Politics Black Lives Matter

Remove this Banner Ad

Geelong_Sicko said:
It's just another facet of the struggle though. If it didn't matter to them they wouldn't mention anything other than their original focus of police violence would they? Fair enough if it seems like 'mission creep' to you but it's all important.
Click to expand...
No, it is a political method of maintaining relevance among a co-opted alliance.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Geelong_Sicko said:
Well, it is a struggle for equality in a larger sense - black lives matter as much as the next person's. The movement expanded, much like the original gay and lesbian struggle for a voice in society expanded to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Plus movement that it is today.

They do have to make sure the focus of the message remains on equality. If it becomes one of black ethno-nationalism the movement will disintegrate.
Click to expand...

"Well it's a struggle for equality in a larger sense.."

Lol. Ok.

"They do have to make sure the focus of the message remains on equality".

Lol.

So the whole movement is about "equality" is it? Not police violence.. not "defunding the police"..

Vague. Immeasurable. Nonsense.

And equality of what exactly? With who? How? At what cost? Who measures this equality? Using what measures? Who enforces the equality and with what powers?

It's a laundry list of poorly defined grievances with no proposed solutions.

It's embraced by people who are completely unaware this movement is about anything than police violence.. or who are too young or ignorant to know how these well meaning efforts to create "equality" have turned out in the past.
 
Tiger08 said:
So the whole movement is about "equality" is it? Not police violence.. not "defunding the police"..

Vague. Immeasurable. Nonsense.

And equality of what exactly? With who? How? At what cost? Who measures this equality? Using what measures? Who enforces the equality and with what powers?
Click to expand...

HUman rights are nonsense aren't they? What BLM is about is that most fundamental of human rights - equal treatment. Police forces don't treat them in the same way they do other ethnic groups. On the streets of many U.S cities all you have to do is be a black person to earn yourself any number of stop-and-searches or your home raided.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/the-stop-race-police-traffic/

...Traffic stops—the most common interaction between police and the public—have become a focal point in the debate about race, law enforcement, and equality in America. A disproportionate share of the estimated 20 million police traffic stops in the United States each year involve black drivers, even though they are no more likely to break traffic laws than whites. Black and Hispanic motorists are more likely than whites to be searched by police, although they are no more likely to be carrying contraband.

Across the country, law-abiding black and Hispanic drivers are left frightened and humiliated by the inordinate attention they receive from police, who too often see them as criminals. Such treatment leaves minorities feeling violated, angry, and wary of police and their motives...
Click to expand...

If it happens once it's a nothing. If it happens continually I imagine it's dehumanising. There's a larger issue at play too of course, that of grinding poverty, a disasterous 'war on drugs' that seems to keep the privately-run prison system ticking over nicely and a dwindling of hope because of both in the community that sees the value of human life itself diminish on the streets. Black on black violence? There's no hope in the community, no jobs, and once you enter the prison cycle most employers won't want to know you. People stop giving a f*ck after a while.

Police violence is a part of it but there's so, so much more to rectify in the United States. Some of it must undoubtedly come from within the African-American community but those outside factors need to change as well.
 
Tiger08 said:
"Well it's a struggle for equality in a larger sense.."

Lol. Ok.

"They do have to make sure the focus of the message remains on equality".

Lol.

So the whole movement is about "equality" is it? Not police violence.. not "defunding the police"..

Vague. Immeasurable. Nonsense.

And equality of what exactly? With who? How? At what cost? Who measures this equality? Using what measures? Who enforces the equality and with what powers?

It's a laundry list of poorly defined grievances with no proposed solutions.

It's embraced by people who are completely unaware this movement is about anything than police violence.. or who are too young or ignorant to know how these well meaning efforts to create "equality" have turned out in the past.
Click to expand...
You got some nerve.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Noidenous said:
Go find it yourself.
Click to expand...

Lol. Making a definitive statement like 'Antifa now blaming blacks for their little attempted revolution' and failing to supply a link informing us all of just how much Antifa is turning on the blacks doesn't really help us decide that Antifa are maybe in the wrong here after all. Does it? I mean, fair enough you've picked your side and you believe what you believe. Coming on a social media platform like Bigfooty shows you're concerned enough about it to comment in the first place. So why not show the origins of your statement?

Wouldn't that stick it up us lefties?
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
Lol. Making a definitive statement like 'Antifa now blaming blacks for their little attempted revolution' and failing to supply a link informing us all of just how much Antifa is turning on the blacks doesn't really help us decide that Antifa are maybe in the wrong here after all. Does it? I mean, fair enough you've picked your side and you believe what you believe. Coming on a social media platform like Bigfooty shows you're concerned enough about it to comment in the first place. So why not show the origins of your statement?

