An intellectual litmus test... I'd say if you can read this and understand it, you're less likely to support the 'bowel movement'.
"Indeed, it was not 30 years ago that African-American community leaders were demanding a stronger police presence in minority communities as crime rates - as a result of the 1960s/70s passion for treating the criminal as a victim rather than a perpetrator - soared."I stopped here because I'd like to point something out. The black community has never been in favor of increasing police presence that isn't black controlled. When the Black Panther Party was established one of their main goals was to act as a black community police force and watchmen because of how bad the police actually were. Furthermore after the Rodney King riots, in 92, there was a push to give black people our 2nd amendment rights back but instead of doing so we were told they, the state and white people, would rather have the national guard come in (sound familiar?).
"little more than a group of people following a trendy slogan", so the global protests are just a little group to you?
@Hypnos0929 Sorry, not so. The Congressional Black Caucus actually did make specific requests for both mandatory minimums and an increased police presence. This how the Democrats ended up adopting both.(Personal aside, I worked in Congress and was there as it sought both in the Crime Bill eventually signed by President Clinton. My boss was ranking on the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee at the time.)In any case, the Black Panther Party hardly represented mainstream views and it would not have been possible to assure them a, for lack of a better term, "Black's Only" police force. This would both not have been possible for legal reasons - including terms negotiated with police and other public sector unions - as well as simple practicalities. (Police, despite recruitment efforts, have not been able to appreciably increase by the necessary quantum leaps the number of black recruits in their ranks.)In any case, it is not likely that would matter. To start, according to studies by the National Academy of Sciences and the CDC, the overwhelming majority of police brutality claims involving African-American suspects have been lodged against African-American police officers. (8 times the rate of Hispanic or white officers.)So, you are factually in error, but even were you right there is very little sociological evidence to suggest that a larger African-American police presence would make an appreciable difference. Indeed, the National Academy of Science study also found that, by far, the best predictor of police behavior is suspect behavior.There the problem begins.
@John_Doesnt Basically yes. The world is experiencing a populist era - see also Brexit in the UK, see also the populist governments in Poland and Hungary, see also the resurgence of Basque and Scottish nationalist movements as other manifestations of the same phenomenon.The trend is to resist authority. To reject the elites. To define the common man as the pinnacle of all virtue. These are the trendy slogans of the hour and with the United States as the premier global power in any case, the protests fit into that narrative.To repeat, the data - see also the recent CDC and National Academy of Sciences studies - do not bear out the accusations. This is feeling not reason. Catharsis, not analysis.
people in other countries are specifically saying "Black Lives Matter" even people in Japan and Korea where the black population is less than %1 are saying "Black Lives Matter".
@John_Doesnt So? Again my point. The protests are not about black lives and racism and all the other things that they purport to be about.Rather, they are an expression of a global mood of the moment. Populism. Resistance to anything that is perceived as power and authority. Dislike of establishments and institutions and the attribution to them of all manner of sins. As far as the international context specifically, with the US as the premier global power, it is almost a calendar pin-up for populist odium.Bottom line, this is sentiment and not serious. The protests are manifestations of passion not reason and they have long ago become attenuated from that which allegedly sparked them. Suffice to say, it becomes increasingly difficult - the longer the protests go on, particularly detached from any practical demands save for the patently absurd cry to "defund the police" - to take them seriously.
The protests are specifically about black people. They're holding up signs of black people that were killed by police.
nightdrot, your answers are too complex for the typical supporter of this movement. Try converting them to emogies or TikTok videos for maximum comprehension.
@honestGUY45 Thank you - at least I think - for your kind compliment. As to writing to those in the "Black Lives Matter" movement, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt as regards their ability to follow my arguments. Besides, my hunch that the problem would be less one of reading comprehension than one of engaging the mind over emotions. Hence my approach.
@John_Doesnt Really? Then why did protesters in London deface a statue of Abraham Lincoln? What did he ever do for African-Americans.Do not confuse form for substance. This has gotten about as far from the well being of African-Americans as it is possible to get.Besides, 82% of all murders of black men is by other black men. Do black lives matter to blacks? There are at least some grounds for doubting.
the protesters didn't deface a statue of Abraham Lincoln, why would there be a statue of Lincoln in England? Dumbass. They defaced the statue of a slave owner.
@John_Doesnt Try again.heavy.com/.../
the Lincoln statue was not in London dumbass. Lincoln was an American president. Do you need to see a map?
@John_Doesnt One more time. All you need do is read the headline:www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../black-lives-matter-protesters-graffiti-abraham-lincoln-statue-in-london
Did you read the part where it said the Lincoln statue is in America? www.nytimes.com/.../...navirus-trump-response.html
@John_Doesnt Did you read this line from the article - "Later in the day, the names of black people who died while in police custody were scrawled on the Lincoln Statue at Parliament Square. The words “we will succeed” were also spray-painted on the statue... The national monument and Lincoln Memorial in Washington were also damaged in protests last week."Parliament Square is in London - where I have been personally, by the way. Also, here is a photo from a Twitter feed - note the caption: twitter.com/.../1269296169559130112Please learn to read and recall that when you are in a hole, the best way to get out is to stop digging. In any case, you can easily confirm this yourself by a Google search. Here is another: www.newsbreak.com/.../abraham-lincoln-statue-vandalised-and-scaled-in-london-blm-protests
Putting aside the protests, as an experienced political consultant, what do you think could be done better in terms or race equality? Yes, I know there’s no such thing as perfection as well.
@ayque Not sure that there is much that could be done that would satisfy the activist community. Obviously you can set up various community liaison programs and such - and this has already been done in many cases. The Trump Administration had already passed sentencing reform and - although it has not gotten much attention - has poured substantial sums of money into historically black colleges. All of this much more than his African-American predecessor ever did - and I say this as no fan of Mr. Trump - and none of it has made much difference. The origins of the current problem - leaving aside the populist mood of the country which has been hypercharged by social media - is born of the fact that, in response to black community calls, the police presence in African-American communities began to be enhanced in the 1990s. (Famously, if now ironically, it was the Congressional Black Caucus that first called for mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine offenses in the 1980s.) That presence could be reduced, but as was seen in Ferguson, Cincinnati and west Baltimore, where the police presence has been reduced, crimes rates have soared. (In the west Baltimore case, by an eye bulging 150%.) This in turn producing from the black community cries of police neglect.It is a heads I win, tails you lose situation and is one of those cases where this is not a problem to be solved but rather is a difficulty to be managed, case-by-case, mostly at the local level. (Indeed, this is legally in any case almost by definition a state and local matter. About the most the Feds can do is reduce Federal aid to states for law enforcement. This would then leave less funding for police training and would as likely make the problem worse as better.)CONT.
