BLM and why i don't take it seriously.

a reply to: Kali74

They'd do even better if their goals were more clear and they didn't alienate so many of their allies

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Woodcarver

I agree with almost everything on that list, only one problem NONE of it is about blacks or their lives mattering and everything on that list is about fighting police corruption so tell me, WHY IN THE HELL IS IT CALLED BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!

It has nothing to do with it if that list is their goals.

#fightpolicecorruption, it's all inclusive of every race and creed to come together and fight police corruption.

Black lives matter is self segregating, is confusing since it's only a fraction of what the overall goal is claimed to be according to that list, and it by it's nature spits in the face of police corruption towards anyone not black. What purpose does the emphasis on blacks have when the goal seems to be police corruption itself?

Exactly. DING DING DING.


I agree, the movement should have been called #EndPoliceBrutality, or something similar. It isn't just the NAME.....whenever I hear black people talking about it, they are specifically talking about it as if it is a BLACK PROBLEM. That is such BS.

Police brutality is a HUMAN problem, and calling it a black problem just FURTHER segregates us all, and divides us all. It is like taking a HUGE step back.


If black people want this issue to be taken seriously by whites and other races, they should stop trying to make it a BLACK problem. I think that is a simple enough concept.


Honestly, I think if black people recognized that this problem affects EVERYONE, and stopped making it all about themselves, they would have a LOT, and I mean a LOT more support. Changes would happen more quickly, and be more effective. More people would come together in support of each other.


The police force in the US is becoming more and more militarized, and it is affecting EVERYONE. #BlackLivesDon'tMatterMoreThanWhiteLives, #AllLivesMatter #StopPoliceBrutality

originally posted by: supermarket2012

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: supermarket2012

But blacks are three times more likely to be killed by a cop than whites - which is amazing when you consider that there are five times more whites then there are blacks. THAT is the issue that the BLM movement is trying to address.

What do you think would be a better name for a movement that is addressing the fact that blacks are three times more likely to be killed by cops than whites? Maybe "Blacks are three times more likely to be killed by cops than whites"? That isn't a very catchy name for a movement, is it.

You say blacks are three times more likely to be killed by a cop than whites. What you DON'T say, is what exactly CONTRIBUTES to that statistic? Do you think police officers drive around and say "Gee Mike, I haven't killed a BLACK MAN in almost a year! Let's go find us one!"

No. Blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than whites. There are FAR more black gang members than white gang members. Crime is ALWAYS higher among ethnic minorities, that is just a fact.

Most of these murders are occuring in inner city areas, or in ghettos/hoods. A police officer would have to search for HOURS just to MAYBE find a white person in these areas.


Let me make this more clear:

1. Most of the police murders occur in low income areas. The percentage of white people in these areas is MUCH, MUCH lower than black individuals. So common sense says a BLACK PERSON IS MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED in these areas than a white person!

2. Low income areas have MUCH, MUCH more crime than high income areas. Therefore, the police are fighting a tougher front in the LOW INCOME AREAS. Common sense says THIS is where the conflicts are most likely to happen.

3. In these low income, black areas, people do not cooperate with police. The police know this, and this makes them even more on guard ,more tense in these areas. Police also know they are likely to be targetted or attacked in these areas, again, leading them to be more aggressive and on guard.



My WHOLE point in this reply is that while the statistic you gave, "Blacks are three times more likely to be murdered than whites by a cop" might be true, you are at fault in ASSUMING that this is because of racism, or wrongdoing on the police's part.

So do you think white people in the suburbs dont use drugs? Or is it that the cops don't look for drugs in the suburbs? The officer michael wood said in an interview on the young turks that cops stay out of nice nieghborhoods because they don't want to "accidently" arrest a judges son, or maybe a lawyers kid.

End the war on drugs and more than half of arrests wouldn't be needed.

a reply to: supermarket2012

This all falls on deaf ears every time. People like their divisions and insist it's right and proper, completely ignorant to how such divisions keep the powers that be in power.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

The reason I don't really agree with the BLM movement is they show up at events like Bernie Sanders and pretend like he hasn't been on their side for the last 40 years.

He seems to understand why they do it. Even if he gets frustrated in the moment he gets that his views on policy that affect black people the most, hasn't reached the people that need to hear it the most. He is working to address that.

And like Occupy Wallstreet, they have no actual leadership or structure or goals for that matter. An organization like that can't have just a broad, vague message.

