Why BLM keeps losing... Antwon Rose

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: underwerks

Nah. It's just like pedophiles. I have zero depth of concern for them. The man that was killed by the father who caught him raping his 6-yr. old son, has ZERO concern from me. Thugs and criminals really don't garner many tears here. But, nevertheless, I abhor any abuse of power, but generally don't cry any tears when a criminal thug is involved.

So all a person has to do is be labeled a criminal for their life to not matter to you?

What is a “thug” to you?

a reply to: Edumakated

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I would argue that Eric Garner's death was unjust, IMO--an unjust attack on a man doing something prohibited by an unjust law.

Yes, I get it, he was breaking the law, but damn...selling a cigarette...

Walter Scott's shooting was not justified, IMO, either.

a reply to: Edumakated

Bayard Rustin

At around the same time, Bayard travelled by bus from Louisville, Kentucky to Nashville, Tennessee and he sat in the second row of the bus. He was asked by several drivers to get out of his seat and move to the back of the bus so a white person could sit in it, a practice common on buses in the south. When Bayard refused, he was arrested miles before his destination, and was beaten by the police and dragged off to jail. He was released without charges but his act of defiance happened in 1942, a full 13 years before Rosa Parks gained fame through her similar refusal.

Nice OP, BLM does seem to have an image issue and it always hurts their cause. However, there is policing problems out there. Minorities getting shot for little or no reason is one of them.

Despite BLM doing questionable things, we should still support their general cause of justice for minorities (and all people of course).

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Cops need to be punished and in many cases they're not. A lot of great police out there but there needs to be a clear message of punishment if you heavily abuse your power.

For everyone who has never been to a BLM event and only gets their information about them through TV and people on the internet, come out on July 7th if you’re in the PNW.

Going to be a dope show.

www.thestranger.com...

I have a feeling a lot of people that have a problem with BLM only feel that way because of how the media portrays them. Which is strange, because a lot of these people are the same ones who tell you not to trust the media..

a reply to: underwerks

Isn't this an old conversation?

To your first question, the answer is 'no'. Life matters to me, including the life growing in a mother's womb.

A thug to me is a person that cares nothing about others and robs, murders, maims, or abuses people without thought or conscience habitually.

I think (picking up on the OP underlying gist) is that we tend to not agonize or be as moved when it is a criminal or thug involved. I believe this to be true.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

And you appear to have a whole right-wing-talking-points opinion of them already, despite your research. So apparently it doesn't matter what their focus is. That said, I'm sure they don't need you to consult on their organization.

"Hyper-Tribalist SJW Outrage Machine"

Sure dude. You all just keep saying dismissive things like this due to the fact that you have no idea what other people go through (or have gone through). Those that have been subjugated from the beginning of this country are speaking out on the damage it has done to them and the communities that they live in and I can see that really gets you tizzied up. No one said the left would be tolerant of intolerance. This has been building for hundreds of years.

originally posted by: Gravelbone
a reply to: odzeandennz

Where in his post is he justifying wrongdoing?
He's saying that the BLM movement should be choosing more quality representatives to promote it's cause in order to justify its stance and legitimize it's struggle without having to rely on figurehead and spokespeople who would be considered less than desirable by the public eye.
Or did I read this wrong?

They also do not address Black on black crimes either. When was the last march on Chicago as a typical weekend sees dozens of shootings. I think "All Black Lives Matter" was/is a black conservative movement that addressed this. but was slammed by the black community.

originally posted by: blueman12


Cops need to be punished and in many cases they're not. A lot of great police out there but there needs to be a clear message of punishment if you heavily abuse your power.

They have this get out of jail free card called "I felt threatened". That is all they need to say and their actions are justified by the courts. Same with our borders..."I feel threaten to be sent back to my home country" and bam! you get a hearing... I kind of wished we as average citizens could also have a statement too. I get pulled over for speeding and being drunk and I tell the cop "I felt threaten" and everything is all good now. Anyone willing to test that for me?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Edumakated

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I would argue that Eric Garner's death was unjust, IMO--an unjust attack on a man doing something prohibited by an unjust law.

Yes, I get it, he was breaking the law, but damn...selling a cigarette...

Walter Scott's shooting was not justified, IMO, either.

Eric Garner resisted arrest. He died because of health issues. The choke hold exacerbated the situation. I agree that cops shouldn't be worried about someone selling looseys, but he did not "die because of selling cigarettes." He died because he didn't want to be arrested necessitating being taken down by the cops.

Walter Scott got into a serious fight with the officer and potentially took control of taser and/or firearm during struggle. Delayed reaction is probably why he got shot. The time from when the cop pulled and made decision to fire, Mr. Scott had turned and fled resulting in him getting shot in back. The brain doesn't just turn off immediately in those situations. I could argue both side in this case, but at the end of the day, Walter Scotts decisions resulted in his death.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: underwerks

Isn't this an old conversation?

To your first question, the answer is 'no'. Life matters to me, including the life growing in a mother's womb.

A thug to me is a person that cares nothing about others and robs, murders, maims, or abuses people without thought or conscience habitually.

I think (picking up on the OP underlying gist) is that we tend to not agonize or be as moved when it is a criminal or thug involved. I believe this to be true.

A thug to me is a person that cares nothing about others and robs, murders, maims, or abuses people without thought or conscience habitually.

How do you tell that from a news report? Or even a police report? Those are rhetorical questions, because you can’t.