There is also a need - bluntly - to hold the African-American community to greater account. During Jim Crow, the black illegitimacy rate was below the national average. Now, 72% of all black children are born to single mothers with no father in the home. As the research shows, children raised with no father in the house are 7 to 12 times more likely to have their own children out of wedlock, to fail in school, to fall afoul of the law, to become drug or alcohol addicted. This all, in turn, leading to more interactions with the police. That enhanced police presence, in turn, reinforcing the feeling in the black community of police oppression, in an ever downward spiral. This can be marginally offset by restrictions on police methods, but this will be of limited utility. As a recent National Academy of Science study has show, the single greatest predictor of police behavior is suspect behavior. Suspect behavior being rooted primarily in upbringing and education.Much of the problem currently is the cultural mood. When the common man is the font of all virtue, institutions and authority fall into disrepute and lose respect. As Burke said, "When subjects are rebels from principle, kings will be tyrants from necessity." That overstates the current situation in degree, but not necessarily in kind.Much of the answer will come with time. The current mood apes the 1960s and 70s. When the nation in general, and the black community in particular, grew weary of mayhem and riots, things mellowed and we got the relative - it is ALWAYS relative - peace and harmony of the 1980s and 90s. CONT.
That pattern will likely repeat itself now. Albeit again it is hard to measure what impact the multiplier effect of the media and technology will have in prolonging the turmoil. Beyond that, the authorities are making a profound mistake in placing the emphasis on empathy over the rule of law, as this will only reinforce the cultural ethos of self-pity and self-righteous indignation.The authorities would be wiser to take a generally hard line, and then to augment that with reforms of police methods where possible on an almost, as I say, case-by-case, community-by-community basis. It being recognized that this is all apt to be of limited utility so long as the culture rewards a sense of grievance.Beyond all of this, I could add various particular reforms, but again much depends on local circumstances. Indeed, in NYC, for example, when police hold community forums in black communities, they report that the single most constant demand that they here is for a greater police presence, not less. Thus the authorities are faced with a contradiction. An enhanced police presence is demanded, but then its succeeds and rather that being appreciated it is viewed as oppressive. It will be very hard to square that circle.
Authorities are probably also going through the same thing the general population is in that society hasn’t quite worked out how to deal with social media, technology and an increasingly diverse world.
@ayque There is no doubt, as I suggested above, that there is a technological dimension to this. The irony being that technology has put the world at our fingertips, but has had the perverse effect of satisfying our instinct for instant gratification and hence the habit of living in our own heads.Communication is always difficult, but it gets many times harder when the same words spoken in the same language take on a different meanings in each individual's mind. Throw in the amplifying effects of the mass media and social media, and it becomes a problem of incredible dimensions.This indeed why totalitarian states have either banned such technologies - see North Korea - or restricted their use and their sources - see China. Controlling the human mind becomes much easier where the message is uniform and where competing messages are not simply contradicted, but eliminated completely.There is no doubt, suffice to say, that the nation is managing the transition of the economy from a manufacturing/extractions base to a service/high tech base at the same time that it is attempting to absorb new technologies. The impact of those technologies on the culture and the individual psyche not being fully understood and therefore hard to manage.That being the case, it is no wonder the nation is facing the turmoil that it is. We have been here before, but never quite this way and in quite this perfect a storm. The assumption of the First Amendment - perhaps too optimistic - was that good ideas would drive out the bad and that debate would conduce to consensus over time.It was never anticipated that the same words used in those debates would mean different things to different people. This adding a whole new layer of complexity and conflict to the frictions normal to social interaction.
So what’s your Proposed solution for the social media problem?
And how do you think society has dealt with the ever increasingly diverse world?
@ayque In answer to your first question, you keep asking for solutions. There are not necessarily answers. Some things are just difficulties that must be managed as best they can be. The world has dealt with the impact of new technologies before. We tend not to think of it now, but in its day, radio turned the world upside down. Of course, the West was more confident in itself than it is now, but the impacts were profound. Ditto television. The list goes on. Heck, Newton discovered gravity and the world turned upside down.With time and experience, man and culture adapt. Not completely or perfectly but as well as can be expected from imperfect beings in an imperfectible world. To sit then and say, "what is the solution?" is to by asking the question grossly oversimplify the problem. Now there are things we can do. Be more careful in our use of language, for example. However, these are apt to be of limited utility except, perhaps, over the very long run.As to diversity, pretty well, all things considered. In 1860 we fought a war over slavery. Were people of a different race not people but property? 650,000 dead later, we decided they were people - and even then it took another hundred years to fully actualize that in law and practice - social convention taking longer still.CONT.
So what is your metric. Diversity tests our sense of what we are. It can be splintering - see also moral relativism, the easy answer to the challenge of diversity even as it makes the problem more complicated. If my truth is that you are property, how then do you npt acknowledge my truth just because your's is different. So we are clear on certain principles - for example, that for civilization to thrive there must be order - and then we proceed from there to adpat as circumstance requires. Bottom line, experience and adaptation will find for us ways to manage diversity and technology. Those solutions will be imperfect and not completely solve the problems and indeed will create their own problems. Such is the way of the world and it will have to suffice.
Perhaps that is just the different ways we use language. In my mind, a solution doesn’t have to be perfect and probably never will be and is the same thing as what you call “a difficulty to be managed”.
@ayque Well, that may be, but solution suggests resolution - solving the issue. Not simply dealing with it and managing it.Here the use of language matters - speaking of media. We live in a culture that thinks every problem has a solution. Most social and cultural problems are far too complex - have too many causes and origins too murky to ferret out - to allow for solutions. Most of the time, it is time and experience and uneasy and imperfect compromises that lead to tolerable outcomes. Almost never outright solutions.
That culture you describe is deeply engrained within our societies.
