Black Lives Matter and Violence

Debate and discussion on racism and related issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Black Lives Matter and Violence

Post #1

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

This thread is an offshoot of AgnosticBoy's thread "Is Black Lives Matter Complicit in Violence"?

To answer this question, I am reminded of an interview of the great Malcolm X. Malcolm X, who was a prominent figure in the Nation of Islam in the early 60's, was asked a similar question by an interviewer on some news segment.

The question was asked of Malcolm: "..one of the most pervasive beliefs about the Nation of Islam is that it dedicated to the use of violence means to attain their goals. Do you think this is true? And if so, why does it persist in society?"

and Malcolm ingeniously responds: "....we (NOI) never initiates any violence upon anyone, but if anyone attacks us we reserve our right to defend ourselves. So to accuse us of being violent is like accusing a man of being lynched of being violent just because he struggles vigorously with his lyncher; the victim is accused of violence, but the lyncher is never accused of violence."

Blacks, in the United States of America, feel as if we (I am black) have been oppressed in every way imaginable since we were brought here on slaves ships some 400 years ago, and we continue to be oppressed to this day. And once that anger boils over, we act aggressively towards our oppressors...but when we act aggressive towards them, we are accused of being "violent"....and only in a unjust, racist world does the oppressed get called "violent" for lashing out against our oppressors, but the oppressors almost never gets looked at as "violent" and gets to play the "victims".

Or in the case of Colin Kaepernik, he received so much hell for kneeling for the national anthem, mostly from non-blacks...but if anyone noticed, those that were critical of him were more critical of him for kneeling, than they were for WHY he was kneeling in the first place!!!

If they used all of their energy and resentment towards him, and placed it on his cause instead, the world would be a much better place.

However, in recent times, I can say that I am pleased at seeing my white counterparts march with us and stand against racial inequality. We are moving in the right direction.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Black Lives Matter and Violence

Post #21

Post by Elijah John »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 6:25 am They? I am part of BLM and Antifa. You asked me before if the end justify the means, my answer remains the same, it justify some means. Punching a Nazi, okay; looting not okay; chanting and disturbing the peace, okay; arson, buildings with people inside, not okay, car tires and trash cans, okay.
I commend you then, that you are someone who is able and willing to debate as opposed to resorting to violence or intimidation. It troubles me a bit though that you are endorsing some crimes. "Punching a Nazi"? Even one who is only peacefully marching and holding signs? In the eyes of the law, that would be considered the crime of assault. "Chanting and disturbing the peace". Depends where and when. Do you endorse going to people's houses and depriving them of sleep? BLM seems OK with that.

"Setting trash cans and tires on fire". Fires spread, especially when the likes of Antifa block first responders from putting them out. Is BLM OK with that too?

Does your relatively peaceful approach (reason and debate) and condemnation of some forms of violence put you at odds with your fellow BLM and Antifa? Your approach is refreshing by comparison. I wish more protestors would engage in debate and persuasion instead of violence and intimidation, or "canceling". Example, NY BLM leader Hawk Newsome was recently a guest on the Martha McCallum program and was asked to condemn looting. Instead of simply doing so, he insisted she condemn the supposed (I say "supposed" because I don't know) exploitation of African diamond mines, which she did condemn. If I recall correctly, Newsome still did not condemn the looting, and just kept talking over the host, and attempting to change the subject.

Also there is a bit of an irony here. As a fellow moderator, we are called upon to "police" the site. Youre not one of these BLM who think the police should be abolished or radically defunded, are you?

You don't endorse hurling projectiles at police, or blinding them with lasers do you? BLM and Antifa seems to. Do you condemn or endorse these practices? I have never heard BLM or Antifa condemn these tactics.
Not seeing the connection. MLK would disapprove implies not a civil rights group?
That's exactly what I am saying. Peaceful civil rights groups use legal means, not intimidation and violence. Lawyers and legislation etc, candlelight vigils and peaceful marches. BLM seems to prefer violence, boycotts, canceling and intimidation.

BLM does not speak for all black people. I know of black civil rights attorney's and pundits who are highly critical of BLM and want nothing to do with them.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4268
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Black Lives Matter and Violence

Post #22

Post by Mithrae »

I think I've uncovered the formula for a fair and balanced approach to this issue.

On the one hand, we should:
- insist that police bias, brutality and murder are 'isolated incidents'
- offer defenses and extenuating circumstances for those incidents such as 'resisting arrest'
- claim that corrective actions are sufficient and procedural changes already adequate
- declare widespread public suport for the current system
- adopt a presumption of innocence approach

Simultaneously, we must:
- repeatedly emphasize rioting, looting and violence as representative of the protest movement
- ignore defenses and extenuating circumstances such as confrontational police tactics, agent provocateurs and the difficulties of managing large crowds
- ignore corrective actions and calls for peace by movement leaders, instead disingenuously promoting so-called "BLM leader" Hank Newsome as representative
- pretend that 15-26 million Americans' participation in the protests is negligable or not indicative of widespread opposition to the current system
- adopt a presumption of guilt approach, in which conspicuous, specific 'condemnation' by every person of every questionable incident is demanded in order to absolve the implied guilt by association

In particular, we must downplay both distinction of initial police brutality versus responding public outrage and the distinction of trained government agents paid by tax dollars to protect citizens versus mass movement by civilians with no special rights or responsibilities - instead focusing on the latter as requiring much more scrutiny.

