Black lives matter!

[Kyriakos]

I would certainly consider someone who is mentally competent gunning down police officers at random based on their race, or just because they're police officers to be terrorist act.

I think it is leading to all sorts of issues, if you identify a person acting alone as a 'terrorist'. Cause then virtually anyone can be branded as such, provided they do some violent act.
Yet that isn't the law. The term there is violent criminal, not terrorist. Let alone that the word 'terrorist' has a very loaded connotation, and is sort of too mixed with 'righteousness' to be of value as a legal term, much less when thrown around all the time.

Imo it only makes good sense to use the term 'terrorist' when talking about an actual group of people with violence used consciously and in a planned fashion, so as to further their violent ideology. Moreover, there should be no specific context of slavery or control by hostile regimes (eg Israel vs palestinians), cause the latter fuses the phenomenon with the aspect of collective and objective hopelessness - which tends to lead to burst of violence sooner or later, against oneself or other people.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think it is leading to all sorts of issues, if you identify a person acting alone as a 'terrorist'. Cause then virtually anyone can be branded as such, provided they do some violent act.
Yet that isn't the law. The term there is violent criminal, not terrorist. Let alone that the word 'terrorist' has a very loaded connotation, and is sort of too mixed with 'righteousness' to be of value as a legal term, much less when thrown around all the time.

Imo it only makes good sense to use the term 'terrorist' when talking about an actual group of people with violence used consciously and in a planned fashion, so as to further their violent ideology. Moreover, there should be no specific context of slavery or control by hostile regimes (eg Israel vs palestinians), cause the latter fuses the phenomenon with the aspect of collective and objective hopelessness - which tends to lead to burst of violence sooner or later, against oneself or other people.

I agree, but it would seem the modern usage of "terrorist" includes pretty much anyone who kills other people for any sort of political reason. Where "political reason" also means pretty much anything other than actual madness. By that standard he was a terrorist.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That would be this one.


Kindly put, but that is an outright accusation of (perhaps unintentional) racism.

Huh? Nowhere in that statement you quoted do I state that Clarke is a "token black", its just not there. And instead of just admitting that you confused me with someone else, you then switched the accusation from me calling Clarke a "token black" to me accusing you of racism... which I also didn't do. The funny thing is, I think you sort of recognize that you don't really have the goods because you qualified your characterization with "perhaps unintentional". The reality is, I accused you of using a race-based, faulty premise to make a poor argument, in the same vein as I have seen other posters do on a regular basis, and I said I expected better arguments from you.

You choose to see that as an accusation of racism, because as I have noticed, you project your own behavior onto others. You tend to characterize disagreement with you as accusations of racism against you, ironically, in the same way that you imagine that everyone characterizes your disagreements with them as proof of racism on your part. You imagine that everyone is accusing you of racism, because you think of everything in terms of racism. And because you think of everything in terms of racism, you imagine that everyone else does as well.

 

[metalhead]

J, I think you're missing the nuance here, in a couple of areas.

First, Limbaugh isn't dismissed as a racist because he is against BLM, he's dismissed as a racist because he says racist things all the time. That may not necessarily be cause to dismiss everything he says on race out-of-hand, but it's a perfectly acceptable reason to dismiss him instead of engaging him. The same goes for most of the cadre of old white conservative media figures. Engagement is pointless, because they don't want to get it.

Second, Clarke has a speaking spot at the convention because he is black. You may not have meant to put him forward that way by posting his comments - after all they seem to be pretty newsworthy - but he is useful to the GOP specifically because of his race. And for the reason you say - it's harder to dismiss him as racist. That's what tokenism is, using someone as cover because of their race, so I'm not sure what you're taking issue with.

 

[Traitorfish]

There are disagreements within any movement, it's a natural part of being a movement.

I dunno, maybe I've been paying too close attention, but I've always though of BLM in terms of the more expansive goal of affirming the value of black lives to those in power. The movement really took off after the Michael Brown killing, not so much because he was killed, but because the response to his killing was to leave his dead body lying in the street; I believe it was an hour or more before anyone even showed up, and at first all they did was toss a sheet over his body. The city of Ferguson didn't even have enough respect for a black boy's life to treat his dead body with respect. It was treated like you'd treat a deer hit by a truck on the highway.

