Video: ‘Black Lives Matter’ rioters target whites for beat downs

a reply to: Krakatoa

We're all just sitting here talking, are we not?

I'm defending the BLM movement. I'm not asking for a medal or anything. Just voicing my opinion.

originally posted by: UKTruth
They could do worse than Sheriff Clarke for starters. Now that would be a powerful statement. It would instantly delete the stigma or violence, sooth police relations and focus the debate on inequality.

I think Sheriff Clarke would be great-- would benefit his image as well as BLM-- but he basically labels BLM as a hate group, so that would take some work. In general, BLM and police officers have been making efforts to stand together and police have been reaching out more to communities.

On a side note... BLM is not all that different from Trump Supporters. They both want to change an unfair system. Both groups have supporters right on the edge, sick of it all, completely disillusioned, ready to watch it all burn down, rather than go another day with it. Both groups get labeled as racists inciting hate and violence. And both groups have very ugly racist elements attracted to their movement which validates the criticism. You got racist black guys who show up at a BLM protest just so they can scream at cops, and racist white guys showing up at a Trump rally just so they can scream at Mexicans, blacks or Muslims. YouTube has no shortage of ugly videos from both groups.

It seems to me an opportunity for empathy.

Man I hate all of this craziness and the worst part is there is absolutely no way to fix it. Nothing anyone says or does is going to change anything. I think the government wants a race war. They want to keep us divided and distracted and they are succeeding.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

And we're trying to tell you our problems with how they are doing things and providing constructive criticism on what steps will improve their image and help them succeed. We're pointing out where they are failing and how it's making things worse.

Many of us are angry because we have many of the same issues they do, just framed in a way unrelated to race, that has more to do with corruption and training as well as helping with poverty and job issues for the poorest neighborhoods.

We're upset because we want to see social justice, but in many cases the way are doing things push us away at best, and actually harm any efforts to actually fix things at worst. In doing things the way they are, social justice has gone backwards from what it once was.

You're mistaking us for people that don't want to see things get better. We're frustrated because instead people are making it worse.

I've given my criticism, I've said what needs to be done, I've pointed why what they are currently doing is sending the wrong image. I would be ecstatic to see just one movement pick up the mantle of old. If one does it, and others see it working, it might become more common, and then we the people can start having a voice again.

This movement has made the divide between blacks and whites greater than it has been in years, and it's done so unnecessarily. If we can stamp out corruption in our legal system, force better education for cops and more strict hiring practices, and improve our poor neighborhoods everywhere, it will do much to fix the problems expressed by BLM and no racially divisive claptrap is even necessary.

a reply to: Puppylove

I have no issues with constructive criticism. Where I disagree is when BLM is labeled a hate group or even worse, a terrorist group.

I actually agree with many of the criticisms, but one criticism I have is whenever a group rises there becomes this overwhelming beat down of how they aren't doing it right. They manage to get past obscurity and be organized enough to pull off major protests (BLM and OWS); they become household names and start open public discussions... And all it takes is for more people to say, "yes, I agree, that's a problem." but instead the OWS are just lazy smelly and their issues regarding Wall Street and politics brushed aside... same with BLM... we find reasons to wave them off. The attitude of waving it off is sh#t.

Could BLM do better? Absolutely... but we could do better too by listening and trying to understand rather than rejecting their message.

It's amazing how many people choose the side of the oppressor.

The "Blue Lives Matter" response... when have blue lives not mattered? When has it ever been okay for people to kill cops and get away with it? That's not an actual thing. It's just antagonistic. Instead of listening, people choose rejection. It's not right.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth
They could do worse than Sheriff Clarke for starters. Now that would be a powerful statement. It would instantly delete the stigma or violence, sooth police relations and focus the debate on inequality.

I think Sheriff Clarke would be great-- would benefit his image as well as BLM-- but he basically labels BLM as a hate group, so that would take some work. In general, BLM and police officers have been making efforts to stand together and police have been reaching out more to communities.

