[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Berzerker]

I didn't ask if you could describe a scenario in which companies make donations to Black Live Matters in an attempt to discourage rioters or looters from damaging their property. I've read your interpretations of the Book of Genesis, I am thoroughly convinced of your powers of imagination. I am you to describe the empirical basis for this belief. It doesn't matter how thoroughly you have convinced yourself of the existence of this protection racket if you aren't prepared to make an effort to convince others.

You asked me how I got the impression and I answered, if you have a problem with my interpretations of Genesis you should have said so in the appropriate thread instead of dragging it here.

 

[Bugfatty300]

There's not only one way to fix that though, and BLM shouldn't get to decide which is chosen since no-one put them in charge.

BLM is in charge of ending racist police because no else wanted the job.

 

[Crezth]

My whole point was just that there is not a single "ultimate goal" that everyone agrees one,

Does this really need to be said? I mean, no offense, but it's pretty clear not everyone is in agreement on this issue. That's the idea of the protests.

There's not only one way to fix that though, and BLM shouldn't get to decide which is chosen since no-one put them in charge. Again, how closely a proposal matches what they want is not a criterion for judging whether it's the right thing to do or not.

It is BLM's criteria for judging whether it's the right thing to do, however. Naturally, unless a small group wields legitimate authority, they won't decide policy for others. Now whether you think the nation should, say, "kow-tow" to BLM's line is really just a matter of how seriously you take their grievances. In any case, you are correct: political compromise is the natural solution...

...however, I'm personally very skeptical of the viability of a political solution to this problem, Democrat or Republican. I'm sure an impressive reform plan will mollify some people for a time, but ultimately the policy's success will be judged by those on the ground, to whose grievances all of this is in attendance. I predict it will be very instructive in how degraded the political situation has become when the government proves incapable of improving the general situation, even when subject to the greatest possible pressure to enforce new standards. Assuming any legislation is passed, I predict corruption, holes in enforcement, fuzzy and altogether insufficient standards for "brutality," and the continuation of racially biased detainment rates: all the product of the sheer lack of vision our political class has become known for. But, who can say?

 

[Commodore]

BLM is in charge of ending racist police because no else wanted the job.

I mean, I wanted the job but no one else seemed to be on board with my armed insurgency method.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

BLM is in charge of ending racist police because no else wanted the job.

That's not how things work unfortunately.

 

[Crezth]

That's not how things work unfortunately.

It kind of is, actually. It's state failure and revolution.

 

[Berzerker]

thats a good line though... I have so few opportunities to like his posts

Yes, amazing how threats of violence make people violent. I'm so glad you agree the rioters are guiltless.

You mean the protesters threatened those people with violence? I'm not sure what you meant by that. To rational, moral people, the victims of riots are guiltless, not the people destroying their property. These people were defending their property, not rioting. If these were black homeowners they wouldn't be demonized.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Does this really need to be said? I mean, no offense, but it's pretty clear not everyone is in agreement on this issue. That's the idea of the protests.

Does anything need to be said on CFC? The original post I quoted was worded as if it was kind of understood we're all on board with this goal though. And if you go back you'll see that my response to that was just a single sentence. I only felt I had to write more when I was caricatured as wanting to murder black people because I dared disagree. So please permit me this indulgence

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It kind of is, actually. It's state failure and revolution.

Well, not yet it isn't, although I'm sure you're hoping for it.

 

[Kyriakos]

CNN article on "brown privilege".
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/world/indians-migrant-minority-black-lives-matter-intl/index.html

Features comments from UK,US and Canada.
The following is from Canada:

"When Black communities are under siege, where are we? Where is collective brown solidarity for Black lives? Till now, the silence has been absolutely deafening."

Not seeing why there should be a "collective brown solidarity". Do you think there is some collective "european solidarity"? At best it's wishful thinking, but usually just sloppy thinking.
The "brown people" (if that even has to be a term...) had no issue running the slave trade in Africa either. Then again, neither did black people against other black people in Africa.

Also somewhat strange to focus on Indians, given they still have a caste system in their own country.

 

[Crezth]

Does anything need to be said on CFC? The original post I quoted was worded as if it was kind of understood we're all on board with this goal though. And if you go back you'll see that my response to that was just a single sentence. I only felt I had to write more when I was caricatured as wanting to murder black people because I dared disagree. So please permit me this indulgence

Oh, sure, fair enough, though I will mention giving you the benefit of the doubt became simpler when you made a concrete point. To your health.

Well, not yet it isn't, although I'm sure you're hoping for it.

Hoping? No, no... you refuse to understand me. I'm merely deciphering the portents.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I mean, I wanted the job but no one else seemed to be on board with my armed insurgency method.