Interactions with the justice system are of course the most urgent and pressing of issues that they deal with, but I don't blame chapters for taking a more expansive view. Why shouldn't they? There are far, far more instances of the state denying the value of black lives, for which existing organizations are lacking, where BLM protests are appropriate. That they may not have laid out a totally cohesive message across all chapters doesn't cheapen the work they do or the causes they fight for.

The state needs constant reminding that black lives matter; in terms of things like fair housing and education, deep and wide organizations already exist that fight for those things. But in terms of respectful policing and equitable justice, perhaps not so much. And other issues which emerge, for which a protest group doesn't exist simply because it's a one-off, localized issue? Of course BLM should get involved.

That's certainly reasonable in terms of the long-term goals of the movement. As you say, "black lives matter" can be interpreted expansively to mean more than just "stop killing us". But the BLM movement is not, as a whole, at that point yet: its protests and rhetoric are still primarily concerned with police and vigilante brutality, and are only gradually pushing into dealing with other issues. And, from what I've seen, these other issues are mostly ones that have some connection to police and vigilante violence, which play a role in enabling this sort of brutality, such a media bias, lack of access to legal protections, lack of access to mental healthcare, and so on. I don't think that it's contentious to say that the unifying cause of the movement is still extra-judicial violence and especially lethal violence against black Americans.

The leap from that to local LGBT scene in-fighting is a lot less organic, which is why the whole thing rings false to me. Yes, for the most expansive definition of "black lives matter", funding for a big gay dance party would merit consideration, but the movement really hasn't widened its scope that far yet, so either the Toronto chapter is a decade ahead of the rest of the movement, or the invocation of the BLM banner was... I don't want to disingenuous, that's not the impression I got, but a little bit of a stretch, an attempt to draw on connotations of black anger rather than to advance the cause of the broader BLM movement. That's not wrong, but it's a strategic gamble, and it's not clear to me that it's paid off, because the protest has not so far won anything but verbal "commitment" from the Pride organisers, while leading to a backlash against the broader movement which, in this case, can't simply be read as white supremacist vitriol. A lot of it contains a genuine sense of confusion and betrayal, and even if a lot of that response is short-sighted and betrays a lack of political imagination, even if a lot of the people making these declarations of offended sentiments would do better to shut up and listen to what the protesters had to say, very few movements triumph by alienating potential allies.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It is not my "look I found a black person that agrees" argument any more that it is your "I found a cop that agrees with me" argument.

Clarke is becoming a national figure over his stance. When he calls BLM a hate group or he calls Don Lemon a liar, it has more impact. This is only indirectly because he is black. It's because an accusation of racism is the first and expected response. In this case, it does not work.

OK I see... You hold the very common misconception that black people, by definition cannot be prejudiced against other black people based on race. Therefore if you can find a black person who agrees with you, he is, by virtue of being black, inoculated against the dreaded "racism" accusation... But black people can be more prejudiced, resentful, suspicious, etc., towards other black people than anyone. The reasons for this are myriad, and I won't get into all that just yet, but self-loathing is pretty common among black people and it manifests itself in different ways from hair-perming to victim blaming. My point is that the black-on-black crime argument is still wrong, no matter who buys into it. You pointing out that a black person buys into the argument proves absolutely nothing, and inoculates the argument against absolutely nothing. Black cops can be and often are, plenty prejudiced against other black people.

The irony of arguing that the sheriff is a good anti-BLM spokesman because his blackness shields him from racism accusations is... what you are essentially saying is that his blackness makes him more credible on this issue... you are saying that his voice is more valuable on this issue, for the sole reason that he is black. And while I was mulling that over, it dawned on me that you don't extend this reasoning to BLM supporters because they are black.

I mean if his blackness makes him more qualified and credible on this issue, why doesn't it make the black supporters of BLM more credible on the issue as well? If his blackness proves that he isn't being racist, why doesn't the blackness of BLM supporters prove that they aren't racist as well? See the whole argument you are making doesn't make sense, and its clear when you look at it from the other side. Anti-BLM folks find him credible, because you want to, because he agrees with you, and assuages your conscience with the faulty premise that a black guy can't be racist. But you only feel that way when the black person in question agrees with you. Obviously black people can be racist, and you can see that so clearly when the black person is disagreeing with you... Its fascinating really, the way our perspectives blind us. And BTW... if the answer is "Well he's not racist because he's speaking against black people, and against black people's interest, rather than in favor of it..." and you don't think that shows he is prejudiced against black people?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have been around long enough to know that J's argument wasn't going to make sense pretty much immediately. Some people are credible, some aren't.

