I promised to only write about politics when I have something original. Now calling Black Lives Matter the "new KKK" is the most cliche opinion you can have on the Right-wing. However I think they are completely wrong in what they mean by it. They mean "BLM is a hate movement against whites like KKK against blacks". I claim that BLM is a hate movement against blacks like KKK. How?
BLM on the surface is protesting against certain incidents. According to them these are "racist white cops are killing blacks". To see why this statement is anti-black racist, we must color swap these events: black cops shooting whites. What would I say then about these videos as a white man? I'd say "one white trash down, 500M to go". These incidents are police overreactions to unruly and disruptive behaviors of petty criminals. If these people were whites, I'd still not fear cops. I am not a petty criminal, I don't do swift movements when stopped by cops, I'm not insulting the cops, I cooperate with their investigation, may they want to search my car for a fugitive, test me for alcohol while driving, want to see my papers or simply tell me to clear a restricted area. I know that cops are just doing their jobs, I know that they are stressed and may fear attacks and may see unruly behavior as one.
The above doesn't mean I support police violence or don't think that the families of the victims deserve compensation, I just say that "if you act like a trashy thug against a cop, you might get shot" in the same sense as "if you climb into the lion's cage, you might get eaten". Similarly I do not support the violence in Aleppo, yet I don't think it has any relevance to my life or I should fear that I'll be killed by a barell bomb dropped by an Assad helicopter or a cluster bomb from a White Dove.
What does BLM do instead? They claim that the events happened because of the blackness of the victims. They claim that these can happen to any black person. This isn't any different from what KKK says: "all blacks are thugs and are to be shot". Both, equally generalize individual criminals as representatives of black people and claim that the specific fate of thugs is something that will happen to all of the black people.
This is a flat out lie. A middle class black person has as much in common with these black trash as I have with an unemployed, trailer-park living, confederate-flag waiving, alcoholic white trash. Why do BLM and KKK claim otherwise? To instill fear among black people. To keep them in line, where the line means submission according to KKK and voting liberal according to BLM. Who started this interpretation on the BLM side? President Obama, by claiming "If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon", referring to a black person who got into an argument with a neighborhood watch volunteer which ended in a fatal shooting. This was an outrageous lie. If Obama had a son, he'd look like Eric Trump and not Trayvon Martin. A golden boy in expensive clothing in an expensive car driving in an expensive neighborhood with armed escort while having a particularly snob social media feed full of overfiltered pictures. Obama's son would never walk alone in a bad neighborhood with a can of booze and get into a fight with a stranger.
BLM is a cleverly constructed hate movement against black people, to keep them in fear, to manipulate them to vote for those who would never lift a finger for them.
PS: Karma hit Time magazine hard:
BLM on the surface is protesting against certain incidents. According to them these are "racist white cops are killing blacks". To see why this statement is anti-black racist, we must color swap these events: black cops shooting whites. What would I say then about these videos as a white man? I'd say "one white trash down, 500M to go". These incidents are police overreactions to unruly and disruptive behaviors of petty criminals. If these people were whites, I'd still not fear cops. I am not a petty criminal, I don't do swift movements when stopped by cops, I'm not insulting the cops, I cooperate with their investigation, may they want to search my car for a fugitive, test me for alcohol while driving, want to see my papers or simply tell me to clear a restricted area. I know that cops are just doing their jobs, I know that they are stressed and may fear attacks and may see unruly behavior as one.
The above doesn't mean I support police violence or don't think that the families of the victims deserve compensation, I just say that "if you act like a trashy thug against a cop, you might get shot" in the same sense as "if you climb into the lion's cage, you might get eaten". Similarly I do not support the violence in Aleppo, yet I don't think it has any relevance to my life or I should fear that I'll be killed by a barell bomb dropped by an Assad helicopter or a cluster bomb from a White Dove.
What does BLM do instead? They claim that the events happened because of the blackness of the victims. They claim that these can happen to any black person. This isn't any different from what KKK says: "all blacks are thugs and are to be shot". Both, equally generalize individual criminals as representatives of black people and claim that the specific fate of thugs is something that will happen to all of the black people.
