Black Lives Matter Protesters shut down Airport Traffic, State Patrol rushing to break it up
100 replies, posted
Yeah, I was trying to get home from college while all this was going down. Luckily I left like 4 hours before my flight, but the trains were all very behind schedule and the airport was chaotic.
[QUOTE=Quq;49378376]Why can't they just protest in a way that allows me to continue to ignore their plight?[/QUOTE]
Yeah sure this brings attention to their plight. It brings the attention of fucking pissed people who miss their holiday flights to see family. Or people who are traveling to see dying relatives. Or people who simply want to go on a well deserved vacation. This protest is simply going to shed a negative light over the rest of the movement and make the general populace even more apathetic to their cause.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49378202]Can I just go over this again? This is really fucked up. You are seriously saying that you'd gain pleasure from killing people because they blocked a single terminal? I just-I can't..
What the fuck?[/QUOTE]
Do you think that I think this is an isolated case or something? It's not just the fact that they disrupt literally everything unrelated, but the fact that them existing is [I]actively detrimental[/I] to people who are actually being oppressed. I know this because people who think the way I do exist.
I know what I feel about them is fucked up and I've never said it wasn't. That doesn't stop me from feeling the way I do and that definitely doesn't stop other people who could actually act on their feelings from feeling the same. So if BLM want to actually make a difference, they need to understand that earning hearts and minds means [I]not[/I] making life hell for people who already don't care that much.
Protesting and civil unrest isn't just a shouting match, it isn't just about gathering enough viewers, its not just random, sporadic, and undirected anger. Its a absolutely a matter of planning, strategy, and guidance. That's why leaders tend to crop up to guide successful movements, they provide these things. A small group of people sits down and plans where to go and what to do for the movement, directs resources, arranges meetings, and much more. Its a hefty organizational undertaking. Its a lot of social engineering, knowing how to actually put people in the right places with the cameras focused at the right angles to have people want you want them to see. Just going out shouting about your problems and tearing around looking for an audience while simultaneously burning the bridge behind you does not get you large swaths of followers outside the movement itself. To effectively run a massive protest movement, you basically have to approach it like a corporation. You have people with talents and skills in leadership positions, people with connections who get the right media personalities talking and the right tv spots, with the cameras looking the right way. Money flowing in the proper direction to insure things are actually funded, that your protests don't end up with everyone going broke and your protests dead in the water. Any semblance of intelligent leadership would have stopped this group in their tracks and said "No, this is not the right move. This will not work." Because it doesn't work. It doesn't garner support.
[QUOTE=BazzBerry;49376913]Shit like this is exactly why they're getting nowhere. They need to smarten the fuck up.[/QUOTE]
They *won't* get nowhere. They're too stupid to realize it.
They could have picked a better time to protest honestly, doing it before Christmas is a dick move since many people are probably on their way to visit their family.
This one just doesn't seem to be well thought out.
This was just an act of desperation, trying to remain relevant. Their cause is just not working anymore.
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;49379113]Do you think that I think this is an isolated case or something? It's not just the fact that they disrupt literally everything unrelated, but the fact that them existing is [I]actively detrimental[/I] to people who are actually being oppressed. I know this because people who think the way I do exist.
I know what I feel about them is fucked up and I've never said it wasn't. That doesn't stop me from feeling the way I do and that definitely doesn't stop other people who could actually act on their feelings from feeling the same. So if BLM want to actually make a difference, they need to understand that earning hearts and minds means [I]not[/I] making life hell for people who already don't care that much.[/QUOTE]
I can understand where your coming from here. But wanting to kill all of them for that? That is a complete over-reaction. I genuinely think you should get some help for that, as a normal person would only wish death upon those who have done something really, really bad.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;49376843]Wasn't this one of the reasons the Occupy Protests failed?: being leaderless and disrupting normal businesses not related to what you are protesting?[/QUOTE]
You cant say it failed because everyone is now more aware of 99℅
[QUOTE=650leetARIMI;49380026]You cant say it failed because everyone is now more aware of 99℅[/QUOTE]
It has failed because it just made thousands of people hate their movement.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49380181]It has failed because it just made thousands of people hate their movement.[/QUOTE]
It got taken over by rich hipsters and their pet issues. A person named "Ketchup" was for whatever reason chosen to discuss OWS on the news. People lost sight of the wealth inequality thing.