 

[mrt144]

OK I see... You hold the very common misconception that black people, by definition cannot be prejudiced against other black people based on race. Therefore if you can find a black person who agrees with you, he is, by virtue of being black, inoculated against the dreaded "racism" accusation... But black people can be more prejudiced, resentful, suspicious, etc., towards other black people than anyone. The reasons for this are myriad, and I won't get into all that just yet, but self-loathing is pretty common among black people and it manifests itself in different ways from hair-perming to victim blaming. My point is that the black-on-black crime argument is still wrong, no matter who buys into it. You pointing out that a black person buys into the argument proves absolutely nothing, and inoculates the argument against absolutely nothing. Black cops can be and often are, plenty prejudiced against other black people.

The irony of arguing that the sheriff is a good anti-BLM spokesman because his blackness shields him from racism accusations is... what you are essentially saying is that his blackness makes him more credible on this issue... you are saying that his voice is more valuable on this issue, for the sole reason that he is black. And while I was mulling that over, it dawned on me that you don't extend this reasoning to BLM supporters because they are black.

I mean if his blackness makes him more qualified and credible on this issue, why doesn't it make the black supporters of BLM more credible on the issue as well? If his blackness proves that he isn't being racist, why doesn't the blackness of BLM supporters prove that they aren't racist as well? See the whole argument you are making doesn't make sense, and its clear when you look at it from the other side. Anti-BLM folks find him credible, because you want to, because he agrees with you, and assuages your conscience with the faulty premise that a black guy can't be racist. But you only feel that way when the black person in question agrees with you. Obviously black people can be racist, and you can see that so clearly when the black person is disagreeing with you... Its fascinating really, the way our perspectives blind us. And BTW... if the answer is "Well he's not racist because he's speaking against black people, and against black people's interest, rather than in favor of it..." and you don't think that shows he is prejudiced against black people?

It's so plain to see and yet he persists.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Those that cry racism as a first resort try to reduce the discussion by eliminating all contrary opinion.

Something else that occurs to me, is that by constantly claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is accusing you of racism... you are doing the same thing that you are complaining about... reducing the discussion by eliminating all contrary opinion. Essentially, someone disagree with you, and you dismiss them out of hand by proclaiming that they have "made a racism accusation" against you... Then the discussion devolves into, "You accused me of racism!" "No I didn't!" "Yes you did!"

I would like to issue a challenge to you. For 1 month, try to refrain from alleging others have accused you of racism. I think you will find yourself editing alot of posts and rethinking alot of arguments. The whole "You accused me of being a racist!" thing is a big crutch for you... I suggest you try letting it go. Obviously you don't have to accept my challenge... but I think it will sharpen your arguments and I encourage you to try it.

 

[metalhead]

I've tried pointing out to him several times that black people can be prejudiced against other black people. I have yet to get any recognition on that point . . . .

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Something else that occurs to me, is that by constantly claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is accusing you of racism... you are doing the same thing that you are complaining about... reducing the discussion by eliminating all contrary opinion. Essentially, someone disagree with you, and you dismiss them out of hand by proclaiming that they have "made a racism accusation" against you... Then the discussion devolves into, "You accused me of racism!" "No I didn't!" "Yes you did!"

I would like to issue a challenge to you. For 1 month, try to refrain from alleging others have accused you of racism. I think you will find yourself editing alot of posts and rethinking alot of arguments. The whole "You accused me of being a racist!" thing is a big crutch for you... I suggest you try letting it go. Obviously you don't have to accept my challenge... but I think it will sharpen your arguments and I encourage you to try it.

Start small J. Try for one minute before you consider this one month business.

 

[Berzerker]

But black people can be more prejudiced, resentful, suspicious, etc., towards other black people than anyone. The reasons for this are myriad, and I won't get into all that just yet, but self-loathing is pretty common among black people and it manifests itself in different ways from hair-perming to victim blaming.

I dont think its self-loathing, I think its being really pissed off or disgusted. Everybody's in a group and when a member of the group does wrong it reflects on the group. When I read a story about a pot smoker doing something evil or stupid I know that will be used to vilify and jail pot smokers.