This is a flat out lie. A middle class black person has as much in common with these black trash as I have with an unemployed, trailer-park living, confederate-flag waiving, alcoholic white trash. Why do BLM and KKK claim otherwise? To instill fear among black people. To keep them in line, where the line means submission according to KKK and voting liberal according to BLM. Who started this interpretation on the BLM side? President Obama, by claiming "If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon", referring to a black person who got into an argument with a neighborhood watch volunteer which ended in a fatal shooting. This was an outrageous lie. If Obama had a son, he'd look like Eric Trump and not Trayvon Martin. A golden boy in expensive clothing in an expensive car driving in an expensive neighborhood with armed escort while having a particularly snob social media feed full of overfiltered pictures. Obama's son would never walk alone in a bad neighborhood with a can of booze and get into a fight with a stranger.
BLM is a cleverly constructed hate movement against black people, to keep them in fear, to manipulate them to vote for those who would never lift a finger for them.
PS: Karma hit Time magazine hard:
21 comments:
Kinda stuck here Gob's.... on the one hand you are not saying anything untrue. on the other you are not saying anything A: not known before, B: that didn't exist pre BLM. the new black panthers stood out side polling stations in major cities and told blacks exactly how to vote (their leader was convicted of intimidation his sentence was a 1 year ban on being near polling places). If you are black I guarantee you if you meet someone point a gun at you... you want them to be white. Most blacks are shot by other blacks or other minorities. A black persons best chance to survive an encounter with someone with a gun is if that person is white that's just a statistical number its not racism, its nothing but a simple set of numbers.
Statistics show you to be wrong, at least in America. In America, a middle class black person is much more likely to get stopped and harassed by police than a white person of the same socio-economic status.
You can come up with all of the craziness that you want, but you are still wrong.
Have you done any investigation about how many police forces in the USA fund themselves (and their municipalities?). Do you know anything about how many prisons profit from their inmates (and the enforced servitude therein)?
A lot of money is extracted from the visibly poor and vulnerable.
Read up about how Ferguson, Missouri funds itself through tickets, fines and making it difficult to ever pay off your legal debts to the city. It isn't an outlier.
@Jim L: police don't "stop and harass", they "stop and do their job investigating some crime". When they were looking for a tall rapist with a red car in my neighborhood, I had several stops because I'm a tall guy with a red car. I never took it as harassment but as it was, investigating.
My point is that maybe those guys were stopped because they were blacks, but they were shot because they were uncooperative and disorderly. So the moral of their story is not "don't be black" (what KKK and BLM claims) but "don't be uncooperative and disorderly".
@Ael: and how is that relate to shooting people or race of people or whatnot
I'd say "one white trash down, 500M to go".
Some might argue that's the core of your problem.
The point is, though, that controlling for all other variables, including hoodlumhood, black people are considerably more likely to be killed by police than white people. And even affluent and orderly black people (presumably the kind of people your value system deems worthy of existence) are much more likely to be stopped and harassed by police in certain jurisdiction in the States, particularly if they show outward signs of success (e.g. fancy car). The cops assume their wealth is illicit.
By the way, do you intend to continue slowly turning your blog into a current events political blog? I am not sure such a generalisation is a good idea; you're a good analyst and interpreter of data, but there there already exist excellent and better-resourced sites trying to capture reality inside the bounds of hard numbers, like fivethirtyeight.com.
Why would that be Karma? Time has been known for series like this for ages.
And Trump "Person of the Year"? Rightfully so, and perfectly fit among the lines of Hitler, Stalin, Merkel, Eisenhower, Ghandi, Einstein and the many others that have gained that "title".
I would urge you, too, to apply your usual trust in statistics and investigate who gets the shaft of the execution of police powers more often than others.
Even being _properly_ controlled more often than another group is unfair - it produces, among equal groups, simply more chances of disorderly behaviour, it produces more finds of illicit goods, and even if that all would not be the case, it obstructs the daily live of the properly controlled and investigated people more than the lives of those not being controlled and investigated. It is unfair to begin with, and most democratic societies agree that "unfair" is unwanted.
And unfairness based on skin colour is rascist behaviour.
And from there, it is a logical step to ask if this rascism stops at "proper investigations" or if it causes a pulled trigger more often than against other groups.
Check the statistics, and please tell us.
@Anon: and how is racial profiling has anything to do with BLM or police violence?! Even if I accept that black people have more chance to be investigated than others despite being innocent, it doesn't mean what BLM says: that black people in general are more likely be shot. The truth is that EVERY SINGLE BLM video shows an unruly and uncooperative person being shot. I understand that being stopped by police is annoying. But being annoyed =/= being killed.