Wouldn't that stick it up us lefties?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't doing a search on some key terms in that very simple sentence prove you have more intellect than a rock?
 
Noidenous said:
Wouldn't doing a search on some key terms in that very simple sentence prove you have more intellect than a rock?
Click to expand...

There’s a lot of information on the web, it’s always good to cite a source you trust I reckon. “Google it” might be the laziest discussion ender there is.
 
Several F1 drivers declined to take the knee before the Austrian GP today.

Six drivers including Charles Leclerc (Ferrari) and Max Verstappen (Red Bull) declined to join Lewis Hamilton in taking a knee ahead of the start of Sunday’s Austrian Grand Prix.​
​
All 20 drivers wore ‘End Racism’ t-shirts, however, apart from Hamilton (Mercedes) who wore a Black Lives Matter top.​
​
The six-time F1 champion, the sport's only black driver, has been a vocal campaigner against racial injustice in recent weeks following the death of George Floyd in police custody in the US.​
​
Hamilton has called out rivals who chose not to post any anti-racism messages on social media, prompting a number of them to do so. "I know who you are and I see you," Hamilton wrote last month.​

www.telegraph.co.uk

Six F1 drivers decline to join Lewis Hamilton in taking knee ahead at Austrian Grand Prix

It is understood those who remained standing are uneasy about the BLM’s politics
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
One of the complaints in the news article was a Twitter post by someone who may be "famous" saying "All they had to do was take a knee"

That shows how moronic some people are. Showing solidarity for 1 minute then going back to your regular life does absolutely nothing. Other than make you feel good about yourself.

Its impressive that some young drivers refused to be guilted in to it.
 
the_interloper said:
There’s a lot of information on the web, it’s always good to cite a source you trust I reckon. “Google it” might be the laziest discussion ender there is.
Click to expand...
Thats why you filter by date for news events. It eliminates a lot of information, and the need for a link.

Besides, what if they find that information on a site they have not ignored? Does it become more credible in their feeble mind? I could cite centrist, relatively unbiased sources all day, only to find they have information blinkers on.
 
Noidenous said:
Thats why you filter by date for news events. It eliminates a lot of information, and the need for a link.

Besides, what if they find that information on a site they have not ignored? Does it become more credible in their feeble mind? I could cite centrist, relatively unbiased sources all day, only to find they have information blinkers on.
Click to expand...

Well from my experience, if you state a fact you should state where you got it from, otherwise people have no real requirement to believe you. Some news services have clear biases, it’s best to try and look at as many as you can, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make in that second paragraph.
 
the_interloper said:
Well from my experience, if you state a fact you should state where you got it from, otherwise people have no real requirement to believe you. Some news services have clear biases, it’s best to try and look at as many as you can, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make in that second paragraph.
Click to expand...
It is a common tactic to ask for information, then dismiss the source. It is part of the struggle session people try and set up for you, particularly when it is in the public eye.

If they search for themselves and legitimately cannot find it, that in itself presents a problem due to:

A) Their browsing being clearly biased and reducing results based on this, and
B) Their inability to locate information, reducing their capacity to find information for themself and broaden their own perspectives.

If CNN is reporting that Antifa has done something nefarious, is it more or less believable to a 'chant-now-think-later' than if Breitbart do so?
 
Noidenous said:
It is a common tactic to ask for information, then dismiss the source. It is part of the struggle session people try and set up for you, particularly when it is in the public eye.

If they search for themselves and legitimately cannot find it, that in itself presents a problem due to:

A) Their browsing being clearly biased and reducing results based on this, and
B) Their inability to locate information, reducing their capacity to find information for themself and broaden their own perspectives.

If CNN is reporting that Antifa has done something nefarious, is it more or less believable to a 'chant-now-think-later' than if Breitbart do so?
Click to expand...

Well I don't think the best solution to that is by not stating a source at all, and hoping they can stumble across it, then you can just say "oh you must be biased or dumb". Do you really think this is a great way to make a resolution or flesh out an issue.

If you think someone needs their perspective broadened the onus would be on you to make a convincing argument, if you can't then maybe you need to work on your own backyard. I'm in sales and if i lose a deal I don't blame the customer for being biased and not being able to research well enough, I'd blame myself for not making a good enough case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fire
  • Poll
Long Live King Charles
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
195
Views
8K
Roylion
Roylion
Cookie
Cost of Living
Replies
1
Views
345
Kwality
K
Chief
Election Live Stream 2022
Replies
0
Views
350
Chief
Chief

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top