• BLM Demonstrators Shut Down Minneapolis Interstate
    95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=catbarf;49133790]Criticize the protesters for interfering with lawful commerce if you want, but don't criticize the protestors for 'pissing people off' and then say they should try to be more like a historical figure who advocated the [i]exact same methods[/i] you're criticizing. Just realize that if you're saying a protest shouldn't interfere with ordinary peoples' livelihoods, you're disagreeing with MLK's methods. There's nothing wrong with that, MLK was a person with opinions like anyone else that you're free to disagree with, but if you criticize MLK's methods and then tell people they should try to emulate MLK you sure look like you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry if I misquoted MLK then. I thought the quote I provided was saying the same thing that I'm saying here. [editline]17th November 2015[/editline] I'll stop posting when it comes to social issues
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;49133807]So how long until someone decides that this bullshit is.. well, bullshit, and keeps driving when these fucknuts are blocking the interstate?[/QUOTE] Was hoping everyone would lay on the horns and make the protesters deaf. Blocking I94 could have costed people their lives because of the amount of emergency vehicles that use it.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49133922]Was hoping everyone would lay on the horns and make the protesters deaf. Blocking I94 could have costed people their lives because of the amount of emergency vehicles that use it.[/QUOTE] Back when these idiots blocked I-95 in my city a year ago, they actively blocked emergency vehicles.
BLM protesters are also using twitter to express their feelings about Paris getting news time instead of them. They're talking shit and using #fuckparis and they're saying that only terrorists are one the ones that wear badges. These guys are a joke.
[QUOTE=MR-X;49133979]BLM protesters are also using twitter to express their feelings about Paris getting news time instead of them. They're talking shit and using #fuckparis and they're saying that only terrorists are one the ones that wear badges. These guys are a joke.[/QUOTE] What a bunch of assholes. This is the exact kind of shit I was talking about in my earlier post. Fuck that man.
Demanding the Black Lives Matter movement to switch to all lives matter is kind of missing the point.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;49134064]Demanding the Black Lives Matter movement to switch to all lives matter is kind of missing the point.[/QUOTE] I thought they stood for equality? Maybe I need to do more research on the matter...
a big part of the reason why protests block roads and entrances to offices was to get noticed by the media. a crowd of people blocking off a major roadway pretty much demands coverage whereas a group shouting in the park can be ignored much easier. the additional media coverage, in turn, attracted more people to the protests and sparked conversation, but this was back in the time when your only methods of mass communication were local or very expensive. they needed to do something more drastic in order to even get a platform to stand on. nowadays, that isn't the case at all. internet campaigns have shown that they can be effective, especially when coordinated with protests on the ground. disruption of people's lives isn't really a requirement anymore to get your voice out there and to attract large crowds. that doesn't mean that blocking roads is ineffective, it is just an outdated method. we should always look to the past for advice on the future, but we also must take in stock the technology we have now. perhaps coordinating smaller protests that are all across a city, not necessarily inconveniencing anyone. something like that couldn't be driven around, and they would see the message of the protest multiple times giving it more chances to sink in. like, 3 or 4 people protesting on every block. something far more tactical than a mob of people ever will be, something that could be coordinated far easier when everyone can be contacted anywhere at any point. to me, that would be far more effective than a bunch of people in one place stopping cars on the road
Okay so from what I understand they're protesting to bring about an end to violence against blacks specifically? I agree with that, but promoting/committing violence against whites in their proceedings seems like a bit of a step back, considering the principal of their whole movement revolves around equality/ending racial violence. If they're not protesting to end racial violence, but only violence against blacks, and then turning around and being violent towards whites (as has been happening frequently as of late) maybe you can see my disdain with some of their practices? So acting like ONLY black lives matter is kinda shitty, therefore considering that all lives matter isn't really a whole lot to ask, at least to do so while they protest against violence against blacks specifically. Like, if they're protesting specifically about violence against blacks, that's all well and good, but not when they turn around and target people based on their skin color and are violent towards them. I feel like I'm going around in circles here. [editline]17th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;49134064]Demanding the Black Lives Matter movement to switch to all lives matter is kind of missing the point.[/QUOTE] So yeah, I'm not saying I demand them to change their slogan, but maybe they should present solidarity in their actions if they expect solidarity from innocent bystanders in return.