While I can see the point Gevlon is making, I cannot deduct from "uncooperative or unruly behaviour" to legitimation of getting shot by LEO... That is a bit far fetched. Shooting a fleeing unarmed man in the back, 8-9 times while at the same time possessing a taser is not the proper reaction.
And "stop and do their job investigating some crime", when no crime is ongoing and when no hints point to that "afro-american" person that cops are much more eager to harrass. And yes, it is harrassment, when the reason beyond the official statement of stopping a black male is the person being a black male...
And this Trevor incident... How on earth is vigilante authorised to apply deadly force or assaulting another person with a gun? He had other options, like wearing a body cam and filming Trevor so that he could be identified if a crime had happened in the vicinity.
Basically what you saying is that "they" had it coming, they left theír ghetto and wanted to be trated like "us normal" people... How dare they behave unruly...
@99smite: where did I say that these shootings (including Trayvon) are legitimate? I said that they have nothing to do with the color of the victims and cooperative, non-disruptive blacks have nothing to fear. It's like "serial killer is killing red hair women, so blondes and brunettes have nothing to fear". It doesn't mean that I support killing red hair women.
Police stops all kind of people who fit into some description of a criminal. I said that there was a time when I was stopped often due to being a tall man with a red car in a county with a wanted rapist tall man in a red car. It was annoying, but I didn't find it offensive, nor I'd give different suggestion to cops. Should I be better off if they also stop men with green cars and short women with red cars. Being a black male in a neighborhood with lot of criminal black males sucks. But it's not the cops fault.
So... if your premise is that only disorderly black people are being shot, I'm assuming you have data demonstrating that disorderly white and black people are shot at proportional rates. Which would be fascinating, because black people are certainly not proportionately arrested, sentenced, or killed.
@Azuriel: such statistics are obviously impossible to collect. And it's totally besides the point. The point is "orderly black people are safe from police and only BLM and KKK claims otherwise to install fear". That stands even if black people are stopped, searched, arrested and sentenced in higher rates.
Those can prove implicit racism (something no one denies), but BLM is not about implicit racism. It's clearly about shooting and the implication that it's black-shooting otherwise they'd be called "disorderly lives matter". Which would be a valid social movement, as killing someone for running away a child support arrest is not OK.
That stands EVEN if only disorderly black people are shot and no disorderly whites (which is surely not true), because "disorderly" has a stronger correlation with being shot than "black" - again, even if only disorderly black people are shot. Why? Because "disorderly" is a much smaller group than "black", so bigger percentage of disorderly is shot than black.
Again: what's happening is not OK, but BLM is a malicious movement that abuses the shooting of disorderly people to incite racial hate for political purposes.
@Azuriel
I can guarantee, that if you do exactly what police tells you to do, you are not going to get shot or physically harmed in any other way. If they offend you, overstep their authority - file a report.
Policemen and policewomen are probably as nervous as you are, when they stop you. You know that you are innocent, they don't. You know that you don't have a gun or knife in your pocket, they don't. Its that simple. Its CLEVER to assume that people you stop on-duty can harm you. That's how you come back unharmed home.
Every case of police shooting a black man that was used by BLM was an example of black guy with questionable record going apeshit after being stopped by police. That's why they got shot. The fact they were black had probably nothing to do with it.
one of the few discussions without to much identity calling. People get shot because they don't have a clue how to conduct themselves with law enforcement. Decent people have most likely decent parents that teach them. I was thought this by my parents:
- while pulling over put the car papers and drivers license on the dashboard in front of you!
- show them your hands! steering wheel or in the air!
- if you have to move your hand, point in the direction and ask for permission! (pocket, wallet for passport, drivers licence or other stuff like papers etc.)
- move slowly!
- at all times make sure _they_ can visually confirm where _your_ hands are!
- NEVER RESIST! you will get a lawyer later and can file charges all you want!
I had one mixup situation with a tense cop pair at gunpoint. I said "Officers, I'm afraid of you! Please secure me!". They did. it went well. Always give full control over your body and do what ever they say slowly. laydown, get checked for weapons, get cuffed and pulled to their car. let it all happen. these motions and ritual give them confirmation that you are not a threat and that you cooperate all the way.
I'm not sure if you are being willfully obtuse, or if it is because you don't follow these events that closely, but you are demonstrably wrong about this.