On a side note... BLM is not all that different from Trump Supporters. They both want to change an unfair system. Both groups have supporters right on the edge, sick of it all, completely disillusioned, ready to watch it all burn down, rather than go another day with it. Both groups get labeled as racists inciting hate and violence. And both groups have very ugly racist elements attracted to their movement which validates the criticism. You got racist black guys who show up at a BLM protest just so they can scream at cops, and racist white guys showing up at a Trump rally just so they can scream at Mexicans, blacks or Muslims. YouTube has no shortage of ugly videos from both groups.

It seems to me an opportunity for empathy.

There are unsavoury elements in all groups - you will recall that Trump was hit quite hard with certain associations and disavowed them on more than one occasion. I think BLM need to be more vocal in this regard... that's why I think they need a few spokespeople and recognised leaders. Where is the MLK of 2016? Whoever he is or wherever he is, he should step forward.

As far as Trump is concerned and potential empathy between groups, he is now talking about the specific problems and focusing on inner cities.... I'd like to see him spell this out in more detail and make it real. For example he could unveil a specific program, led by African Americans with access to the highest levels of govt to develop a REAL program of inner city job creation and education reform.

a reply to: UKTruth

I agree they need a leader.

For what it's worth, here is BLM's response to that:

The Black Lives Matter movement is a leaderfull movement. Many Americans of all races are enamored with Martin Luther King as a symbol of leadership and what real movements look like. But the Movement for Black Lives, another name for the BLM movement, recognizes many flaws with this model. First, focusing on heterosexual, cisgender black men frequently causes us not to see the significant amount of labor and thought leadership that black women provide to movements, not only in caretaking and auxiliary roles, but on the front lines of protests and in the strategy sessions that happen behind closed doors. Moreover, those old models leadership favored the old over the young, attempted to silence gay and lesbian leadership, and did not recognize the leadership possibilities of transgender people at all. Finally, a movement with a singular leader or a few visible leaders is vulnerable, because those leaders can be easily identified, harassed, and killed, as was the case with Dr. King. By having a leaderfull movement, BLM addresses many of these concerns. BLM is composed of many local leaders and many local organizations including Black Youth Project 100, the Dream Defenders, the Organization for Black Struggle, Hands Up United, Millennial Activists United, and the Black Lives Matter national network. We demonstrate through this model that the movement is bigger than any one person. And there is room for the talents, expertise, and work ethic of anyone who is committed to freedom.

blacklivesmatter.com...

I think at this point they should be able to see the flaws in this approach.

Here's a question... if BLM was out there protesting when cops get shot, if they denounce it on the news, do you think their opponents would hear that? Do you think the news outlets their opponents tune in to, would cover that?

I ask because many times on all sides of an argument you'll have people say "they need to do this if we are to take them seriously" and the response is "we ARE doing that!" I've seen it with democrats supporting police officers and committing to fighting terrorism. I've seen it with Trump supporters insisting their issue is only with "illegal" immigrants... but both sides ignore this info and continue repeating their criticisms.

So would you even know if BLM was doing the thing you think they should be doing? Honest question.

We live in divisive times. Media machines fuel division every day regardless of truth.

a reply to: Christosterone

Once again, it is NOT BLM no matter how many times you repeat it. The chant of "black power" is your clue. It is the New Black Panther Party along with the African American Defense League that has a problem with white people...that and the instigators from outside the organizations.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth

I agree they need a leader.

For what it's worth, here is BLM's response to that:

The Black Lives Matter movement is a leaderfull movement. Many Americans of all races are enamored with Martin Luther King as a symbol of leadership and what real movements look like. But the Movement for Black Lives, another name for the BLM movement, recognizes many flaws with this model. First, focusing on heterosexual, cisgender black men frequently causes us not to see the significant amount of labor and thought leadership that black women provide to movements, not only in caretaking and auxiliary roles, but on the front lines of protests and in the strategy sessions that happen behind closed doors. Moreover, those old models leadership favored the old over the young, attempted to silence gay and lesbian leadership, and did not recognize the leadership possibilities of transgender people at all. Finally, a movement with a singular leader or a few visible leaders is vulnerable, because those leaders can be easily identified, harassed, and killed, as was the case with Dr. King. By having a leaderfull movement, BLM addresses many of these concerns. BLM is composed of many local leaders and many local organizations including Black Youth Project 100, the Dream Defenders, the Organization for Black Struggle, Hands Up United, Millennial Activists United, and the Black Lives Matter national network. We demonstrate through this model that the movement is bigger than any one person. And there is room for the talents, expertise, and work ethic of anyone who is committed to freedom.

blacklivesmatter.com...