So I imagine there are plenty of black people who get mad when young black men are tearing up neighborhoods. I'm mostly Irish, if my kin arriving here in the USA were well behaved I doubt we would have acquired negative stereotypes. But violent drunks need not apply...

 

[Sommerswerd]

I dont think its self-loathing, I think its being really pissed off or disgusted. Everybody's in a group and when a member of the group does wrong it reflects on the group. When I read a story about a pot smoker doing something evil or stupid I know that will be used to vilify and jail pot smokers.

So I imagine there are plenty of black people who get mad when young black men are tearing up neighborhoods. I'm mostly Irish, if my kin arriving here in the USA were well behaved I doubt we would have acquired negative stereotypes. But violent drunks need not apply...

There is truth in this. Fairly or unfair is irrelevant, what one black person does or says is going to be projected onto black people in general. As an individual black person, the reality is you are going to be viewed by many as a representative of the entire group. When I leave a tip at a restaurant I always keep in mind that the way I tip reflects on the race as a whole... so I tip good... at worst it contradicts a negative stereotype, at best it prevents a negative stereotype.

This principle gets applied to Muslims as well... Republicans say that Muslims need to take responsibility for these radical islamo-fascist jihadist terrorist, yada yada, you know who they are, report them, see something say something, blah blah, we have to watch the mosques, ban Muslims from entering US... etc. Essentially, Muslims as a group are held responsible/accountable for what individual Muslims do... fine...

But that standard doesn't get applied to police... For the police, its all "These policemen are just a few bad apples!" and "You can't blame all police for what a couple officers did!" and "This anti-police culture and rhetoric needs to stop!" and "The vast majority of police are good people and valuable members of the community!" and "The overwhelming percentage of police interactions are appropriate and non-violent!"

Substitute "police" in the above paragraph with "Muslims" or "BLM supporter" or "blacks" or "illegal/undocumented immigrant" and imagine a Republican (or Republican voter) saying it... Its unthinkable, really. Again... perspectives are fascinating.

 

[metalhead]

The thing about that, though, is police occupy a position of public trust. A very significant public trust, as we entrust them with the power to make split-second, life-or-death decisions, not to mention daily decisions that end up with people having their freedom taken away. It makes sense, then, to hold officers in a department, or precinct, accountable for the actions of bad cops they work with. Maybe not police everywhere, but certainly there is some measure of collective responsibility when people with no business wearing a badge do bad things.

 

[Lexicus]

To some extent I would say that is recognized in eg civil suits, that basically go along the lines of "well we don't admit any criminal wrongdoing but we'll give you a couple million because we hired that idiot."

 

[Traitorfish]

I dont think its self-loathing, I think its being really pissed off or disgusted. Everybody's in a group and when a member of the group does wrong it reflects on the group. When I read a story about a pot smoker doing something evil or stupid I know that will be used to vilify and jail pot smokers.

So I imagine there are plenty of black people who get mad when young black men are tearing up neighborhoods. I'm mostly Irish, if my kin arriving here in the USA were well behaved I doubt we would have acquired negative stereotypes. But violent drunks need not apply...

Were Irish immigrants actually any more drunk and disorderly than English or Scots immigrants? Or was a drunken and disorderly Irishman taken to represent the Irish collectively, while a drunken and disorderly Englishman or Scots was simply taken to represent themselves? Certainly, not every Irishman was a drunk and not every Englishman was sober, so why was drunkenness regarded as the norm for one group and exceptional for the other?

See, you say that the behaviour of individuals can make the group as a whole look bad, but what behaviour people chose to see as representative of groups and representative only of individuals is very often a choice people make, a choice that follows from their pre-existing prejudices. Your black sheriff shouldn't be mad at young numskulls being young numskulls, he should be mad at racists who think that a bunch of young numskulls being young numskulls makes him look bad, simply because he happens to be the same colour as them. Whether his anger is "self-loathing" or not, if its source is a frustration with how black people are regarded in America, then he's directed that anger at entirely the wrong group of people.

 

[tetley]

It makes sense, then, to hold officers in a department, or precinct, accountable for the actions of bad cops they work with. Maybe not police everywhere, but certainly there is some measure of collective responsibility when people with no business wearing a badge do bad things.

Unless that department properly law enforces their own officers. That is what I have always said: a few bad cops can be expected. If so, terminate them and prosecute them the same as you would anybody else; and that includes for on-duty actions.