[QUOTE=hippowombat;49134159]Okay so from what I understand they're protesting to bring about an end to violence against blacks specifically? I agree with that, but promoting/committing violence against whites in their proceedings seems like a bit of a step back, considering the principal of their whole movement revolves around equality/ending racial violence. If they're not protesting to end racial violence, but only violence against blacks, and then turning around and being violent towards whites (as has been happening frequently as of late) maybe you can see my disdain with some of their practices? So acting like ONLY black lives matter is kinda shitty, therefore considering that all lives matter isn't really a whole lot to ask, at least to do so while they protest against violence against blacks specifically. Like, if they're protesting specifically about violence against blacks, that's all well and good, but not when they turn around and target people based on their skin color and are violent towards them.[/QUOTE] You could easily have just gone to their website and read their platform... it would tell you everything about their cause without anything being lost in interpretation
Black Lives Matter only when they say it does. They don't seem to matter at all when it's gang related because they just keepin' it real. But if a cop is involved? Automatically their fault and outrage Otherwise All lives would matter
The name isn't implying that other lives don't matter, it's implying that while it's taken for granted that white lives matter, the inaction of people to the behavior of certain officers (until the movement took off) indicated that people did not value black lives.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49134200]You could easily have just gone to their website and read their platform... it would tell you everything about their cause without anything being lost in interpretation[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BlackLivesMatter.com]We are committed to embodying and practicing justice, liberation, and [B]peace[/B] in our engagements with one another. We are committed to practicing [B]empathy[/B]; [B]we engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.[/B] We are committed to [B]collectively, lovingly[/B] and courageously working vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, [B]by extension all people.[/B] As we forge our path, we intentionally [B]build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.[/B] [/QUOTE] There's not much empathy in pinning a white student against a wall at Dartmouth and screaming, "fuck you you white bitch, fuck your comfort, etc." There's not much peace/nurturing in attacking bystanders/stopping medical personnel from doing their jobs. They're not extending their mission to all people by targeting whites and screaming profanity/physically attacking them. Their tactics as of late have been a wee bit against their guiding principles as outlined on their site, is the point I'm trying to make here.
It's pretty terrible to actually assualt an officer at a so called peaceful protest. You guys talk about how BLM is in line with MLK on how they protest but MLK was never for ANY fucking violence of any sort ever. And I think it would be wrong for either group to say "he would or would not" like the title BLM, but I have a feeling at some level, he wouldn't have been for a more divisive term. MLK was about bringing people together in brotherly love. If you insist that's what BLM is about, okay, I can't argue, I disagree and they've done a fine job of showing off the negative side of themselves. Protesting is fine. Blocking the highway is fine.
[QUOTE=MR-X;49133979]BLM protesters are also using twitter to express their feelings about Paris getting news time instead of them. They're talking shit and using #fuckparis and they're saying that only terrorists are one the ones that wear badges. These guys are a joke.[/QUOTE] What is self awareness for $1000, Alex? Jesus fucking Christ fuck these people. [sp]No I don't mean the entire BLM movement, just the idiots. I shouldn't need to elaborate further than that.[/sp]
Here's the problem with BLM: You have all these groups taking on their name doing crazy, obviously stupid stuff, but no one else form BLM that I've seen has stood up and called them out for it. If anything the rest of BLM just uses it as another example of protestors standing up for their rights. You can't really call these events the extreme minority when the so call non-extreme majority don't even try to stamp it out. I don't really care about GG, but I do distinctly remember the big names of GG actively speaking out against people who did anything violent or harassing.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49134363]Here's the problem with BLM: You have all these groups taking on their name doing crazy, obviously stupid stuff, but no one else form BLM that I've seen has stood up and called them out for it. If anything the rest of BLM just uses it as another example of protestors standing up for their rights. You can't really call these events the extreme minority when the so call non-extreme majority don't even try to stamp it out. I don't really care about GG, but I do distinctly remember the big names of GG actively speaking out against people who did anything violent or harassing.[/QUOTE] ^This so so so much, it's like the majority gives no fucks about PR, which to some degree they shouldn't, but when this much bad shit happens, when things are getting violent, you'd think the non-extreme majority would say something.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;49133807]So how long until someone decides that this bullshit is.. well, bullshit, and keeps driving when these fucknuts are blocking the interstate?[/QUOTE] This happened during the Trayvon Martin protests, I believe. A small protest group blocked a side street in a business area. They left room for cars to go around them, and most did, so it wasn't like they were actually amounting to anything more than a minor annoyance to commuters, but somebody panicked or got fed up, gunned it into the middle of the crowd, and kept right on going. He ran at least one woman over, dragging her along under his vehicle for a few dozen feet. She survived, but suffered serious injuries to her leg. Still blows my mind how many people right here on Facepunch defended the driver's actions in that case, to be honest. Psychopath literally accelerated into a crowd of peaceful protesters rather than go around, badly injuring somebody, and was actually applauded for it by the "racism doesn't exist" crowd. [editline]17th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49134363]Here's the problem with BLM: You have all these groups taking on their name doing crazy, obviously stupid stuff, but no one else form BLM that I've seen has stood up and called them out for it. If anything the rest of BLM just uses it as another example of protestors standing up for their rights. You can't really call these events the extreme minority when the so call non-extreme majority don't even try to stamp it out. I don't really care about GG, but I do distinctly remember the big names of GG actively speaking out against people who did anything violent or harassing.