I think at this point they should be able to see the flaws in this approach.

Here's a question... if BLM was out there protesting when cops get shot, if they denounce it on the news, do you think their opponents would hear that? Do you think the news outlets their opponents tune in to, would cover that?

I ask because many times on all sides of an argument you'll have people say "they need to do this if we are to take them seriously" and the response is "we ARE doing that!" I've seen it with democrats supporting police officers and committing to fighting terrorism. I've seen it with Trump supporters insisting their issue is only with "illegal" immigrants... but both sides ignore this info and continue repeating their criticisms.

So would you even know if BLM was doing the thing you think they should be doing? Honest question.

We live in divisive times. Media machines fuel division every day regardless of truth.

Well given the honest question, my honest answer is a categorical yes. I would notice it and actually be eager to listen. As I have said before, I see clear evidence of racism in western society and fully support any group that tackles it.

However, it frustrates the hell out of me that so many of these efforts get destroyed by people who only seem to want conflict. I will say that the 'friends' these activists are choosing are the wrong ones. They are being used. Thomas Sowell coined the phrase BlackSuccessMatters. I wish that was the moniker because it would focus the effort to where it needs to be.

townhall.com...

originally posted by: UKTruth
However, it frustrates the hell out of me that so many of these efforts get destroyed by people who only seem to want conflict.

I agree completely. It seems to me the good people are pretty much f#cked on all fronts. People start a peaceful movement, but as soon as it gains traction, and as soon as we have a large number of protesters ready to protest peacefully, cops will show up as they are expected to do... And now you have peaceful protesters on one side, cops on the other.... And how do you stop the angry violent elements, the punks who bring these neighborhoods down-- how do you stop them from showing up? How do you stop them from scribbling "Death to Cops" on a banner and holding that up with the crowd? And since all we see is black on one side and cops on the other... and then violence erupting, what are we to make of that so-called peaceful movement?

I understand the criticism, but I always root for the oppressed and I respect what BLM is trying to do. They have presidential candidates talking about their movement... There's something to be said for that. It's frustrating to see it falter when you know there are real people with real positive intentions that have gotten it this far.

I agree with the criticisms that they need to reject all violence loud and clear. BLM and peace needs to go hand in hand. If officers get killed by black men, BLM needs to be there protesting those deaths loud and clear. BLM should be holding both Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter signs in those situations, showing their commitment to peace and justice.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth

I agree they need a leader.

For what it's worth, here is BLM's response to that:

The Black Lives Matter movement is a leaderfull movement. Many Americans of all races are enamored with Martin Luther King as a symbol of leadership and what real movements look like. But the Movement for Black Lives, another name for the BLM movement, recognizes many flaws with this model. First, focusing on heterosexual, cisgender black men frequently causes us not to see the significant amount of labor and thought leadership that black women provide to movements, not only in caretaking and auxiliary roles, but on the front lines of protests and in the strategy sessions that happen behind closed doors. Moreover, those old models leadership favored the old over the young, attempted to silence gay and lesbian leadership, and did not recognize the leadership possibilities of transgender people at all. Finally, a movement with a singular leader or a few visible leaders is vulnerable, because those leaders can be easily identified, harassed, and killed, as was the case with Dr. King. By having a leaderfull movement, BLM addresses many of these concerns. BLM is composed of many local leaders and many local organizations including Black Youth Project 100, the Dream Defenders, the Organization for Black Struggle, Hands Up United, Millennial Activists United, and the Black Lives Matter national network. We demonstrate through this model that the movement is bigger than any one person. And there is room for the talents, expertise, and work ethic of anyone who is committed to freedom.

blacklivesmatter.com...