When the sea of blue, the unions, the judge, and the prosecutor close ranks and defend these despicable actions, though, then collective punishment is absolutely in order. Because the collective is guilty.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Unless that department properly law enforces their own officers. That is what I have always said: a few bad cops can be expected. If so, terminate them and prosecute them the same as you would anybody else; and that includes for on-duty actions.

When the sea of blue, the unions, the judge, and the prosecutor close ranks and defend these despicable actions, though, then collective punishment is absolutely in order. Because the collective is guilty.

Wow. It usually takes me a whole lot more words to say that. Thanks.

 

[Berzerker]

Substitute "police" in the above paragraph with "Muslims" or "BLM supporter" or "blacks" or "illegal/undocumented immigrant" and imagine a Republican (or Republican voter) saying it... Its unthinkable, really. Again... perspectives are fascinating.

Well, BLM is trying to be obnoxious But it is all about perspective, walk a mile in my moccasins. Of all the sins Jesus condemned, one stood out the most - hypocrisy. We are only seen as individuals once we become familiar, until then we are 'pre'-judged based on our groups.

Were Irish immigrants actually any more drunk and disorderly than English or Scots immigrants? Or was a drunken and disorderly Irishman taken to represent the Irish collectively, while a drunken and disorderly Englishman or Scots was simply taken to represent themselves? Certainly, not every Irishman was a drunk and not every Englishman was sober, so why was drunkenness regarded as the norm for one group and exceptional for the other?

I may be wrong but I think the Irish embraced the stereotype, so I'd imagine even an Irishman would acknowledge our fondness for alcoholic beverages. Even our saints became a reason to get drunk.

But the Irish arrived in the USA after the English, so whatever old world grudges arrived with them. Had the Irish preceded the English I imagine the new immigrants would have been greeted with a social media campaign emphasizing their group's past sins.

Your black sheriff shouldn't be mad at young numskulls being young numskulls, he should be mad at racists who think that a bunch of young numskulls being young numskulls makes him look bad, simply because he happens to be the same colour as them.

Why does a father feel shame when their child murders? He looks bad... He raised a murderer. It may have nothing to do with how Dad raised the child, but he doesn't direct his anger at others who think his child's actions reflect upon him, fairly or not.

Unless that department properly law enforces their own officers. That is what I have always said: a few bad cops can be expected. If so, terminate them and prosecute them the same as you would anybody else; and that includes for on-duty actions.

When the sea of blue, the unions, the judge, and the prosecutor close ranks and defend these despicable actions, though, then collective punishment is absolutely in order. Because the collective is guilty.

I dont think most cops would defend an unrighteous shoot, but they would want some protection if they were the accused. I agree, if the cops let the blue line block justice they're inviting trouble. And the irony is the cops want Muslims to speak up and help weed out the bad apples while the cops generally stand mute in the face of injustices by their comrades.

 

[Traitorfish]

I may be wrong but I think the Irish embraced the stereotype, so I'd imagine even an Irishman would acknowledge our fondness for alcoholic beverages. Even our saints became a reason to get drunk

Only in retrospect. In the UK and Ireland, when anti-Irish racism is something that only disappeared in, well, we'll get to it eventually, the "drunk Irishman" stereotype can still be contentious.

(I'm not even sure that it's true that Irish-Americans have embraced the drunken stereotype: the emphasis seems to be on a certain kind of social drinking, in the same way that Italian-Americans refer to a certain kind of social eating rather than simply to gluttony.)

But the Irish arrived in the USA after the English, so whatever old world grudges arrived with them. Had the Irish preceded the English I imagine the new immigrants would have been greeted with a social media campaign emphasizing their group's past sins.

Well, exactly: public perceptions of the Irish were informed by existing prejudices, not just by the behaviour of Irish immigrants. So if that's true of the Irish, why can't it be true of other ethnic groups?

Why does a father feel shame when their child murders? He looks bad... He raised a murderer. It may have nothing to do with how Dad raised the child, but he doesn't direct his anger at others who think his child's actions reflect upon him, fairly or not.

I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that all black Americans are collectively responsible for the behaviour of all black Americans? Just black cops? Is it a generational thing? I mean, the responsibilities of a father towards a son are relatively clear, and the source of the shame is the public perception that the father failed in those responsibilities, but its not really clear what responsibilities a sheriff in Milwaukee has to a stranger outside of his jurisdiction, or what responsibilities the public perceives him as having failed to uphold.