[/QUOTE] Lots of people speak out against it. I myself speak out against the stupid shit some BLM protesters have done, even though I support the overall objectives. The problem is, nobody really speaks FOR BLM. It is a decentralized, leaderless movement that really amounts to nothing more than a hashtag on Twitter. "BLM" can't condemn things that other BLM protesters are doing because BLM isn't an actual organization. There is no Mister Black Lives Matter to come out and say, "that shit is fucked, and that's not we stand for," so even though the majorityof people sympathizing with the BLM movement might think storming the stage at a political rally and grabbing the microphone from Bernie Sanders's hand is stupid and counterproductive, what exactly can they do about this? Like, who do YOU expect an apology from when something like that happens in order to give credibility to the overarching issues that BLM is trying to call attention to?
Those selfish Fuckers! Imagine how many ambulances were late during their 3hour protest. Being late to work is one thing, but losing someones life is life changing. When a group of assholes blocks off a highway, it forces the ambulance to change routes, thus endangering the patients lives.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49134419] [editline]17th November 2015[/editline] Lots of people speak out against it. I myself speak out against the stupid shit some BLM protesters have done, even though I support the overall objectives. The problem is, nobody really speaks FOR BLM. It is a decentralized, leaderless movement that really amounts to nothing more than a hashtag on Twitter. "BLM" can't condemn things that other BLM protesters are doing because BLM isn't an actual organization. There is no Mister Black Lives Matter to come out and say, "that shit is fucked, and that's not we stand for," so even though the majorityof people sympathizing with the BLM movement might think storming the stage at a political rally and grabbing the microphone from Bernie Sanders's hand is stupid and counterproductive, what exactly can they do about this? Like, who do YOU expect an apology from when something like that happens in order to give credibility to the overarching issues that BLM is trying to call attention to?[/QUOTE] I'd expect to hear more people in the group speaking out against it. Use another hashtag to spread that message that what those particular protesters are doing is wrong/against the goals they're trying to achieve, make it trend. Appoint someone worthy into a position that could steer them in the right direction, it would give them a fuckton more credibility from the people who aren't too happy with them as a whole.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49133262]Causing people's livelyhoods to be threatened by shutting down a freeway and possibly costing thousands if not tens of thousands in lost revenue, attacking police, and disrupting the peace of a public area without legally organizing a protest. Fuck it, arrest them and organize a class action lawsuit through the City of Minneapolis for pure economic loss and causing hardships to families who needed to use the freeway to get to work and instead were forced to lose three hours of worktime.[/QUOTE] oh yeah im sure if they just stood to the side and mumbled people would give a fuck As per usual (and it really is the usual suspects), a scary amount of Facepunch shows a blatant non-understanding of what a protest actually is. It isn't a place to make friends, or a place to be overtly polite (sure some are, but do they ever actually get anywhere? not rly). A protest is a means to be heard, that means making noise, that means being disruptive, that means civil disobedience. You don't get attention by sitting around peacefully unless there are fucking THOUSANDS of you (in which case you are blocking somebodies way so whatever). These protesters aren't here to make friends, or hug and kiss every person in the name of fighting excessive force from police officers in the US. They are there to get a message out. And even if the coverage of them is negative, that's still the attention the protest wanted, that still gets the message out (why do you think big signs and memorable chants are the main tools of the trade here?). Previous civil rights movements caused hell, people said the same things about "those uppity blacks" around the time of MLK and Rosa Parks as they are now. If you think it makes the movement look like shit, good on you, you're exactly the kind of person the protest is meant to aggravate even slightly. People who already give a shit about the protest know what it's for and why it works, there is no "preaching", it's just reaching.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49134419]Like, who do YOU expect an apology from when something like that happens in order to give credibility to the overarching issues that BLM is trying to call attention to?[/QUOTE] First of all, I don't expect an apology. IF the majority does actually disagree with these people, then they have nothing to apologize for. They do have a responsibility to make it clear that they don't support them, therefore keeping their movement intact. Who do I want to come out? Well, I would that this huge majority of people against it would make sure people know not to associate them with this type of protest. The no true scotsman fallacy still applies when there's no leadership. I would argue that it applies to an even greater degree since there's no actual definition of the movement anyway. If the movement is left open to anyone and everyone to do what they want, then the movement must accept the consequences of that. You can ask "who do I want to apologize," but the real question is why there isn't any real backlash at all from the rest of BLM. Really, we see the exact opposite of that. We see everyone everywhere associated with BLM STILL using Michael Brown as justification of their movement even though he was justifiably shot. Instead of a backlash against false facts BLM embraced them for the greater cause.