@ayque Yup. Sure is. Indeed, it is embedded in the language. You may have used the word "solution" as meaning "managing the problem," but we live through the prism of language. When we use words in certain ways, it both reflects and reinforces certain habits of mind.That is why we must ALWAYS take care in how we use language and use it prudently and with explanations as appropriate. That is something the culture - soused on visual stimulus and given too little to reflection - does not do.You see it in the current mayhem. You see it in something as simple as the "virtual mob" that went after the young man from Covington, Kentucky. People saw a young man smile and judged it - on the basis of little more than subjective impression - indicative of racism.A culture that extrapolates such cosmic conclusions from such slender evidence is grossly lacking in self-control and reason. Suffice to say, in such context, the cities burn.
I don’t think the vast majority of people support cities burning, vandalism or violence even if some support the cause.
@ayque No, that is not what I said. The problem is that when you have a culture that wallows in subjectivity and self-pity. That prizes feeling over reason and that gives primacy to the visual over the intellectual, it will lack the self-control and self-discipline to resist its' most base impulses.We did not get to the riots we have absent context and a certain cultural milieu. The majority may object to riots in the abstract, but they are not apt, case-by-case, to give order and reason precedent to how they feel. We did not get where we are by accident.
Yes but what I mean is there will be some people who don’t see a problem with feelings taking over society.
@ayque Well, yes. In fact, that is the prevailing ethos of the hour - and is why you have rioting in the streets. Feeling over intellect. Authenticity over self-restraint. As I say, we did not get to where we find ourselves by accident.
I don’t think some level of feeling is a bad thing. However, I agree it’s gone too far in many areas.
@ayque Feelings are inevitable. Controlling one's feelings, and a society that inculcates the virtues of self-control and self-discipline, are prerequisite to civilization.
Well feelings seem to take over more and more every year.
That was acknowledged in the U. K. by all sides of the political spectrum a couple of years ago. www.google.co.uk/.../high-anxiety-how-feelings-took-over-the-world
@ayque That's nice. That is a bit like reinventing the wheel. Savages are ruled by their feelings. Men by their reason. The line became blurred when the idea of the natural - which the ancient Greeks defined as that which conduced to man's highest virtues - became defined by the moderns as that which happens spontaneously. From there it was a long slow steady slide. The Greeks said that nature must be nurtured. The moderns said that the natural just happened. The latter believing that if law was written in conformance with man's natural rights, spontaneous harmony would follow.Suffice to say, it has not worked out that way.
Society is reinventing the wheel. Or trying.
@ayque The piece you sent is a case of reinventing the wheel. File that one under "duh." We started down this path, actually, long before the timeframe the article highlights, albeit with ebbs and flows, fits and starts.Mankind is making a mistake that it began making with the Enlightenment - hence my contrast of the ancient Greeks to the moderns. It has not stopped making that mistake, albeit at an increasing pace, since then.
Humanity has always made the same mistakes throughout history. And generally you see repeating patterns throughout history. But in the long term, things change and progress.
@ayque Nope. Progress is NOT foreordained or inevitable. THAT is the premier error of modernity.The believe that we have the knowledge, tools and wisdom to shape the future because progress is in the nature of things. No, it is not - and oceans of blood have been spilled to prove the point. "The pursuit of Utopia is the primal madness of the species."
Well you would say that as a Classic conservative.
@ayque Yes, and one look at the history of mankind confirms the point.
But Progression has still happened over the long term. And generally it’s been good progression wouldn’t you say? Putting aside the extreme progressions you mention which have failed.
@ayque Yes, we invented the internal combustion engine - and used it to throw Jews into ovens. We went from the age of chivalry to the age of Harvey Weinstein. Such progress. "The optimist believes we are living in the best of all possible worlds - - - - and the pessimist fears that he is right."
Many new inventions have been exploited for evil purposes but they’ve also been used to advance society over the long term. If we had no new inventions or progression since the start of humanity, we’d be sitting in a cave with no clothes on.
I like your quote. There is truth in that I accept.
@ayque On your first point, MY point was that you may improve the technology. You may improve the methods - but you will NEVER improve man. Imperfect he is, imperfect he remains, with all that entails in terms of his capacity for evil.This is what the optimists lose sight of, and as I say, the price of their optimism has been drenched in blood.
Actually I’m a realistic optimist. Not really a true pure optimist.
@ayque The world needs more pessimists who are not defeatists. Optimists by nature have too little appreciation for the law of unintended consequences and for the probability that things can go wrong. In their belief that all will turn out well - which is what optimism is - they ignore the implications of human fallibility and the limits of human knowledge.
Actually I am well aware of all of those things you mentioned. I just choose to be an optimist whilst taking into account the realisms you mention.
@ayque That is a contradiction in terms. If you accept that things can go wrong, that the best of intentions can produce unintended negative consequences, and that things are not apt to end well given the limits of human knowledge and human virtue, than you cannot be an optimist. An optimist, by definition are good and CAN ONLY get better. The pessimist replies, "Don't count on it."
Not really because I don’t agree with your entire statement.
@ayque Just because you don't agree with it, does not mean that it is not right.Explain to me how an optimist - by definition - can assume that some project will go wrong, have unintended consequences and, as often as not, cannot succeed.The founders of the Great Society programs assumed that man had the knowledge and tools to solve poverty and that poverty was indeed curable. So, on that optimistic premise, they devised all sorts of programs.Turns out those programs displaced all sorts of civil social institutions and dissolved the bonds of community. Material deprivation did decline somewhat, but poverty was hardly cured, and in the absence of society's intermediary institutions, the sense of community was undermined and crime and other pathologies followed.All this because the optimists assumed that we could cure poverty.
Because you can be an optimist in general direction but not necessarily by detail. For example, you can have the general idea that things will go well and get better but accept that to get there, mistakes will be made.
@ayque Except that in my example it was not a mistake. It was the logical consequence of a misplaced optimism. The belief was optimistic, the programs tailored to address the problem specifically. The problem is that the optimism led people astray - convinced them that was not doable was doable. Many paid the price.Besides, at this point, you have yourself a definition that does not define. In effect what you are saying is that you are an optimist - except when you aren't.
No I’m always an optimist. But an optimist can still be aware of the lessons of history and moral principles.
@ayque Except that you cannot be where prudence dictates that you cannot be. You yourself admitted that things can go wrong - this putting a cap on your optimism.Forgive me, sir, but at this point, you are turning the English language into a pretzel.
We are now arguing semantics.
But you are right about the optimist with a cap. Hence I refer to it as a realistic optimist.
@ayque Nope, not semantics. An optimist, by definition, assumes that things turn out well. So you do - except when you don't.Realism is pessimistic by nature. The belief that we have some grounds for action but that we are invariably limited in what we can do and how effective we can be in doing it.