BLM and things like it sabatoge genuinely good candidates like Bernie that will get what they want done. Putting a negative face on an issue doesn't help.
White lives matter too.
i am fairly sure that disruption is a protest tactic, not the actual point of the protest in and of itself
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49380283]i am fairly sure that disruption is a protest tactic, not the actual point of the protest in and of itself[/QUOTE]Exactly.
[QUOTE=EmilioGB;49380240]White lives matter too.[/QUOTE]
It kinda blows my mind that people have difficulty interpreting the statement "Black Lives Matter" still. There isn't an implicit "Only" at the end of that. I don't really understand why so many people come to that conclusion??? There'd be a "Too" at the end if people had anticipated actually having to spell it out for so many people.
Black Lives Matter means "Hey, black people are disproportionately put on the receiving end of unjust violence, perpetuated especially by the police force that's supposed to protect the people from violence in the first place. Please pay attention to this issue, many people don't take this into consideration and people are dying."
[QUOTE=Katska;49380449]It kinda blows my mind that people have difficulty interpreting the statement "Black Lives Matter" still. There isn't an implicit "Only" at the end of that. I don't really understand why so many people come to that conclusion??? There'd be a "Too" at the end if people had anticipated actually having to spell it out for so many people.
Black Lives Matter means "Hey, black people are disproportionately put on the receiving end of unjust violence, perpetuated especially by the police force that's supposed to protect the people from violence in the first place. Please pay attention to this issue, many people don't take this into consideration and people are dying."[/QUOTE]
White people are receiving the same amount of unjust and violence, but no one decided to make some kind of movement.
I never interpreted it as "Only Black Lives Matter", but when I saw what those people actually do, I changed my mind.
maybe if they didnt commit the vast majority of murders, other races would care more? just a speculation.
Nah, instead they just push it into peoples faces, like a deluded old hobo trying to give someone a shitty diaper he found in the dump.
Wrlstar ooooo
[QUOTE=EmilioGB;49380527]White people are receiving the same amount of unjust and violence, but no one decided to make some kind of movement.
I never interpreted it as "Only Black Lives Matter", but when I saw what those people actually do, I changed my mind.[/QUOTE]
I'm not really an expert on this topic by any means, but I haven't really seen anything that says that white people are affected by police brutality as much as black people are.
I did some research on this, and apparently The Guardian keeps a database of people killed by the police ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database[/url]) since the start of 2015. In June, they published an article ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis[/url]) that shows that, up until that point, [I]31.9%[/I] of black people killed by the police were unarmed, versus [I]25.4%[/I] of latino/hispanic people and only [I]15.0%[/I] of white people. Of course, this already accounts for things like population and race-based crime rates.
I realized that these stats are somewhat outdated and feature a more shallow pool of victims than what the database would currently hold in December, so I looked at their database and basically did the same thing they did earlier. While my findings don't indicate a gap as drastic as it was back in June, it still supports the notion that black people are more often on the receiving end of unjustified police violence than white people are.
[QUOTE][B]93[/B] Unarmed white people/[B]537[/B] total white people killed = ~[B]17.3%[/B]
[B]69[/B] Unarmed black people/[B]272[/B] total black people killed = ~[B]25.4%[/B]
[B]33[/B] Unarmed hispanic/latino people/[B]170[/B] total hispanic/latino people killed = ~[B]19.4%[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't really know what caused the gap to decrease from about 17% to 7%, which is honestly good news. Perhaps the increased attention to the issue brought about by groups like BLM are making an actual difference. Or it could just be statistical error being corrected through an increase in sample size. Or something. I'm not a statistician.
Of course there's a lot more that could probably be said about this issue, and this is just one thing I found that I hope shines some light on the issue, but this is about as far as I'm willing to go in terms of doing research for some insignificant e-debate at the moment, anyways. I'm tired and also busy.
Also, I'm pretty sure groups like BLM, while maintaining an emphasis on how black people experience police brutality, are still trying to put a spotlight on the issue of police brutality in general. They aren't going around saying that police brutality against white people is okay or justified or unimportant. I don't think white people need a specific movement dedicated to pointing out how police brutality affects white people specifically, seeing as it seems that white people experience it the least.
[QUOTE=Blue Meanie;49380616]maybe if they didnt commit the vast majority of murders, other races would care more? just a speculation.
