Is Black Lives Matter a Joke?

[omega2xx]

While that's how the term 'anarchy' is often used, that is not what anarchism is about at all. The system which is promoted by anarchism is actually a profoundly ordered society. It is a society in which there is no central state, but only total democracy operating at the local level, in governance, in the economy, in every sphere of life. All governing power then flows from the bottom-up, being totally democratic at every level.

There about 5 definitions of anarchy. 2 of them include disorder. So if there is a breaking of the law, it is anarchy.

True enough. But he sympathised with them anyway.

Sympathy doe snot imply acceptance.

"But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?...It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity."[/QUOTE]

Still his overall call was for a peaceful demonstration. I still maintain that what is done peaceful is much more effective than that is done breaking the law. There is no excuse for looting the innocent and I remember one person was killed during one of their marches and 11 police officers have been killed by BLM activest.

 

[Kirran]

There about 5 definitions of anarchy. 2 of them include disorder. So if there is a breaking of the law, it is anarchy.

Right, yes, but that's not what anarchism is politically.

Sympathy doe snot imply acceptance.

True.

Still his overall call was for a peaceful demonstration. I still maintain that what is done peaceful is much more effective than that is done breaking the law. There is no excuse for looting the innocent and I remember one person was killed during one of their marches and 11 police officers have been killed by BLM activest.

Right. And when those things happen, that's bad, and is condemned by most BLM people. The problem is in people dismissing BLM as a movement on account of these things, when their concerns are totally legitimate and the rioting, while not always something advisable, is no doubt understandable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not frustration or moving the goal post, unless you are describing the left.

I'm not talking about conservatives in general; I'm talking about you. Your goalpost-moving is why I facepalmed.

Your first question suggested that you thought that cops are shot by black people more often than black people are shot by cops. I gave you the stats that showed how you were astoundingly wrong on that point, and then you changed directions, looking desperately for some reason why those people deserved to be shot.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's bolony. If they reject ALM and destroy and loot private business and march yelling "fry them like bacon," They are no better than the KKK and the skin heads.

Someone who actually thought that all lives matter would say "all lives matter, so of course black lives matter."

Someone who says "black lives matter? No - all lives matter" is expressing a different idea than that all lives actually matter.

They aren't rejecting the idea that all lives do matter; they're calling out "all lives matter" for its dishonesty.

Someone who treats black people - or any other group - as if they don't matter does not actually believe that all lives matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The way change is brought about does not make it right. IMO peaceful protests get more sympathy than those that break the law.

... because being polite and quiet has done such a good job of helping people secure their rights so far?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are you saying white privilege is a generalisation?

How could it not be?

 

[Kirran]

How could it not be?

Well that's not an applicable term to what it's describing. White privilege is a part of underlying social structure, the term generalisation doesn't apply.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well that's not an applicable term to what it's describing. White privilege is a part of underlying social structure, the term generalisation doesn't apply.

Automatically applying a single, common trait to all people of a group is a prototypical example of a generalization.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The way change is brought about does not make it right. IMO peaceful protests get more sympathy than those that break the law.

Did you know the United States itself was founded as a result of illegal acts?

 

[Kirran]

Automatically applying a single, common trait to all people of a group is a prototypical example of a generalization.

But I didn't do that. Society does that by defining the social category of 'white people'. I am only observing its implications and drawing conclusions from that, which is that being perceived as white means that you average out with certain advantages, or rather a lack of certain disadvantages, which you would have been saddled with were you not white.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But I didn't do that. Society does that by defining the social category of 'white people'. I am only observing its implications and drawing conclusions from that, which is that being perceived as white means that you average out with certain advantages, or rather a lack of certain disadvantages, which you would have been saddled with were you not white.

"Average out" indicates that you are engaging in the use of statistics. Statistics, when applied to a population, are generalizations.

 

[columbus]

Did you know the United States itself was founded as a result of illegal acts?

That hardly makes it unique.
Google "European Colonialism".
Tom

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

That hardly makes it unique.
Google "European Colonialism".
Tom

Very true but I'm trying to point out that omega's own nation (assuming he is an American) was created as a direct result of the illegal acts he so vociferously condemns (specifically destruction of property by white people in this case) and, as a result, he has benefited from such actions by being born & brought up in American society.

 

[Kirran]

"Average out" indicates that you are engaging in the use of statistics. Statistics, when applied to a population, are generalizations.

I meant average out regarding every individual white person, not average out regarding white people as a group.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I meant average out regarding every individual white person, not average out regarding white people as a group.

No specific "privilege" applies to every individual white person, nor does any specific "lack of privilege" apply to every individual non-white person. Any application of a "privilege" is only valid in a statistical sense (as a generalization).

 

[Kirran]

No specific "privilege" applies to every individual white person, nor does any specific "lack of privilege" apply to every individual non-white person. Any application of a "privilege" is only valid in a statistical sense (as a generalization).

I don't see a basis to that assertion, personally.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't see a basis to that assertion, personally.

Nor do I see any for yours, as unclear and vague as it is.

 

[omega2xx]

Right, yes, but that's not what anarchism is politically.



True.



Right. And when those things happen, that's bad, and is condemned by most BLM people. The problem is in people dismissing BLM as a movement on account of these things, when their concerns are totally legitimate and the rioting, while not always something advisable, is no doubt understandable.

I haven't seen any BLM leaders denouncing looting. Intentionally breaking the law is never understandable.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't see a basis to that assertion, personally.

If you are actually interested in understanding, you can start by naming a specific "white privilege" which applies to every single white person over every other single non-white person, and on what basis (by what method) you've determined that this privilege applies to every individual in all cases.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm not talking about conservatives in general; I'm talking about you. Your goalpost-moving is why I facepalmed.

Your first question suggested that you thought that cops are shot by black people more often than black people are shot by cops. I gave you the stats that showed how you were astoundingly wrong on that point, and then you changed directions, looking desperately for some reason why those people deserved to be shot.

And you are looking for reason they should not have been shot. Since blacks commit the great majority of crimes, there is a good chance they did need to be shot.