Yes I do except when I don’t.
@ayque That is not optimism - by definition. Sort of my point.
But I am optimistic when I want to be and generally am more optimistic than pessimistic.
@ayque So you believe that poverty is curable, for example?
No I don’t. It’s more that in personal matters, I tend to be more optimistic. Maybe that’s a better way of putting in. In political opinions, I’m probably more pessimistic.
On a different topic, I am interested to hear your views on the tearing down of the statues (the legal ones torn down by the proper authorities, not the cases of vandalism where protesters have torn them down by their own will).
@ayque Frankly, I am largely indifferent. I would leave them as reminders of history - this in a culture where history is already given far too short a shrift. I also think that tearing the statues down has a vaguely Stalin-esque feel. Like when Stalin erased Trotsky's image from a photo with Lenin.However, in general, it is not a matter of great moment. When you live in a country where 4 in 10 cannot name who we fought in World War I, and where more than half cannot name their Member of Congress, tearing down statues is not the most serious problem we have.It is more symptom than cause - and the cause is chilling.
Could they be put in museums instead?
@ayque Sure. That would be a reasonable option. Though those who want them torn down often have an agenda and would rather see them be destroyed. That said, to the extent that reason and a due consideration of history still has claim on the human mind, sending the statues to a museum would certainly be a desirable option.
All statues? Or do you think some statues should remain in situ?
@ayque My preference is that things be left as they are, but as I say, it is not a matter of great moment. The whole statue issue is a symptom of a larger malady. The malady is the bigger issue.
And what are the symptoms and potential consequences of the malady which concern you the most?
@ayque Ignorance of history. The tendency to rewrite it so as to erase memories and set an agenda. This is what I was referring to. (Ignorance of history - a failure to learn its' lessons - being a deeply rooted problem in any case.)Suffice to say, the tearing down of statues is a symptom of that broader social pathology. Those who are ignorant of history being condemned to a perpetual state of intellectual and moral pre-adolescence.
I think very few people would support that on either side of the aisle.
@ayque Sorry, the antecedent in your sentence is unclear. To what are you referring? What is "that"?
Ignorance or rewriting of history.
@ayque To the contrary. Why did the National Socialists and the Communists burn books. Where does the phrase, "the dead hand of the past" come from?Particularly on what is referred to as the political left - I will spare you the pedigree of the ideas - the idea is that history ties man to his past and prevents him from reaching his full utopian potential. "He who controls the past controls the present and shapes the future."Nope, there is a serious strand of political thought that seeks to erase and re-write history to serve the needs of utopian ambition. At its worst, you can see it in North Korea and China - or back in the day in Nazi Germany and the USSR. In milder form, you see it in those groups that are seeking in the name of an ephemeral equality, to tear down representations of the past.
P. S. The actual quote from above is, "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." George Orwell's famous quote comes from his justifiably famous science fiction novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
I think that is an extreme though and surely not supported by the majority. I doubt moderate liberals would support the complete deletion of rewriting of history.
@ayque Well, it is not moderates who want to tear down statues. In fact, until the current populist era, the statues were left alone and were accepted or ignored according to taste.After all, not for nothing do such groups want to take the time to tear down these statues.
So do you think moderates have become a minority now?
@ayque No. However, intensity matters and at the moment radical factions are taking advantage of the confluence of populist sentiments, economic transformation and new technologies to gain prominence.This is a fairly recurrent pattern in human history. This time being given more salience be the new technologies of social media.
Doesn’t history also tell us that this will pass? And moderate policies will prevail?
@ayque Well, the Nazis were a minority. The Communists were also a minority. You cannot be assured of any outcome. Now I happen to believe that the institutions of the United States are strong and that is reassuring. However, both parties believe there are votes to be had in trashing those institutions and when such institutions are in disrepute, then the danger of anarchy, revolution or tyranny is greatest. The problem with the current crop of leaders in American is that they have too little an appreciation of how man depends on established social institutions to afford him order and a sense of identity. Absent order and identity, man is a beast who either devours his own or is easily led.
What about in the United Kingdom? Do you think there’s less of a concern there? Or more of a concern?
@ayque Well, in Britain the same forces are at work as in the United States and the West generally. Though to what degree I cannot say. Scottish and Welsh nationalisms are certainly examples of those attenuating forces of social cohesion.By the same token, Britain is a country that retains a monarchy, a House of Lords and an established church. The culture tend - and this is a tendency - to give primacy to established cultural institutions and traditions. (It is one of the reasons I an Anglophile.) By the same token, as the Brexit debate suggested, there are forces tearing at that sense of deep institutional and social cohesion for something more erzatz and mechanistic. That said, while I do follow British politics, I cannot say, at this distance, to what degree those forces of social atomization are a force in British politics.
I fear they are at work more than you might think. Populism in the United Kingdom has become rife recently and feelings have very truly taken over. There is also the same social media and technology problem as in the US. In addition, many in the UK are now less religious.
Support for the monarchy I think is still strong however. The House of Lords many believe should be elected.
@ayque The point is that the institutions are adaptable and have endured. It is, for example, amazing that in a country where religious observance has decline to the extent that it has that an established church remains and is not a matter of great controversy. That suggests a deep underlying respect for institutions and traditions that has made British society highly durable and resilient. By the same token, I did say that the forces of social atomization are at work in the UK. All I could not do was give a specific estimate as to how far they have gone. All I can say is that such atomization is spreading across the West and that there is therefore no reason to believe that it has not impacted the UK.
Yes. I do however feel that respect for tradition and institutions is weakening.
@ayque Look about you. You can point to it in ways large and small. From things like the decline of religious observance to something as small as the rising tide of coarse manners and a lack of decorum on public conduct.However, why are you asking me these things? Look around for yourself. You be the judge. You decide what we have lost and what we have gained and weigh the balance.
I am but I like to hear other views too.
@ayque Well, I think you can fairly extrapolate some of my views. My suggestion to you would be rather than plating 20 questions with me - though within reason I am happy to chat - that you read Aristotle, Aquinas and Burke. That you read more history.These will give you a better sense of the world you find yourself in than you will get in 2000 character increments from me.
@ayque Just to add, my point being that whatever the merits of this site, its' format is too limited to do real justice to either the full historical sweep or the nuances of the topic. You would do better to expand your reading of history and political philosophy.
Yes. And of course reading Books by authors of different biases are important too. For example liberalism vs conservatism, relativism vs objectivism.