Nah, instead they just push it into peoples faces, like a deluded old hobo trying to give someone a shitty diaper he found in the dump.[/QUOTE]
We shouldn't be supporting racist ideas like "Since black people overall commit more murders, that means we shouldn't care if they are marginalized and disadvantaged."
Also, crime in the black community isn't as prevalent as it is because they're black, it has a lot more to do with an ongoing cycle of poverty, WHICH SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, I SHOULDN't have to tell you that black people aren't genetically hard-wired to kill, but I'm honestly not even sure if you understand that just going by your post. (!!!)
[QUOTE=Blue Meanie;49380616]maybe if they didnt commit the vast majority of murders, other races would care more? just a speculation.
Nah, instead they just push it into peoples faces, like a deluded old hobo trying to give someone a shitty diaper he found in the dump.[/QUOTE]
Not all black people commit crime, so why should the rest be treated differently? Hell why should they be treated different from criminals of other races. Coz they sure are, heres some stats from america.
Blacks might commit more of the violent crime (link this to poverty instead of race please) but they are also 6 times more likely to be a victim of that crime (against because of the poverty). They are also 8 times more likely to get convicted than a white dude. so while they might commit more of the crime (because of their social status) they are much much much more likely to be convicted for it than a white dude. So you see racism twice there, once for the poverty and again for the conviction rate.
I'll say black instead of african american since since I'm british and thats what we say.
Black people (13% of the population) commit 14% of the drug use in the US yet account for 37% of the convictions for drug use. Making them far more likely to get caught for the crime than a white or other guy. Below and above you will see they are also more likely to be sent to jail for the same crime.
Black people are more likely to get stopped and searched. 80% of the people pulled over in new york were black, black people don't do 80% of the crime so why are they targetted?
Black americans serve 10% longer than whites for the same crime.
Over half the people in prison for drugs are black so Whites and other are less likely to be sent to prison for the same crime.
Blacks get worse healthcare treatment, even when they have the same insurance and wealth.
Then theres a whole load of issues in the job market.
A study was done where resumes were handed out, being identical apart from the names, some having white name, some having latino, some having black names. Despite being equally qualified the ones with black names got 50% fewer call backs than the ones with other names.
Also issues in education. Which again can be linked to poverty which can be linked to race. (blacks are more likely to live in poverty and with americas really low social mobility they don't really have a chance of making their lives better)
Racial bias is still a legit issue, granted some of this might not be a white guy sat at a desk saying "huh lakisha, won't hire someone like that" and the issues in education might be because blacks are more likely to live in poverty thus have access to worse schools (still race related though, and I would be angry). It's not a redneck sat in his yard yelling stuff at passers by, its at every level and insidious affecting criminal justice, education, healthcare, job hiring, poverty, policing.
The black lives matter movement is being obnoxious and making everyone hate it, which is sad coz then less people will support and thus less people will be sympathetic with their cause, despite it being very very legit. Eventually their silly antics might mean nothing ever gets done about the problems they are facing.
Akala ([URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YCu5B6AMoQ"]same issues but in the uk [/URL]) and [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQdMgtncpoE"]john green[/URL] have both done great videos on racism with stats supplied to back it up.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49378239]Because a protest is now apparently harassment?[/QUOTE]
If i went to your house and shat down your chimney it would be a more valid protest against your opinions than what BLM does here
To me it does seem like BLM makes some poor choices sometimes in regards to their protest targets, but I don't want to act like some armchair expert on this kinda thing right now because I really wouldn't know the first thing about organizing a protest. Like, I [I]feel[/I] like they could be doing some things better, but that's all I can really say
That being said, the way some people vilify them is completely ridiculous, honestly. I know I've definitely seen people on this forum call them a hate group before. Like, what the fuck? They could be doing a better job probably, but the amount of bile some of you guys spew at them is really a bit much.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49378181]Again, like TornadoAP pointed out [b]by actually reading my comment[/b], I was arguing that protests being "disruptive" is to be expected. I'm tired of people seeing highway blockages as "a bad form of protesting" - disruptive direct action protests that [i]inconvenienced people[/i] has been used with huge effectiveness. This is the same concept - the only reasonable complaint is that the target is misguided. The cause is reasonable, the method of action is reasonable, the target is not. That's it. People are arguing that the method was unreasonable - claiming that is the same as claiming that disrupting restaurants and inconveniencing diners was unreasonable. The only difference is that there was a relevant target.[/QUOTE]
[B]bold text [/B]makes my point more clear and much more relevant/correct
the point of protesting might be to disrupt but it's still super fucking illegal and cunty to disable people's ability to move freely, especially when it concerns stuff like a highway (hospital / emergency) or a plane a few days before Christmas (irrelevant/SUPER shitty to people who are not related to your issue)
[editline]24th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49380999]Not all black people commit crime, so why should the rest be treated differently? Hell why should they be treated different from criminals of other races. Coz they sure are, heres some stats from america.