I think at this point they should be able to see the flaws in this approach.

Here's a question... if BLM was out there protesting when cops get shot, if they denounce it on the news, do you think their opponents would hear that? Do you think the news outlets their opponents tune in to, would cover that?

I ask because many times on all sides of an argument you'll have people say "they need to do this if we are to take them seriously" and the response is "we ARE doing that!" I've seen it with democrats supporting police officers and committing to fighting terrorism. I've seen it with Trump supporters insisting their issue is only with "illegal" immigrants... but both sides ignore this info and continue repeating their criticisms.

So would you even know if BLM was doing the thing you think they should be doing? Honest question.

We live in divisive times. Media machines fuel division every day regardless of truth.

I recall seeing on the news one the BLM leaders publicly state they want to abolish the police. Pretty sure no police in the inner cities would lead to anarchy.

a reply to: sirlancelot

No way. I don't believe that for a second.

Okay, I see... Jessica Disu said that. Personally, I ignore that. It's just dumb. If BLM continues with that line of thinking, then it's worth discussing, but that's just a dumb idea. I can't help but think she was put on TV just to make BLM look bad with her dumb ideas. Either way, I'd say it's a non-issue unless this idea starts gaining traction in the movement. I don't see it happening.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth
However, it frustrates the hell out of me that so many of these efforts get destroyed by people who only seem to want conflict.

I agree completely. It seems to me the good people are pretty much f#cked on all fronts. People start a peaceful movement, but as soon as it gains traction, and as soon as we have a large number of protesters ready to protest peacefully, cops will show up as they are expected to do... And now you have peaceful protesters on one side, cops on the other.... And how do you stop the angry violent elements, the punks who bring these neighborhoods down-- how do you stop them from showing up? How do you stop them from scribbling "Death to Cops" on a banner and holding that up with the crowd? And since all we see is black on one side and cops on the other... and then violence erupting, what are we to make of that so-called peaceful movement?

I understand the criticism, but I always root for the oppressed and I respect what BLM is trying to do. They have presidential candidates talking about their movement... There's something to be said for that. It's frustrating to see it falter when you know there are real people with real positive intentions that have gotten it this far.

I agree with the criticisms that they need to reject all violence loud and clear. BLM and peace needs to go hand in hand. If officers get killed by black men, BLM needs to be there protesting those deaths loud and clear. BLM should be holding both Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter signs in those situations, showing their commitment to peace and justice.

Now Im on the same page with this here. They need to weed out the troublemakers though and then id be right there with em.

a reply to: yuppa

Agreed.

And like I said several times before, until the good BLM members start weeding out the bad BLM members they are just as responsible for what the bad members say and do.

originally posted by: Cherry0
I did hear a lady talking about it being a revolution with another lady in the background saying black lives matter a few times, 9 minutes in of IgnoranceIsntBliss's video from page 1.

I'm not sure if we can suggest it was BLM or just ignorant people doing some crazy crap. My theory, that I have stated a number of time, is there are parts/pockets in America that have really bad social norms. Call them what you will, but they expand across all colors. In this case this is what we would call a really bad part of America. Most of the people living there suck and since the police mirror the society they work in they most likely suck too.

It is just the true nature of what we are witnessing, the press is not helping matters too since all they do is focused on these bad areas and the 100s of other good areas are kind of clumped in as if all of America is like that.

MLK is rolling over in his grave right now.
Btw all lives matter, oops guess im a raceist now.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: sirlancelot

No way. I don't believe that for a second.

Okay, I see... Jessica Disu said that. Personally, I ignore that. It's just dumb. If BLM continues with that line of thinking, then it's worth discussing, but that's just a dumb idea. I can't help but think she was put on TV just to make BLM look bad with her dumb ideas. Either way, I'd say it's a non-issue unless this idea starts gaining traction in the movement. I don't see it happening.

Ok ignore it but you admitted she did say it and she is a leader of BLM so what say you now?