Labeling someone a “thug” (which lets you think of them as less than human) is entirely based on what the media tells you about the person. Which isn’t reality. I think we should see people as humans first, before we affix dehumanizing labels to them.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: Edumakated

Bayard Rustin

At around the same time, Bayard travelled by bus from Louisville, Kentucky to Nashville, Tennessee and he sat in the second row of the bus. He was asked by several drivers to get out of his seat and move to the back of the bus so a white person could sit in it, a practice common on buses in the south. When Bayard refused, he was arrested miles before his destination, and was beaten by the police and dragged off to jail. He was released without charges but his act of defiance happened in 1942, a full 13 years before Rosa Parks gained fame through her similar refusal.

Thanks.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: underwerks

Isn't this an old conversation?

To your first question, the answer is 'no'. Life matters to me, including the life growing in a mother's womb.

A thug to me is a person that cares nothing about others and robs, murders, maims, or abuses people without thought or conscience habitually.

I think (picking up on the OP underlying gist) is that we tend to not agonize or be as moved when it is a criminal or thug involved. I believe this to be true.

A thug to me is a person that cares nothing about others and robs, murders, maims, or abuses people without thought or conscience habitually.

How do you tell that from a news report? Or even a police report? Those are rhetorical questions, because you can’t.

Labeling someone a “thug” (which lets you think of them as less than human) is entirely based on what the media tells you about the person. Which isn’t reality. I think we should see people as humans first, before we affix dehumanizing labels to them.

C'mon, you can't be this obtuse. Behavior is how people get labeled. If you got a police record a mile long, resisting arrest, caught with a firearm, face tats, posing on facebook with a band, throwing up gang sidngs, and all the other indicators of thugness... you are a thug.

It ain't that hard to tell unless someone is being willfully blind.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Edumakated

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I would argue that Eric Garner's death was unjust, IMO--an unjust attack on a man doing something prohibited by an unjust law.

Yes, I get it, he was breaking the law, but damn...selling a cigarette...

Walter Scott's shooting was not justified, IMO, either.

Eric Garner resisted arrest. He died because of health issues. The choke hold exacerbated the situation. I agree that cops shouldn't be worried about someone selling looseys, but he did not "die because of selling cigarettes." He died because he didn't want to be arrested necessitating being taken down by the cops.

Surely police basic taining is dealing with people who do not want to co operate or be arrested, yet he was "taken down", not just arrested, I understand it may also have been due to carelessness not malice on the LEO's part, as I am sure the death penalty is not the requirement for this offence, its not the wild west anymore after all...

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: underwerks

Isn't this an old conversation?

To your first question, the answer is 'no'. Life matters to me, including the life growing in a mother's womb.

A thug to me is a person that cares nothing about others and robs, murders, maims, or abuses people without thought or conscience habitually.

I think (picking up on the OP underlying gist) is that we tend to not agonize or be as moved when it is a criminal or thug involved. I believe this to be true.

A thug to me is a person that cares nothing about others and robs, murders, maims, or abuses people without thought or conscience habitually.

How do you tell that from a news report? Or even a police report? Those are rhetorical questions, because you can’t.

Labeling someone a “thug” (which lets you think of them as less than human) is entirely based on what the media tells you about the person. Which isn’t reality. I think we should see people as humans first, before we affix dehumanizing labels to them.

C'mon, you can't be this obtuse. Behavior is how people get labeled. If you got a police record a mile long, resisting arrest, caught with a firearm, face tats, posing on facebook with a band, throwing up gang sidngs, and all the other indicators of thugness... you are a thug.

It ain't that hard to tell unless someone is being willfully blind.

All those things you mentioned doesn’t a thug make. There are more upper class middle schoolers posting things like that on social media these days than any actual gangsters.

So all I have to do is pose in a picture with money, a gun (my second amendment right), and have tattoos to be a thug and have my life not matter anymore?

I think you’re touching on the real problem here without even realizing it.

a reply to: Edumakated

Uh, yea..........I get it. The examples used of cop over reach aren't very sympathetic characters.

But..........where did you get the idea that BLM is losing? I mean its true we haven't seen or heard much FROM or ABOUT BLM of late. But they totally won in Ferguson! Black Mayor, Black City Council, Black Police chief, Black police force AND apparently the County Sheriff's office has decided its best to leave Ferguson alone.

Sounds like a big win for BLM to me.

When people who employ violence against others meet a violent end it sounds like karma to me.
What is complaining or protesting going to do about that?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Edumakated

you can't justify wrong doing because the victims weren't model citizens.

we don't live in a 'mad max' style society yet.....

But many believe in karma, and that it can be a real which? Reap what you sow? Live by the sword, die by the sword?

a reply to: Edumakated

I do not believe BLM is trying to be a steward of justice, or a representative of change. They are, like just about every other group out there, solely about stirring up shiz and creating kerfuffles.

The issue isn't thugs getting gunned down. I mean, Eric Garner was flat out murdered and it was wrong. But Eric Garner was a flashpoint that made all those personal experiences come into focus.

Its the day to day, everyday, boot on the back of the neck that BLM completely ignores. Why are black neighborhoods patrolled more? Why are there more black people in prison when they are a minority in the population? Where have all the businesses in black neighborhoods gone, and what kind of employment opportunities are left? Why did the "pig laws" and "black codes" give way to actual laws that obviously target a specific racial demographic?

www.pbs.org...