Blacks might commit more of the violent crime (link this to poverty instead of race please) but they are also 6 times more likely to be a victim of that crime (against because of the poverty). They are also 8 times more likely to get convicted than a white dude. so while they might commit more of the crime (because of their social status) they are much much much more likely to be convicted for it than a white dude. So you see racism twice there, once for the poverty and again for the conviction rate.
I'll say black instead of african american since since I'm british and thats what we say.
Black people (13% of the population) commit 14% of the drug use in the US yet account for 37% of the convictions for drug use. Making them far more likely to get caught for the crime than a white or other guy. Below and above you will see they are also more likely to be sent to jail for the same crime.
Black people are more likely to get stopped and searched. 80% of the people pulled over in new york were black, black people don't do 80% of the crime so why are they targetted?
Black americans serve 10% longer than whites for the same crime.
Over half the people in prison for drugs are black so Whites and other are less likely to be sent to prison for the same crime.
Blacks get worse healthcare treatment, even when they have the same insurance and wealth.
Then theres a whole load of issues in the job market.
A study was done where resumes were handed out, being identical apart from the names, some having white name, some having latino, some having black names. Despite being equally qualified the ones with black names got 50% fewer call backs than the ones with other names.
Also issues in education. Which again can be linked to poverty which can be linked to race. (blacks are more likely to live in poverty and with americas really low social mobility they don't really have a chance of making their lives better)
Racial bias is still a legit issue, granted some of this might not be a white guy sat at a desk saying "huh lakisha, won't hire someone like that" and the issues in education might be because blacks are more likely to live in poverty thus have access to worse schools (still race related though, and I would be angry). It's not a redneck sat in his yard yelling stuff at passers by, its at every level and insidious affecting criminal justice, education, healthcare, job hiring, poverty, policing.
The black lives matter movement is being obnoxious and making everyone hate it, which is sad coz then less people will support and thus less people will be sympathetic with their cause, despite it being very very legit. Eventually their silly antics might mean nothing ever gets done about the problems they are facing.
Akala ([URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YCu5B6AMoQ"]same issues but in the uk [/URL]) and [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQdMgtncpoE"]john green[/URL] have both done great videos on racism with stats supplied to back it up.[/QUOTE]
You covered it yourself but a lot of reasons for race disparities is poverty, in poorer areas you're much more likely to get pulled over, and therefore slammed for drug shit. More black people live in these poor areas = more cop interaction due to (lack of) wealth, = higher % of brutality based on frequency of interaction
I'm just waiting for these fuckwits to get hit by a car once they block another highway
I'd like to point out that yes, protests are supposed to disrupt things.
However, they hit Mall of America and a fucking airport. If they were an artillery strike, they'd hit an empty field with some already blown up vehicles in it.
They should be sitting around, barricading and bothering the fucking police, ya'know, the source of the issue. But they're so unable to handle being arrested that they don't actually do it.
[QUOTE=Swilly;49382870]I'd like to point out that yes, protests are supposed to disrupt things.
However, they hit Mall of America and a fucking airport. If they were an artillery strike, they'd hit an empty field with some already blown up vehicles in it.
They should be sitting around, barricading and bothering the fucking police, ya'know, the source of the issue. But they're so unable to handle being arrested that they don't actually do it.[/QUOTE]
[I]Zero people in this thread have disagreed with you[/I]. People are too dense to read the four comments I posted saying that they aren't choosing targets very well and they're disorganized.
Highway blockages, malls, and airports are poor targets to protest racist police brutality, especially in a city like Minneapolis that has done a hell of a lot to change how their police operate to reduce these sorts of cases.
[editline]24th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Billy-Bobfred;49382212]I'm just waiting for these fuckwits to get hit by a car once they block another highway[/QUOTE]
Every time someone wishes death on protesters I can't help but think that they're some self-centered 12 year old without the self-awareness to realize what they're actually calling for. If I said "I hope you die" I'd get banned for flaming, and in real life I'd probably be thrown out of a ton of friend groups for being an enormous cunt, but because this is a specific group of people that you aren't particularly fond of, saying "I hope they die" is perfectly okay, right?