@ayque That's what I think I said. Certainly you will get more out of the experience than trying to learn bu social media. The former being the font of knowledge, the latter its' crude imitation.
I just heard another view from the left which said that without encouraging political correctness and highlighting issues, the far right will take over. Certainly politics has a wide range of views.
@ayque That is a banality masquerading as a profound thought. First, at the moment, you may have noticed, is not a question that we are not hearing from all sides. Indeed, to the contrary, you are hearing from every side - via media in all its forms - in a cacophony of sounds that provides, in general, more heat that light.Secondly, the suggestion that if we do not hear from one side the extremists on the other side will prevail is problematic. In general, one extreme will, in the fullness of time, tend to provoke extremism on the other side.Bottom line, there was nothing in that person's statement that was especially profound or insightful. Where it was not mistaken, it was simply a cliche.
Yes. A symptom of populism unfortunately. In that the Populist opposition of populists can be viewed as extremists.
Even when they are not.
@ayque Sorry. I don't follow what you are trying to say. Please clarify.
I think this person is basing their thoughts on how They believe evil dictators like Hitler came to power.
@ayque Well, I don't know the person and did not talk to him/her, I can neither confirm nor deny that. All I can say is that, typically, people tend to greatly oversimplify the lessons of National Socialism and how Hitler came to power. However, in this case, since I was not in on your conversation and am not at all clear on how it related to what you wrote about "political correctness" and all the rest, I will have to defer.You are simply not providing enough information, let alone context, for me to ferret out what you mean let alone what he/she meant.
Yes of course. The rise of national socialism was complex and as with anything in history, there were numerous factors. However, as you say, this is oversimplified by many.
Well it seems in both the U. K. and US, institutions across the board are agreeing to review their equality policies and break down racial biases. Change is happening through consensus. Very interesting.
@ayque What consensus would that be? At this moment you have a whole swath of the city of Seattle under the control of what amounts to an insurgency - demanding the abolition of the police.You think there is a consensus for that?At this point, look about you. The state cannot - or will not - protect you. If you are a victim of crime, well... best not call the police. You are imagining a consensus where one does not exist. The authority of the state is in disrepute and there is NO consensus on what ought replace it. Public officials are bowing to power, not reason.Thanks, but if that is a consensus, I'll pass.
Well in the U. K. anyway. I shouldn’t have said US. I’m not there so I can’t really judge.
@ayque Well, I can't speak to the UK in any detail, other than to say that if the government bowing to protesters who defaced and in some cases destroyed public property and monuments a "consensus," heaven help you if you reach too many more consensus.
There is no consensus for vandalism or public disorder in the U. K. The majority of the public and institutions are strongly condemning it. There is however consensus for reviewing policies within institutions.
Most protestors in the U. K. have not been violent. It is a small minority here who the vast majority agree are a discredit to the cause.
@ayque Well, if you consider a consensus forged at the point of a gun - which is what the protesters who destroyed public property essentially effectuated - then congrats! You have a consensus. Hope you don't get too many more that way. Civilization will not long endure it. Your second posting is irrelevant. In effect, what you are saying is that the small minority prevailed over the majority. Not terribly reassuring.
What I mean is that only a small minority of protestors were not peaceful. Most in the U. K. were peaceful protestors and acted lawfully. Any review of course should follow the standard governance procedures set out within each institution. There is no consensus for the abolition of any institution here.
@ayque They were peaceful here too, but the speedy enactment of "reforms" suggests not a debate defined by reason but reaction forced by passions and violence.Keep looking in that dung pile for a pony. There is bound to be one in there somewhere.
There are no “reforms” planned here. Only reviews which will then lead to proper debate and establishment of consensus on whether reform should happen and how it should happen, if so.
@ayque Great. Then you have something to smile about - as you clean up the rubble.
Those who broke the law should and will be brought to justice.
@ayque On the first clause of your sentence, it is to be fervently hoped. On the second, it remains to be seen - though in fairness it is more likely in the UK then it is in the States where mayors and Governors cannot bring themselves to retake their streets. (See again Seattle as Exhibit A.)
I will read about Seattle but if what you say is true, then I pray for you.
@ayque Here ya go. From the Guardian, no less:www.theguardian.com/.../chaz-seattle-autonomous-zone-police-protestAlso from an American news network: www.nbcnews.com/.../seattle-protesters-set-autonomous-zone-after-police-evacuate-precinct-n1230151
Oh, and one more - www.foxnews.com/.../seattle-officers-autonomous-zone-911-response-times-tripled
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. That is embarrassing for a world leading democratic society. I will be sure to watch with keen interest on how the US authorities get out of this.
@ayque Well, while hardly flattering, I think the bigger issue is what it says about the authority of the state. The people who paid their taxes in that area and who expected the city to provide certain services and protections have been left to their fate.This because once a society has decided that feelings and authenticity trump reason and the rule of law, and the common man is the definition of all virtue, this is what you are left with. Oh, and to add, when you are an optimist about human nature, you then begin to dispense with things like police and law. The common man being spontaneously and reliably good and their being no reason to doubt his purity, law becomes at best dispensable, at worst corrupting and oppressive.Welcome to Seattle.
I am an optimist more often than not but I would never support the abolition of police or other institutions which hold our democracy together, hold the collective knowledge of humanity (both past and present) and where debate takes place to shape the future of our democratic civilisation.Perhaps Seattle has weak leadership.
@ayque Your last point is obvious but not sufficient as an explanation. That weakness is rooted in faulty thinking and mistaken premises. Which gets to your first point, which is inconsistent. If man is basically good - as epistemologically optimists must believe - then there is no need for such institutions. Man being basically good, he will govern himself and his relations to his fellow man without the need for shaping and restraining institutions.
It is possible to have a generally optimistic mindset in personal matters but not necessarily in political matters. It is also possible to sometimes be an optimist and not at other times. I am sure there are many factors which led to the situation in Seattle which can be debated over.
@ayque To your last point, that is not saying much. Obviously.To your first point, sure you can. That does not, however, make it intellectually or logically consistent.
It is a frame of mind. It does not need to be intellectually consistent.
@ayque A frame of mind untethered to reality is not only not consistent. It is positively dangerous. Emotion severed from the bonds of reason. Sorry, we have had quite enough of that throughout human history - not least the last few days.
Not if you have established foundations on which to base basic principles.