Perhaps people are looking for instant gratification. There's a very legitimate reason they don't have designated leaders... the FBI, would-be assassins, sell-outs. What is vague about wanting to see an end to the ability of the ultra wealthy to buy and control our political system? What is vague about wanting to end the destruction our criminal justice inflicts on minorities?

It doesn't work.

It seems to be the only thing that does.

a reply to: Puppylove

Their goals are clear, people not liking them and being obtuse about it doesn't make them not so.

a reply to: Kali74

There goals seem to be, fight police brutality, but if you're not black, go # yourself, we don't even want your support.

a reply to: Puppylove

It's your choice to interpret it that way.

a reply to: supermarket2012

The truth is, 90% of the people in the projects (thats a very GENEROUS estimate) are on welfare. They not only can't afford to move, they can't even afford to LIVE. Our government already feeds them, clothes them, and gives them a place to live...ALL ON THE TAX PAYERS DIME. What else exactly do you propose the government do?

What they where elected to do, that's what I expect the government to do! Whats the one thing all poverty stricken areas everywhere in the world have in common?

Lack of decent payed employment, right?

So instead of blaming people for collecting welfare so they don't starve and because there doing drugs & alcohol since they got nowhere else to be, why not blame the government for not creating job opportunities in poor areas?

Of course people are going to be drawn to gangs and crime when they don't have any chance of succeeding the honest way.

a reply to: Kali74

I have no patience for divisive movements that are part of a bigger problem but insist on being divisive rather than inclusive. This is the wrong movement to solve this problem with. But whatever. Exclusiveness is to be promoted everywhere.

a reply to: Puppylove

So they should tailor themselves to you so that you'll participate?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: supermarket2012

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: supermarket2012

But blacks are three times more likely to be killed by a cop than whites - which is amazing when you consider that there are five times more whites then there are blacks. THAT is the issue that the BLM movement is trying to address.

What do you think would be a better name for a movement that is addressing the fact that blacks are three times more likely to be killed by cops than whites? Maybe "Blacks are three times more likely to be killed by cops than whites"? That isn't a very catchy name for a movement, is it.

You say blacks are three times more likely to be killed by a cop than whites. What you DON'T say, is what exactly CONTRIBUTES to that statistic? Do you think police officers drive around and say "Gee Mike, I haven't killed a BLACK MAN in almost a year! Let's go find us one!"

No. Blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than whites. There are FAR more black gang members than white gang members. Crime is ALWAYS higher among ethnic minorities, that is just a fact.

Most of these murders are occuring in inner city areas, or in ghettos/hoods. A police officer would have to search for HOURS just to MAYBE find a white person in these areas.


Let me make this more clear:

1. Most of the police murders occur in low income areas. The percentage of white people in these areas is MUCH, MUCH lower than black individuals. So common sense says a BLACK PERSON IS MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED in these areas than a white person!

2. Low income areas have MUCH, MUCH more crime than high income areas. Therefore, the police are fighting a tougher front in the LOW INCOME AREAS. Common sense says THIS is where the conflicts are most likely to happen.

3. In these low income, black areas, people do not cooperate with police. The police know this, and this makes them even more on guard ,more tense in these areas. Police also know they are likely to be targetted or attacked in these areas, again, leading them to be more aggressive and on guard.



My WHOLE point in this reply is that while the statistic you gave, "Blacks are three times more likely to be murdered than whites by a cop" might be true, you are at fault in ASSUMING that this is because of racism, or wrongdoing on the police's part.

So do you think white people in the suburbs dont use drugs? Or is it that the cops don't look for drugs in the suburbs? The officer michael wood said in an interview on the young turks that cops stay out of nice nieghborhoods because they don't want to "accidently" arrest a judges son, or maybe a lawyers kid.

End the war on drugs and more than half of arrests wouldn't be needed.

Do I white people in the suburbs dont use drugs? Of course they do. In fact, many drug dealers in the hood would be out of business if white people stop using drugs. Many people from the suburbs drive through hoods to an open air drug market to get their stuff.

The difference is, the drug dealers in the hood are much more violent than the drug dealers in the white, suburban areas. Don't get me wrong, just like drugs, violence can be find anywhere. However, the level of aggression, and the violent crimes committed in the hood are exponentially higher than in white suburban areas.