Literally just confirmation bias. You have a narrative you want to follow and that's what you retain. [editline]18th November 2015[/editline] "There are no BLM supporters chastising thuggish protesting methods," and, "all BLM supporters everywhere still cling to lies about Michael Brown," is simply bullshit. Like, Michael Brown doesn't matter a lick, man. He was just a catalyst. The rage surrounding his death was the result of decades of racial tension and subjugation that had finally reached the boiling point. Michael Brown may ultimately have been revealed to have been a "justified" shooting, but the greater narrative of racially targeted policing in Ferguson was completely vindicated by the Department of Justice's investigation into our city. They came out and unequivocally proved that the evidence shows a clear pattern of corrupt and racially targeted policing in Ferguson so prevalent and damaging that it can only be called exploitation. With that under our belt, why would we need to continue making Mike Brown the cornerstone of the movement? It's just as foolish for you to use that as criticism as it is for those who use the BLM hashtag to use it as a rallying cry. Mike Brown was one person, and even if he had been unfairly killed, we now have hard proof that the [I]entire police force[/I] in Ferguson was engaged in racial exploitation and oppression. It makes no fuckin sense to place him above all that, lol. The DOJ'S findings proved everything BLM was saying here is true, and if it's happening here then you can be damn sure it's happening elsewhere. Anybody still focusing on one specific case to make their point in this, BLM included, has an incredibly narrow perspective of the issues.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49133144]Again BLM? This doesn't make people support your cause.[/QUOTE] Tell that to MLK and the thousands of people that marched to DC. You don't think that pissed off a lot of DC residents? They blocked the roads, too. Tell that to all of the Civil Rights Movement, they all blocked the roads numerous times, forcing police to escort them on the march to Montgomery, etc. This is normal. This is a form of non-violent protest. Do you think that sit-ins didn't upset the white patrons when they couldn't get a seat they wanted? This is literally the definition of proper nonviolent protest. What is there to complain about, really? People have always gotten pissed over this - but it's effective and it makes people discuss the issue.
I'm kind of amazed by the amount of people here who consider this to be a righteous protest. Causing inconvenience to people on their way to work is one thing, and can be justified when the protests aims to bring police brutality, which claims innocent victims, to light. But deliberately causing traffic jams such as these hinders emergency services, which the lives of innocent people also depend on. Seems kind of hypocritical for a movement which fights against police murder to cause the death of people who had nothing to do with all of this. You can't claim that a protest is non-violent when it leads to the injury or death of others. To the people who pretend they wouldn't get any attention otherwise, I take it you would also support protesters randomly beating up bystanders? Because either way, the end result is the same. If you can't think of a way to protest that doesn't bring harm to people, then you don't protest, it's as simple as that.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49139408]Tell that to MLK and the thousands of people that marched to DC. You don't think that pissed off a lot of DC residents? They blocked the roads, too. Tell that to all of the Civil Rights Movement, they all blocked the roads numerous times, forcing police to escort them on the march to Montgomery, etc. This is normal. This is a form of non-violent protest. Do you think that sit-ins didn't upset the white patrons when they couldn't get a seat they wanted? This is literally the definition of proper nonviolent protest. What is there to complain about, really? People have always gotten pissed over this - but it's effective and it makes people discuss the issue.[/QUOTE] Say that bullshit to any ambulances that could have been stopped and had a patient inside
For those using MLK, realize that he and the people of the time were innovators. They didn't use tactics of a previous generation to change society of a bygone era. No sir. What they did was thought about their plan, tactics and strategy. The key to changing things is being able to have empathy for your target. Empathy meaning, being able to put your self inside the minds of those you trying to reach. It is a skill. These people do not have it. For those who are not paying attention, protesting does not work any more. If you want to change things, you need to grab power.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49138986]Literally just confirmation bias. You have a narrative you want to follow and that's what you retain.[/QUOTE] I would say the same for you. You continually try to brush aside these issues based on your own beliefs, not on the evidence of what BLM has actually done and said. [QUOTE]"There are no BLM supporters chastising thuggish protesting methods," and, "all BLM supporters everywhere still cling to lies about Michael Brown," is simply bullshit.