@ayque You have no principles except a fervent belief that all will turn out well. Besides, when was the last time you saw such principles consistently followed and adhered to.Indeed, if people did, we would have no need for laws and institutions. Man would follow such principles spontaneously.
I have principles which the institutions of my society have taught and for which I respect. When was the last time you saw your approach being followed and respected? You can’t stop people being emotional and you can’t force people to follow intellectual reason.
@ayque Yes, and I don't expect them to. That is why I am a pessimist. The institutions, laws, ethics and habits of society are the best we have to accommodate human nature and help to shape it. They will not always succeed and will as often as not, they may not even endure. They are to be cherished because they are perishable and are all that stand between us and man's savagery which is his spontaneous condition.You, on the other hand, are inconsistent. If all turns out well and man is basically good, there is no need for those institutions you cherish. Except perhaps beyond a silly sentimentality.Bottom line, it is you who are being inconsistent, not me.
Regardless of if it is inconsistent, it works for me as a frame of mind so I am happy with it.
@ayque Yes, and that is why, while I enjoy talking with you this is a subject I would rather not pursue with you. It is axiomatic that you cannot reason a person out of a viewpoint into which he was not reasoned to begin with.Suffice to add that the triumph of emotion over reason is what has got us things like Seattle - and much worse.
And as I said, not if you have established foundations and you act within the established framework.
I am however flattered to know that you enjoy talking with me. I also enjoy talking to you. You are a good debating partner.
@ayque On your last posting, thanks - and I meant it. As to your first, Sorry? Your antecedents in your sentence are unclear. I am just guessing what you were referring to but to speak of foundations is problematic. If people are basically good and all turns out well, you have no need for foundations. man will be good because he is made to. The rest is extraneous.
It is optimism within an established framework.
@ayque That is both illogical and inconsistent. The optimist believes that men are basically good and that all will turn out well. If you require an institutional framework to make that work, then you cannot claim to be an optimist. Optimism is a presumption of the best possible outcome. If you require certain preconditions to get that outcome, they you are no longer presuming those outcomes as they depend on the efficacy of the institutions that make them possible.
It is a moderate and conditional optimism, rather than an extremist optimism. In Britain, we are proud of our institutions and our framework and hence we can look at them through the eyes of optimism. I am slightly concerned about reports in the media of potential clashes between BLM protestors and far right groups. Although police say they are ready to act at the first sign of trouble.
@ayque Your institutions works because they are rooted in historical experience. They work, to the extent that they do, because they are adapted to human nature in all its' imperfections and frailties.Put another way, they are not premised on an optimistic view of human nature but rather in the lived of its experience of its' weakness. Put another way, they assume a pessimistic, not an optimistic, view of the human condition.
By the way - and no need to respond to this one - appropos of nothing other than that we had earlier been discussing violent protests, I discovered the following video by accident. Bristol is not Seattle, but the thinking of the authorities in both cities is strikingly similar:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDa7bh27cBQ
Interesting though that our PM has now spoken out about the extremism taking over some parts of the protests. news.sky.com/.../pm-anti-racism-protests-hijacked-by-extremists-12005317
@ayque This is what happens when sanctimony and self-righteousness is given reign. In due course it conduces to extremism and violence.Applauding the noble intent of the peaceful protests quickly slips into indulgence and in the fullness of time the peaceful protests become riots.
Well that is one valid thought but I think people should still have a voice and the right to protest within reason. I applaud our authorities for challenging extremism especially after seeing the situation in the US.
@ayque They do have that right, but it is not a question of the right but if the prudence in exercising it. As one of your countrymen, Edmund Burke - my hero - said, "The foundation of government is. . . laid, not in imaginary rights of men, (which at best is a confusion of judicial with civil principles,) but in political convenience, and in human nature; either as that nature is universal, or as it is modified by local habits and social aptitudes. The foundation of government. . . is laid in a provision for our wants, and in a conformity to our duties; it is to purvey for the one; it is to enforce the other."To which he added, “It is not, what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do.”
Well again a valid thought but I prefer the thought of freedom within reason. I do however sometimes think that the aforementioned reason is stretched too far but that is a personal opinion.
@ayque That is Burke's point. What you see in Seattle (and Bristol, apparently) is freedom absolute and unconditional. To quote him again, "Government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it; and exist in much greater clearness, and in a much greater degree of abstract perfection: but their abstract perfection is their practical defect. By having a right to every thing they want every thing."That last line being especially pertinent at the moment.
I think less extreme in Bristol compared to Seattle but still illegal. The Government here have made clear now that such behaviour will not be tolerated and have planned to fast track the justice system to put as many of those who break the law behind bars as possible. This was a tactic used here against rioters back in 2011 and it worked well. I remember back then detectives worked 24/7 To gather evidence and courts also sat over night and over the weekends, quickly detecting, arresting those responsible and moving those arrested from police custody cells to the courts and then to carry out their sentence.
@ayque All to the good. Of course, your system is more centralized than the American Federal system and so the British government is able to give more immediate effect to its intentions. In the American system, law enforcement is predominantly a state and local government matter. That is part of the problem here, but the Federal government is not without authority to step in. Yet President Trump huffs and puffs and says, "Someone else should take this matter in hand."Such are the fruits of populism. Institutions are delegitimized and it makes it problematic to enforce the law. The legal authority to do so may exist, but there is no underlying ethos to support it.Fortunately, while Prime Minister Johnson tends to a more populist brand of politics, he does so in the context of a society and a culture where tradition, order and established institutions habitually get more deference. (Hence why you have a monarchy, a peerage and an established church this deep into the 21st century.)So by any measure, Britain is better off by default and is being better governed at the moment. The simple social tolerance for disorder is far less than in the United States. That said, as was sort of my point, a philosophic optimism about human nature will do you no favors. The UK's institutions and habitual respect for the rule of law were born with an appreciation for the limits of human nature and human goodness. You weaken that underlying social/cultural pessimism at your peril.
I see your point but it’s a compromise I’m willing to accept within reason for the benefit of more freedom and some level of carefully measured progression achieved through consensus. Believe it or not, despite some of my more liberal views on some issues, I understand and agree also with many conservative views and on some issues, fully support it. That is what I call moderate optimism. The US federal system is fascinating and I can see it has some advantages, as well as disadvantages, over the unitary system we have here in Britain.