It's because we think you're trying to Chris Hansen us.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Meanwhile...

Couple stands in front yard to point guns at protesters

An armed couple stood in their front yard and pointed guns at demonstrators in St Louis, Missouri. The protesters were marching toward Mayor Lyda Kewson's home. The President Trump retweeted and then deleted the video from his timeline.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-u...nds-in-front-yard-to-point-guns-at-protesters

 

[Takhisis]

I mean, I wanted the job but no one else seemed to be on board with my armed insurgency method.

I can't afford the gas. Can you wait until I walk all the way there? I might have to cross a few borders illegally and ford some of the most dangerous rivers in the planet as well as get past at least two deserts and one jungle, but I can get there.

That's not how things work unfortunately.

People don't have a right to petition the authorities?

 

[Estebonrober]

Okay it's not your goalposts being shifted, but that just goes back to my comment that it's not everyone's end goal [posts]. The measures look like they're designed to combat police brutality (questions of enforcement aside). Many people would see that the end goal for this issue. Where and how money is distributed is a separate issue (not saying unrelated, just separate). BLM may want to fix both of those things with one action of "defund the police" (however likely you think that might be to actually fix things), but other might quite like the police just as they are, just if they were little bit less killy.

My whole point was just that there is not a single "ultimate goal" that everyone agrees one, so how closely a proposal aligns with one specific ultimate goal is not an objective standard for deciding how good the proposal is.



There's not only one way to fix that though, and BLM shouldn't get to decide which is chosen since no-one put them in charge. Again, how closely a proposal matches what they want is not a criterion for judging whether it's the right thing to do or not.

This is why I short ended the whole conversation and just pointed out, "that yes we acknowledge a significant minority wants to keep the status quo and change as little as possible without effecting real change". Necessarily this argument is fundamentally economic as all worthy arguments come down to in politics.

BLM is part of a majority of people who have been ignored for the tyranny of the minority for decades.

 

[Moriarte]

It kind of is, actually. It's state failure and revolution.

Exactly, “kind of”. Until the economically oppressed become aware they are a class of people, regardless of colour, and start taking united steps, there will be no grounds for revolution.

 

[EnglishEdward]

#MeToo created the space so that a friend of mine could confront the person who assaulted her, so I am mostly grateful for the movement.

What I'm noticing is how big tent the BLM movement is. Canadian First Nations suffer? They're in the tent. The mentally ill suffer disproportionately? They're in the tent. Cops are worried that they're put into dangerous situations unnecessarily? They're in the tent.

We've checked the few bad apples narrative, so people that are currently underserved by the current system are natural allies in its rearrangement

Well quite. Things moved from tightly defined narrow focus issues to a much wider generality.

Suffice it to say that neither British statues nor museums have anything to do with American police murdering civilians.

In theory not. But the BLM protests at police shootings in the USA triggered sympathy protests in the UK.

 

[Crezth]

In theory not. But the BLM protests at police shootings in the USA triggered sympathy protests in the UK.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that seems like a British problem.

 

[Commodore]

It's because we think you're trying to Chris Hansen us.

Nah. I may have different reasons to want to resist, but my intent to resist is genuine.

 

[Imaus]

Meanwhile...

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-u...nds-in-front-yard-to-point-guns-at-protesters

Ah yes.

Now the discussion on the Castle Doctrine and 'Stand Your Ground' and "MUGH PRIVATE PROEPRTYY" can come into focus.

These two clowns are already a laughingstock and under legal microscope and maybe even official investigation. Because that guy has a really warped view of what is and is not acceptable. The hallmarks of demonization are there. "Oh I stand with BLM but I'm against the true enemy, the terrorists, the Marxists' - surprised he didn't drop 'Antifa' in there.

I admit - in America, or really any country, you're basically thrown into this legal mess of a country. No one hands you documentation, the social contract is not talked about, and it's all based on hearsay or 'go find it out yourself'. On both sides, you often are winging it, relying on 'common' sense.

The fact that no one touched his lawn, however, apparently means he has no ground to stand on, because again in his warped view the street itself is akin to his 'living room'.There might be a case against this, maybe not - there's a 2016 case linked in one article against his brandishment, but the MO law changed in 2017 and there might not be another case to either set new precedent or reinforce the 2016's one. If this battle couple gets slapped down publicly and legally quickly, however, well...they made their bed.

Honestly we can expect far more brandishment and intimidation from conservatives in the future. They know Greensboro happened. The thing is, do 'we'? In this country, is it not reasonable for BLM protesters to expect intimidation, brandishment, even being shot at, attacked, driven over, gunned down by rightists?

I can only hope that if one grim day we see the videos and pictures of 50 dead protesters mowed down by some ******* with a gun that the movement doesn't immediately dissipates.