the problem with BLM is that it's leaderless. Without a strong leader like MLK for the Civil Rights Movement or Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapmann Catt and Elizabeth Cady Stanton for First wave feminism, to direct and define who is in the movement, then anyone can be in the movement which allows for a lot more disparate things to happen. A great example of this is the Black Panthers, who weren't a part of MLK's Civil Rights Movement because they relied on violence rather than peaceful protest. Honestly, without a real leader coming forward, I don't really see BLM making progress any time soon because it allows people who would sabotage the movement into it.
I agree with the premise of the video but cannot agree with his conclusion. Particularly with the idea that it is "depressing" that children must undergo training to comply with an officer's orders properly. All people must understand that is so incredibly important to do as an officer orders. They have so much that rest on them. Officers have no idea of the possibillities that could entail in any given intervention. In a matter of seconds, any person could pull a gun on them and immediately shoot and kill them. A resistance of arrest could lead into a struggle, possibly taking the life of an officer.
They are just as human as us, they are prone to error, and they are certainly more vulnerable than us. There are desparities that need to be addressed, but it only starts when we start having conversation. Even though I disagree, I still support the message of the video.
[editline]3rd October 2016[/editline]
I am entertained by the fact that the same people running with the "bad apple" argument for police, believe that the "poisonous skittles" analogy by Donald Trump Jr. was grossly zenophobic.
Throwing buzzwords kills political and social discourse.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;51148848]Part of the problem with BLM is that it's leaderless. Without a strong leader like MLK for the Civil Rights Movement or Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapmann Catt and Elizabeth Cady Stanton for First wave feminism, to direct and define who is in the movement, then anyone can be in the movement which allows for a lot more disparate things to happen. A great example of this is the Black Panthers, who weren't a part of MLK's Civil Rights Movement because they relied on violence rather than peaceful protest. Honestly, without a real leader coming forward, I don't really see BLM making progress any time soon because it allows people who would sabotage the movement into it.[/QUOTE]
BLM isn't quite leaderless, it's just a relatively decentralized movement by design. There still is a national BLM with leadership, but they encourage more local groups because they feel that it is harmful to focus on one/a few people's voices. Some of the subgroups such as we the protesters do have strong leadership who are [URL="http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision"]pushing[/URL][URL="http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision"] for reforms[/URL]. And as I said, they actually are getting things done on a local and even national level, so it seems to be working out alright.
Ofc there are still shitheads at many protests like revcom, but it's not like the civil rights/feminist movements avoided that either.
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;51147122]And The thing is these issues will be overlooked if some people who claim to be part of the BLM act like fools and you have people shouting kill all cops[/QUOTE]
Just like he himself said, a few bad apples spoil the barrel. That applies just as much to BLM as it does to the police.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51151053]BLM is a hashtag-to-movement scheme, a slogan and a common ground of a gazillion different organizations with different motives,backgrounds and asks; police is a governmental body
something something Apples and Oranges[/QUOTE]
Social movements need popular support. When you have people wanting to kill cops in the name of BLM, that's going to lose you a lot of credibility as a social movement.
As has been pointed out earlier, BLM's big problem is it doesn't have a leader-figure who can clearly state exactly what the goal of BLM is. It has to be made clear that the people spouting literal hate-speech are not a part of the movement.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51151907]There is no one "goal" of BLM because there is no uniform BLM.
BTW during Civil Rights mov. there were Black Panthers and other Black Force groups stabbing cops, looting and rioting, and for "popular support" you had white people firebombing black churches, literally sniping and shooting up desegregated buses, and these are extremes, you also had a LOT of white people protesting around. It really wasnt very popular.
What the movement needs is better quality coverage from the press and federal level people actually listening to their concerns.[/QUOTE]
The fact that many people in the Black Panthers were so violent is exactly why they ended up being so vilified by the media.
Thankfully they were [i]not[/i] like BLM, they did not incorporate everyone, they were explicitly a separate group from other more moderate and peaceful black protest groups. If the Black Panthers were the face of the entire equal rights movement, the current day political climate would probably be quite different.
As I said earlier, the fact that BLM is a non-uniform movement with no leader and no direction is exactly what it's problem is. BLM equally incorporates for police accountability, ranging anywhere from people who don't even think of it as a racial issue, to people who literally want to kill cops and think black cops are race traitors.
You want better coverage from the press? You want people listening to your concerns? But you literally just said yourself that BLM does not have any one goal because it's full of completely different people with a huge range of completely different viewpoints on the issue. They don't have any goal for the press to cover, and they don't have any unified viewpoint to listen to.
If you want people to listen to your message, the first step is always to make your message clear.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51149508]I am entertained by the fact that the same people running with the "bad apple" argument for police, believe that the "poisonous skittles" analogy by Donald Trump Jr. was grossly zenophobic.
Throwing buzzwords kills political and social discourse.[/QUOTE]
i don't think you understand what either of those sayings mean
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