@ayque The point being, in response to your first point, to quote Burke yet one more time, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."Of course we want the balance between liberty and order - virtue is a mean, as Aristotle said - but we must judge the utility of freedom by its outcomes and place prudent limits where experience and human nature. Liberty is a means to an end, not an end in itself.As to the British and American systems. I confess that I am an American who greatly admires the UK and the British system. The British system could not work in the United States for a variety of historical, cultural and sociological reasons, but it has certainly proved its merits over the course of history.
Yes I agree with a balance. In terms of progression, I support positive and carefully measured change established through consensus.Well yes culture and history plays a large part in the formation of society. That’s why all countries have a different system, each with their own pros and cons and in many cases not fair to compare due to the differences in history and culture. Although of course there will be learning points which can be shared.
@ayque Well, not much to dispute with you here. You have more or less come to a classical conservative viewpoint - even if it is not entirely clear to me the consistency of the pedigree of the premises that got you there.However, in politics as in life, if you can get the right thing for the wrong reasons - or in this case from a not entirely intellectually consistent starting point - take it.
We are all flawed. Well ok here’s the truth of the matter - I’ve always been attracted to the face of moderate liberalism and there are some views within it which I agree and others which I wish I could agree with but I just can’t get myself to agree with.
@ayque Well, you don't really seem to adhere to "moderate" liberal ideas. You seem to be making up classifications as you go.Not sure what "moderate" liberalism is. There is classical liberalism and its "radical" variant. ("Radical" here not meaning its incorrect contemporary usage, i. e. "extremist," but rather as the ancient Greeks used the term, "to the root of.")Not sure where you place yourself in that spectrum - however, you seem to have stumbled on a sort of classical conservatism, more by accident than design, and without necessarily having though through the predicate.That said, as Michael Oakeshott said, "The pedigree of every political ideology shows it to be the creature, not of premeditation in advance of political activity, but of meditation upon a manner of politics. Political activity always precedes ideological reflection and comprehends it..."
I agree more with classic liberalism than radical liberalism. I can tolerate radical liberalism as I grew up with it but I don’t agree with it necessarily.
@ayque Well, good to hear, but as I am not sure of your use of terminology and how it tracks with historic definitions, I am not sure I am absolutely confident I understand what you are saying.No matter. Classical liberal I ain't - but eh, you're still a nice guy. Cheers!
And you. I hope we will have another debate soon. I will be sure to expand my knowledge through literature before then.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
How about we stop using the word innocent when describing a man that was trying to pass a counterfeit $20 bill and was high on meth and fentanyl and was being arrested for those charges. Did he deserve to die? No he didn't. But that doesn't make him innocent. Supporting a movement to correct a problem is fine, but let's do it honestly and cut the innocent crap.
@honestGUY45 At the time of the crime by the Police Officer, no one had toxicity tests. The film shows the victim cooperating with the arrest. The Officer had every opportunity to place the victim in his vehicle for transportation. Every citizen deserves better treatment than what this Officer was doing. The other Officers around did nothing to step in after even two minutes to save the man's life. They all choose to do nothing. That is the part that stands out the most. It was not necessary.
I'm not saying the police officers did nothing wrong, they all did. My point was the use of the word innocent in describing his death. It doesn't matter whether someone is guilty or innocent, a police officer has no right to kill the person they are arresting. The word guilty or innocent should not be used to describe the victim. It's not going to void or justify the reason for their killing. It's only being used to inflate the narrative.
Police corruption is real. Systemic racism is not.
At least you admit it. Racist fucks that don't do it always try their best to hide their thoughts behind questionable logics.
@DiegoO I never said I was "racist." Lol. I'm a race realist. White societies are much better off and function better when they are a significant majority in their own countries. Europeans built the modern world. Deal with it.
That's basically saying you are a racist! Lol, unbelievable.
@DiegoO History is racist! Before you go and make such presumptions, prove me wrong. You couldn't prove me wrong in a thousand years. MSNBC probably substitutes as your brain.You'll be happy to know I work with blacks, and I don't think less of these people because of genetics. I actually like a lot of them. But country blacks are a lot more "Uncle Tom" as their brothers and sisters would call them. That certainly doesn't mean I endorse race-mixing or even want them in my neighborhood. There is a reason racial profiling exists. 13 = 52. I did not ask for Multi-Culti. This was forced on our white nations.
"God no. I'm a white nationalist. I say it loud and proud. Black hood rats keep on proving the scum they are over and over and over again".Racist by definition.
@DiegoO So now facts are racist? I wonder what will be racist tomorrow. Listen Miguel, I work with lots of good black folks. I'm a blue-collar factory worker. The urban-city hood rats are trash, and now their own cities look like it (even more than they did a few weeks ago.) Facts dont care about your feels.
You mean the ALL Lives Matter group?
Yeah... There was recently a female asking a question here on GaG who said that anyone using the phrase "all lives matter", she would REPORT. She was obviously a very angry person.
@mrkdvsn I remember lol
BLM focus on police brutality that follows a racist agenda against the black comunity. The black community has historically been marginized and treated like the worst, not only in the US. It's real, and it shouldn't be ignored or hush with "All Life Matters" since the latter don't have any sustancial meaning for the porpoise of fighting racism. Of course all life matters, but Black Life Matters serve a porpoise with a name that address all the struggles of the Afro comunity to be accepted as a human being with equal rights and respect, and not something inferior. Is something any other racial minority should feel identified with, in the US or any other place where they are a minority.
Everyone thinks the opposite side operates under false pretenses. The way the bipartisan system as it is today operates is (as I've seen) they try to get you on their side by convincing you that you aren't on the other side, to the point where not many people can know the truth but that doesn't matter because at that point pride kicks in, you think "I'm better than that" and fight. That's the real problem with the world: pride.
Sad that you felt you had to post Anonymous, because most of what you said is true! They made him a Martyr and a CAUSE, and there definitely are issues, unresolved! But burning and looting businesses of people that had NOTHING TO DO with his murder is just SENSELESS VIOLENCE and ABUSE of the people running those businesses!!Some were Latino, and Asian, and aren't they being persecuted, and aren't these protesters, burning their business committing RACIST CRIMES against those people? So if a black person burns, and loots a Asian's business, how is that NOT ALSO RACISM? I wonder about these protests, and like you said, the hate against whites, that also had nothing to do with this! But I guess you can't be 'racist' against whites, right? Like I said, HYPOCRITES!!