John Crawford III - (Shopping in Walmart) Did not have time to be unruly, he was shot almost instantly
Tamir Rice - (12 Playing with a toy gun in a park) - Did not have time to be unruly, shot almost instantly
Charles Kinsey (Mental Health Worker, On the ground with his hands up, trying to tell police not to shoot an unarmed mental patient who had a toy truck) - Shot in the leg (lived)
Philando Castile (Stopped for broken tail light, informed police he was licensed to carry) - Shot in his car while reaching for license
Levar Jones (Stopped at a gas station) - Shot while turning to get his license after being asked for his license (lived)
@Gevlon
You're kind of on a streak of denial here, Gevlon. First, you're denying that Nazis are dangerous people, now you seem to be denying that Black People in America face dangers from the police due to racism.
There's was an incident in my local area, it was called the Michael Bell Shooting. Michael Bell was a young man driving home from a bar. Bell was intoxicated, unarmed and there were two officers present at the scene. Those police officers got into a confrontation with Bell, slammed him against the squad car, handcuffed him and then put a pistol to his head and shot him.
Within two days, the police department has cleared the officer and itself of any wrongdoing in the incident. They claimed Michael had reached for the officers gun, so the officers were justified in using lethal force. Without testimony from the family members of Bell, who witnessed the shooting of their son. Without forensic Evidence, which was still at the lab. The Department declared themselves free of guilt.
Here's the trick: Michael Bell was white. See, the two officers confronting Bell had a previous run-in with Bell and a friend. Bell was scheduled to testify against the officer who put a gun to his head and shot him, because the officer was accused of using unnecessary force during the incident. That night, with one bullet, the court case that might have put that officer out of a job went away: The prosecutor no longer had a witness.
That case doesn't have a happy ending either. The bell family sued and got the case reopened. One of the officers agreed to testify against the officer who pulled the trigger, but wouldn't you know it: That officer died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound shortly before he was scheduled to testify. The officer who killed Michael is still on the force last I checked.
When someone tells me that Black people are just thugs who get shot because they act poorly, I tell them about the Michael bell case. Michael certainly acted foolishly, maybe even thuggish. That does not mean that a police officer had to put a gun to his head and shoot him execution style.
The fact of the matter is, when Black Lives Matter says there's a problem with the police in this country: They are absolutely right. Police shouldn't have the authority to clear themselves of wrongdoing as they do. Police shouldn't be so quick to use lethal force, especially against people who are unarmed and outnumbered.
Last but not least, The police should not be automatically viewed as upstanding people who are just doing their jobs, and those complaining about their behavior as "thugs" or "petty criminals" who are upset they got caught. Cops are humans after all, they are perfectly capable of acting outside the laws they're supposed to enforce. They are as capable of lying to protect their jobs as they're more then capable of making horrible mistakes in the heat of the moment. Those thugs just might be right about cops behaving inappropriately.
The officer who shot Michael Bell sure seemed to be worried about the possibility of a jury realizing that.
I maintain that this level of twitchiness of the police is the price you have to pay for everyone being allowed to possess firearms. The fact that this twitchiness happens to be directed towards black people has more to do with black people in USA often being vastly more likely to commit crimes.
It is possible to argue that the current position of black people in USA as a whole is a result of some manner of systemic racism. I don't really think that way.
> It is possible to argue that the current position of black people in USA as a whole is a result of some manner of systemic racism. I don't really think that way.
Are you denying the existence of systemic racism? Or conceding its existence but denying its effect?
Do I believe in widespread racism in USA? Sure I do. It would be crazy to claim that Jim Crow disappeared in a generation. We in Hungary have Communist sacred cows 25 years after communism failed.
Do I believe that black people's life doesn't matter and they must fear for unlawful execution at any second? Absolutely not.
Hey, here's a story of a drunk, agitated white woman being shot by police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IMwXugaHYc
@Jacek.
How about this one? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678293/Please-don-t-tell-s-gone-Horrifying-moment-woman-believes-black-boyfriend-died-Minneapolis-cop-shot-four-times-reached-license.html
Guy was just sitting in his car, with his kids in the back
or this one.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-resigns-video-beating-innocent-man/
Guys was sitting on his mother's porch, and initially laughs at the police.
By all means argue against BLM - but do it with facts, not fancies.
Post a Comment