Put yourself in a police officers shoes. Are you going to be more tense arresting some white drug dealer driving a BMW, or more tense arresting a big black drug dealer standing on the block wearing all red, or all blue and probably carrying a pistol on him? Sure, you can call it profiling, and it IS profiling, but it is also COMMON SENSE.


Cops don't have to patrol nice neighborhoods like they have to patrol the inner city low income areas.

Again, I don't know where you live, but having grown up in inner city Chicago, and now living in Atlanta, I get to see the things we are discussing first hand. The level of aggression, racism, and tension in the black areas is off the charts, and it has always been that way. Being a white person, you are definitely NOT welcome in many black areas. They won't hesitate to shoot you , or at least in your direction for walking in the wrong neighborhood. They are VERY uncooperative with police, not just the criminals, but the entire neighborhoods. 9 out of 10 of them are on welfare, and they have TONS of children, and it just strengthens the cycle more and more.

My whole point is that even if cops DISAPPEARED entirely, the black community would STILL be sinking. In fact, without police officers and without handouts from the government and tax payers, the black communities would be something we can't even IMAGINE.

If you think there is violence, gangs, and high crime in the hoods now, you wouldn't even be able to IMAGINE what it would look like without police officers and without tax payers' handouts/welfare.


I think the entire black community needs to get together, and find a solution to their ailments.

Imagine if most of the rappers like 50 cent, dr. dre, and all of the other ones making MILLIONS each invested in a few neighborhoods are cleaned them out, and laid out the blueprints to clean up further neighborhoods.......that would help big time.


I just think the police brutality is like a drop of water compared to an ocean of problems facing the black community

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Krusty the Klown
Could you elaborate to what BLM means for non-Americans that read ATS?

Thanks

BLM ( black lives matter)

For pity's sake, why do some people have to limit who's life matters. Don't we ALL matter regardless of our covering?

I wonder if BLM supporters work as hard at helping the non "B's"? Or do some of them pursecute non black's because they stereotype them all as the enemy?

Get rid of the ignorance and I'll take more notice.

a reply to: Puppylove

The LGBT rights movement has been about the rights of LGBT citizens to have equal access to housing, employment, marriage, etc. It doesn't mean that there aren't other groups having many of the same problems. It is just that LGBT groups wanted to focus on themselves not getting these rights. Do you blame them for focusing on their own rights?

Same with the women's rights movements. Are women the only ones facing adversity? No, but shouldn't they be allowed to start their own movement that focuses on them?

There are plenty of BLM groups across the nation that accept white supporters. Sure, there are a few hard core militants, but that happens in all these types of movements. I've heard of some militant feminists who bar all men from their women's rights gatherings. I've also heard of some militant gays who don't want straights anywhere near them.

Most BLM groups, as with most women's rights groups, as with most LGBT groups welcome any and all supporters.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: supermarket2012

The truth is, 90% of the people in the projects (thats a very GENEROUS estimate) are on welfare. They not only can't afford to move, they can't even afford to LIVE. Our government already feeds them, clothes them, and gives them a place to live...ALL ON THE TAX PAYERS DIME. What else exactly do you propose the government do?

What they where elected to do, that's what I expect the government to do! Whats the one thing all poverty stricken areas everywhere in the world have in common?

Lack of decent payed employment, right?

So instead of blaming people for collecting welfare so they don't starve and because there doing drugs & alcohol since they got nowhere else to be, why not blame the government for not creating job opportunities in poor areas?

Of course people are going to be drawn to gangs and crime when they don't have any chance of succeeding the honest way.

First of all, I didn't blame the people for being on welfare. I myself have been on food stamps when times were tough.


You say we should blame the government for not creating job opportunities? Exactly how is the government supposed to create job opportunities, and WHY is it the governments responsibility to do so? Jobs aren't just created out of think air you know. Jobs come in existence based on supply and demand of a product or service.

You see, if the government just started artificially supporting the economy, by creating more and more money out of thin air.....it just creates more and more debt for ALL of us. Same with jobs.....if the government just started "Creating" jobs , our country as a whole would suffer.

If by creating jobs, you mean using the tax payers money to hire enough people from each and every ghetto around the country to have a noticable affect in poverty levels....then taxes would go up so much that our middle class, people like me, would just end up being the "new poor".



Maybe I am misunderstanding you though. How exactly do you propose the government create new jobs? You are taking about creating more than one million positions to be filled......it would take about that to REALLY change things.