That's actually a good point. Certainly destroying innocent people's property is not the way to win this cause. However, those are the actions of ignorant people who definitely should be taught a lesson.Peaceful protesters have been attacked for no reason. I saw a video of a 10 year old being maced by the police. How big of a threat could she really be? Racism is real, it is happening and it shouldn't. The whole question about Floyd is: would it have happened if he was white? If it was a white man with the same background, who had committed the same crimes (because there are white men who have done way worse than that) would that police officer put his knee to that man's neck? If he committed those crimes, he should pay for them, but putting a knee on his neck and preventing him from breathing doesn't sound very human to me. He probably isn't the best example but black people who were completely innocent have been murdered by police officers. Floyd's story is just the tip of the iceberg.I also feel bad for his daughter. That little girl is going to grow up without her father and she doesn't deserve that.I do agree with pretty much everything you said, but we need to look at the bigger picture, instead of only Floyd's case.
So your claim is being an asshole means you deserve to be murdered while handcuffed?
Where did you get that? Fox News? Or from some far right media? Are you justifying his murder? Do you understand under what context he died? Beside from allegedly resisting arrest (does that makes any sense)? I firmly believe you have no clue about what his murder imply.
@Hypnos0929 He's just saying that George Floyd's death had nothing to do with racism. Derek Chauvin wasn't racially motivated. He didn't say any racial slurs at Floyd.
Floyd was a subhuman predatory thug. Not only did he commit armed robbery, he posed as a utility worker to fool a pregnant black woman into opening her door to let him in, then busted the door open when she realized he was an impostor. He put a gun to her pregnant stomach threatening to kill her and held her at gunpoint screaming and pleading for her life while his band of fellow mutant marauders who were waiting in a car outside busted in to ransack her house looking for money and drugs (they didn't find any).This guy was a career violent criminal. The world is better off with him dead. The cop did black people and everyone else a favor.
How about this. If you don't want to take a chance of being killed by a cop, DON'T COMMIT A CRIME.How hard is that?
I'd call what happened to Floyd, justice for that pregnant woman. How sad do you figure she was about his death?
@DiegoO BBC, NPR reported this. He was trying to buy cigarettes with fake 20 bill on the day he died. His friend who was in the car had an arrest warrant on him. If you don't want cops profiling you, don't commit crimes and don't be friends with people who commit crimes.
@sang2020 That's not what profiling is. Additionally police aren't some magical creatures that can see your history. Also if they knew his friend had warrants then why is Mr. Floyd the dead man instead of just arrested?Being guilty of one crime doesn't mean you're guilty of another crime.
@Hypnos0929 i highly doubt that derek chauvin actually intended to kill him. He had a gun and other weapons. He would have used them if he wanted to kill him. I think Derek wanted to arrest him and used more force, because Floyd resisted arrest for several minutes before the incident.
@sang2020 So you do believe Mr. Chauvin deserves to be in jail for 3rd degree murder at least?Because it doesn't matter what he intended to do. He heard the man begging for his life, Floyd did not assault him, and Floyd had already been subdued and was no longer allegedly resisting.
@Hypnos0929 @DiegoO I have news for you, the universe doesn't have a concept of "fairness". If an hurricane comes and destroys a village, it isn't because it's fair.The universe only understands cause and effect. If you buy tickets for death, eventually you hit jackpot. Fair or not.If a fucking murderer is going to kill your family it doesn't fucking matter what are your rights, the only fucking thing that matters is how not to get killed.But you still believe that some magical entity shall come and save you, cause it's the fair thing.
Wtf that have to do with what happened? George Floyd served 5y in prison, then tried to straighten up his life. Because he had criminal record he supposed to die? The guy didn't even put resistance, he was chill. Like I said, you have no clue about the reality in the US, you have no clue about sistematic racial discrimination in that nation.
@DiegoO he tried to straighten life by using a counterfeit bill and hanging out with a criminal? Ok... Anyway I think Derek Chauvin should be given a trial He should be convicted of a crime if the evidence supports it.
@sang2020 Your opinion is ridiculous and cruel. This is not about the sanctity of George Floyd, is not about how good of a person he was, it's about the exaggerated and insensitive reaction of the cops that hold him up, and is about how HISTORICALLY Afro-Americans and other racial minorities haven been abused and killed by law enforcement in the US.
The way I look at it Floyd was lucky to get a longer life than he was morally entitled to. He should have been executed after he tortured the pregnant woman... who was black, by the way. Why doesn't HER life matter to you fakes, phonies and frauds who say you care about black people.You make a mistake, you get a second chance. You make "mistakes" 5 more times you get executed. Too damn bad. This guy was a menace to society and should have been put down by the law like the rabid dog he was years before.
@DiegoO I'm simply saying that he being black had nothing to do with it, nothing else.
@DiegoO I am a racial minority (East Asian). We also had issues with police in the beginning, but we worked hard, stayed out of trouble and became successful and marketed our culture. The police stopped targeting us.
@sang2020 Lol, you are a joke.
@DiegoO no. Its true. Even people outside of us have a poor view of blacks because of your culture. Asians think of hip hop, drugs, sex, jayz, Beyonce etc. They need to change that image.
@sang2020 Beyonce isn't a stereotypical ghetto black woman. She speaks properly, doesn't curses when she speaks. I think you're talking about Nicki Minaj.
If they just stood against police brutality instead of against police brutality against blacks, they would get a lot more support, but they don't so they don't.
Come on, I can only pick 👍or 👎. Especially...
@honestGUY45 fr he probably scared what feedback he might get
... black Americans are overpoliced.#BlackLivesMatter is about righting that wrong
Exactly. For example, in my city, 3 black teens were killed in a month. Guess who killed them? Other black teens. They were outside late at night, with guns, and selling drugs. Nobody protested. But now my whole city is protesting for BLM because it's something they can blame white people for. They couldn't blame white people when those 3 black teens where killed by other black teens. So they kept silent then.
@Hypnos0929 But BLM is against the violence of black people. It doesn't focus solely on police brutality towards black people.
@keno_ke bullshit it exclusively focuses on police
@007kingifrit Still, black people don't want to protest or get involved when it's black on black crime. Their most argument is, "Black people don't kill black people because of racism." So? Just because it's not racism, doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. They're basically saying black lives matter... only when it involves racism.
@keno_ke Even worse, they assume if a white person kills one of them, it is automatically racism. In reality, white people kill black people for the same reasons black people do.
social-relationships/ q4187546-are-you-in-support-of -blacklivesmatter