Seriously. Don't wish death on people because of internet outrage. Have a conscience.
[QUOTE=Katska;49380998]I'm not really an expert on this topic by any means, but I haven't really seen anything that says that white people are affected by police brutality as much as black people are.
I did some research on this, and apparently The Guardian keeps a database of people killed by the police ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database[/url]) since the start of 2015. In June, they published an article ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis[/url]) that shows that, up until that point, [I]31.9%[/I] of black people killed by the police were unarmed, versus [I]25.4%[/I] of latino/hispanic people and only [I]15.0%[/I] of white people. Of course, this already accounts for things like population and race-based crime rates.
I realized that these stats are somewhat outdated and feature a more shallow pool of victims than what the database would currently hold in December, so I looked at their database and basically did the same thing they did earlier. While my findings don't indicate a gap as drastic as it was back in June, it still supports the notion that black people are more often on the receiving end of unjustified police violence than white people are.
[/quote]
"Unarmed" is meaningless because a person's body is a penty dangerous weapon. Unarmed doesn't equate to not a threat.
[quote]Also, I'm pretty sure groups like BLM, while maintaining an emphasis on how black people experience police brutality, are still trying to put a spotlight on the issue of police brutality in general. They aren't going around saying that police brutality against white people is okay or justified or unimportant. I don't think white people need a specific movement dedicated to pointing out how police brutality affects white people specifically, seeing as it seems that white people experience it the least.
[/QUOTE]
The media seems to love to highlight police brutality against blacks, because that's what's popular or whatever. I'm almost certain every single shitshow around the various police shootings/brutality cases would have never happened if the civilians involved were white.
BLM, at this point, is a tainted movement that suffers from the lack of central leadership. Hopefully someone will start a movement which has a guiding voice (and a better name, honestly it's like feminism; the name should reflect the goal of the movement, not a demographic that would benefit most from that goal being met) so something meaningful might come of it, because there are issues, but BLM isn't going to make people want to solve them.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49378181]Again, like TornadoAP pointed out [b]by actually reading my comment[/b], I was arguing that protests being "disruptive" is to be expected. I'm tired of people seeing highway blockages as "a bad form of protesting" - disruptive direct action protests that [i]inconvenienced people[/i] has been used with huge effectiveness. This is the same concept - the only reasonable complaint is that the target is misguided. The cause is reasonable, the method of action is reasonable, the target is not. That's it. People are arguing that the method was unreasonable - claiming that is the same as claiming that disrupting restaurants and inconveniencing diners was unreasonable. The only difference is that there was a relevant target.[/QUOTE]
What was reasonable in the 50s and 60s isn't the same as what's reasonable this day in age. So unless you want society to regress back to the way it was in the 50s and 60s, you have to understand that things change, society changes, and what's effective changes.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49385967]What was reasonable in the 50s and 60s isn't the same as what's reasonable this day in age. So unless you want society to regress back to the way it was in the 50s and 60s, you have to understand that things change, society changes, and what's effective changes.[/QUOTE]
Ironic that you're criticizing the progressive protesting that led to change from the 50s and 60s. Why was that acceptable then? Why isn't it acceptable now? What has changed to make disruption a bad method of protesting? Why do you think it would be ineffective if it wasn't applied to a related target? You can't just state these things and say "it's different so it's bad now" and not make a single argument to support your reasoning.
I guarantee you that the people fighting against the civil rights movement made the same complaints - they couldn't go to their favorite restaurants because of those uppity blacks taking up all the spaces! They're so inconsiderate and they're just turning people against their cause! It'll never be effective!
Only reasonable complaint is that they're protesting in the wrong locations. That's it. Direct action protest has been incredibly effective and has been adopted by almost every major social movement in the 20th century.
The climate movement [i]regularly uses disruptive protests[/i] as early as a year or two ago, yet nobody seems to be whining about how disruption is a bad protest tactic in those cases. In 2009, climate activists shut down the coal plant that powers the US Congress building and prevented people from getting to work that day, closing it down. Where's the online outrage there? They stopped people from getting to work! That's selfish and they're just making enemies, right? They need to peacefully protest and not disrupt society!!
It may be a good cause, but these people should seriously fuck off. They only seem to cause trouble.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.