[/QUOTE] Nice strawman, but that's not what I said. I said that there's no "real backlash" against these protests from BLM, and I stand by that position. You might have some isolated examples of people against it, but to pretend that BLM, as a movement, opposes them is nothing more than a massive factless extrapolation. When there's a questionable shooting we see BLM come out of the woodwork, even before facts come out. When there's a thuggish or obviously wrong action done in the name of BLM we hear nothing. It's ignored or praised. Also, Mike Brown is used by every BLM speaker I've ever heard. Every single one. He's continually used as an example of black oppression through police brutality. You say he "doesn't matter a lick," but it seems like you need to tell BLM that, not me, because they obviously disagree. [QUOTE]With that under our belt, why would we need to continue making Mike Brown the cornerstone of the movement?[/QUOTE] You need to ask that to essentially every BLM speaker across the country. They always mention Mike Brown as one of their examples. I can only think of two possible reasons: 1) They're so ignorant of the facts that they actually think he is a good example of police brutality. 2) They're willing to lie and misrepresent facts if the result is good. You can try to downplay this sort of thing all you want, but it's just a fact. They DO use Mike Brown all the time, constantly, and it can't just be brushed aside like you're trying to do.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49139447]I'm kind of amazed by the amount of people here who consider this to be a righteous protest. Causing inconvenience to people on their way to work is one thing, and can be justified when the protests aims to bring police brutality, which claims innocent victims, to light. But deliberately causing traffic jams such as these hinders emergency services, which the lives of innocent people also depend on. Seems kind of hypocritical for a movement which fights against police murder to cause the death of people who had nothing to do with all of this. You can't claim that a protest is non-violent when it leads to the injury or death of others. To the people who pretend they wouldn't get any attention otherwise, I take it you would also support protesters randomly beating up bystanders? Because either way, the end result is the same. If you can't think of a way to protest that doesn't bring harm to people, then you don't protest, it's as simple as that.[/QUOTE] Was the march from Selma to Montgomery not non-violent? The protesters were not the ones acting violently, but it led to death and suffering and loads of injuries. It led to the injury and death of people, but the protesters were not the ones directly doing it - it was through the actions of others that were inconvenienced. [editline]18th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Billy-Bobfred;49139742]Say that bullshit to any ambulances that could have been stopped and had a patient inside[/QUOTE] Cite me one example of someone dying in an ambulance due to these highway blockages. [I]Potential deaths[/I] aren't deaths. Yes, it's a massive inconvenience, that's the point. I have zero doubt that if an ambulance started blaring its sirens and going towards the crowd, that the crowd would part to let it through. As far as I know, nobody has died due to these blockages. The argument is "but people might die because of these specific circumstances," ignoring the actual message they're saying and complaining about inconvenience. This is exactly why MLK condemned the white moderate - rather than noticing the injustices and acting in solidarity, they just say "why now it's gonna make me late to work do it later it's no big deal what if an ambulance shows up," totally ignoring the greater message and focusing on self-interest rather than on greater social changes. You're also calling MLK's non-violent form of direct action "bullshit" by saying that, which is hilarious.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49134419]This happened during the Trayvon Martin protests, I believe. A small protest group blocked a side street in a business area. They left room for cars to go around them, and most did, so it wasn't like they were actually amounting to anything more than a minor annoyance to commuters, but somebody panicked or got fed up, gunned it into the middle of the crowd, and kept right on going. He ran at least one woman over, dragging her along under his vehicle for a few dozen feet. She survived, but suffered serious injuries to her leg. Still blows my mind how many people right here on Facepunch defended the driver's actions in that case, to be honest. Psychopath literally accelerated into a crowd of peaceful protesters rather than go around, badly injuring somebody, and was actually applauded for it by the "racism doesn't exist" crowd. [/QUOTE] Are you talking about the guy where the protesters attempted to access the car using the door where his child was and then he drove off in an attempt to get his family out of immediate danger? [editline]18th November 2015[/editline] should've let his child get kidnapped smh damn racists
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.