What kind of jobs?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I'm sure everyone will lose sleep over your lack of support for a great movement...

You are after all, the centre of the universe.
If you don't take them seriously, who will?

/sarc


#BlackLivesMatter

really? thats what you have to offer?


great input

You equated racism to "a veruca"...

I don't take you seriously.


#BlackLivesMatter

clearly your comprehension is skewed....

No my comprehension is fine...

You said fighting racism instead of black on black crime is like fighting a veruca before treating cancer...

You said it...

& now...

No i didnt say that at all, so yes your comprehension is skewed.

blacks kill more blacks =cancer
compared to the amount of cops that kill them = verruca

put more words in my mouth though.....

a reply to: Kali74

It has nothing to do with me personally. Don't try to make this about me when you know full well that has nothing to do with it. The movement is for one thing, but is exclusive when it comes to actually fighting that thing. The thing it screams most about, even to the point it's in the name, is one symptom of the overall problem.

I'm so sick of progress being hindered by self segregation, I'm so sick of problems we all face being turned into individual sub issues so it's never fought with a united front, I'm so sick of divisive language that pushes allies away. I'm done with all these bull# little subcauses of a bigger problem. I'm sick of the division we all put ourselves into when we should be trying to unite together under a common umbrella.

The whole goal of ending inequality is to come together as one, it is to remove these bull# boundaries like race. I want to end inequality, and create a world, but that will never happen so long as we choose to self segregate rather than invite each other in and come together as one.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: kellyjay where a abouts in America do you live? Somewhere with a high African American population? What do you see of the treatment of those individuals in your locality?

Sorry it's just your location says Scotland?

I was born in missouri, and lived there for 22 years, im a dual citizen living in scotland

mistreatment in scotland is practically non existent

a reply to: kaylaluv

I am LGBT and personally we're idiots, if we actually could unite with the women and the blacks, and, every one of these groups together instead of separate we'd be an unstoppable force. In fact we'd be the majority at that point. The ONLY reason we haven't all accomplished our goals is because we choose to go it alone.

Addendum: Actually I'm glad you brought us up. I'm transgender, if we were not part of the LGBT we'd be too small to have any success fighting for our rights at all. The LGBT community is actually several small groups banded together because we know we'd be too weak separately. I say take that further.

It's time to end fighting separately to try and get things piecemeal. Band together for real, all of us, in one common cause, under one banner and we can change the world tomorrow.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Puppylove

So they should tailor themselves to you so that you'll participate?

When you say "tailor" themselves, you are implying that we are suggesting the movement should be altered to FIT white people, or people other than blacks. No one is suggesting that. What we are suggesting is the OPPOSITE of "tailoring" the movement, instead we are saying to not be racially exclusive.

It really is common sense, I don't know why this goes over your head? Let us use another example. Let's say I want to start a fund to fight cancer, specifically skin cancer. Would it make sense to ask for donations by saying "Donate Today! Help The Fight Against Skin Cancer In African Americans!" Why not just say "Donate Today! Help The Fight Against Skin Cancer!"


The fact is, the black leaders like Jesse Jackson and AL Sharpton are themselves trying to TAILOR a much broader issue of police militization and brutality to BLACKS ONLY. THEY are the ones doing the "tailoring".


As a white male, why should I give a rats ass about #BlackLivesMatter? The very slogan itself already excludes me, and makes me feel like an outsider. Any chance I might have had prior to seeing the slogan of feeling any sort of kinship, or desire to stand with them and fight with them, is already gone once I see that slogan.

To Say #BlackLivesMatter, makes me think that as a white male, perhaps I'm not as important. White people are brutalized and abused by police all the time, but why does the media not pick up on this? Why do the black leaders not talk about it?


Think about it....if the black leaders stopped making this a BLACK issue, we could ALL come together and tackle a very real, very serious issue.

Those of you guys saying "Well, it is just the name of the slogan. No one is saying its only a black issue" are lying through your teeth. Everyone I've seen who is leading the #BlackLivesMatter movement DOES consider it a specifically black issue. They havent ONCE mentioned ANY white individual cases or situations. They have indeed made it an EXCLUSIVELY black issue.

Since they are making it an EXCLUSIVELY black issue, they are DIVIDING people along RACIAL lines. HELLO! That's the very things we are trying to get PAST.


It is ironic, but a movement designed to stop aggression towards blacks is further dividing blacks.