Follow these tips, and everyone will know that you've got a fair and balanced perspective :)

koko

Re: Black Lives Matter and Violence

Post #23

Post by koko »

We've had all this talk about blaming BLM for urban violence but it must always be remembered that none of the violence we saw in Minneapolis, St Paul, or anywhere else would have occurred had it not been for the police criminal violence which started it all. Cops caused it, nobody else did. In the Twin Cities we do not have any BLM members under indictment for violence. Instead, we have four cops who are. Had every other city done the same, things would be a lot more peaceful throughout the USA.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Black Lives Matter and Violence

Post #24

Post by Bust Nak »

Elijah John wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:24 pm I commend you then, that you are someone who is able and willing to debate as opposed to resorting to violence or intimidation. It troubles me a bit though that you are endorsing some crimes. "Punching a Nazi"? Even one who is only peacefully marching and holding signs? In the eyes of the law, that would be considered the crime of assault.
Yep. I am endorsing some crimes.
"Chanting and disturbing the peace". Depends where and when. Do you endorse going to people's houses and depriving them of sleep?
Depending on the target of intimidation, yes.
"Setting trash cans and tires on fire". Fires spread, especially when the likes of Antifa block first responders from putting them out.
Understood, I still endorse it. People should of course a) set up these fires up where there is low risk of spreading, b) not impede the fire brigade if it looks like the fire might get out of hand.
Does your relatively peaceful approach (reason and debate) and condemnation of some forms of violence put you at odds with your fellow BLM and Antifa?
Not really. We don't talk about those topic, white elephant in the room as these are.
Your approach is refreshing by comparison. I wish more protestors would engage in debate and persuasion instead of violence and intimidation, or "canceling".
Not mutually exclusive. Here I am endorsing violence, crimes and canceling, at the same time engaging in debate with you.
Example, NY BLM leader Hawk Newsome was recently a guest on the Martha McCallum program and was asked to condemn looting. Instead of simply doing so, he insisted she condemn the supposed (I say "supposed" because I don't know) exploitation of African diamond mines, which she did condemn. If I recall correctly, Newsome still did not condemn the looting, and just kept talking over the host, and attempting to change the subject.
I stated in an earlier thread, it's one thing to not volunteer a condemnation, it's quite another to not condemn when challenged. I read that as him endorsing looting. I disagree with him. You are supposed to be fighting for a cause, not for personal gain (other than the gain from police reform.)
Also there is a bit of an irony here. As a fellow moderator, we are called upon to "police" the site. Youre not one of these BLM who think the police should be abolished or radically defunded, are you?
I support sweeping police reform, diverting a significant chunk of its funding to other agencies such as mental health services, social projects and for social workers, as proposed by BLM. I suppose that sounds radical?
You don't endorse hurling projectiles at police, or blinding them with lasers do you?
I don't endorse doing serious or lasting injuries to them, so these are a "maybe."
That's exactly what I am saying. Peaceful civil rights groups use legal means, not intimidation and violence. Lawyers and legislation etc, candlelight vigils and peaceful marches. BLM seems to prefer violence, boycotts, canceling and intimidation.
First of all, boycotts and canceling is peaceful. More importantly, not peaceful group therefore not civil rights group? Is peaceful a requirement?
BLM does not speak for all black people. I know of black civil rights attorney's and pundits who are highly critical of BLM and want nothing to do with them.
Sure, but they stand to benefit too, we all do, should BLM achieve sweeping police reform.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4268
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Black Lives Matter and Violence

Post #25

Post by Mithrae »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:57 am
Example, NY BLM leader Hawk Newsome was recently a guest on the Martha McCallum program and was asked to condemn looting. Instead of simply doing so, he insisted she condemn the supposed (I say "supposed" because I don't know) exploitation of African diamond mines, which she did condemn. If I recall correctly, Newsome still did not condemn the looting, and just kept talking over the host, and attempting to change the subject.
I stated in an earlier thread, it's one thing to not volunteer a condemnation, it's quite another to not condemn when challenged. I read that as him endorsing looting.
That is an important distinction: But at the same time, fair-minded people operating from a presumption of innocence/benefit of the doubt standpoint generally aren't going to present that challenge in the first place. Journalists are supposed to 'ask the tough questions' of course, but in many other cases (and possibly from journalists too depending on situation/phrasing) such a challenge could be an attempt to trap someone in their words or divide and conquer. For example if you had some followers (as Newsome professes to) some of whom wanted to punch Nazis and others who didn't, a demand to openly 'condemn' Nazi-punching is likely to be divisive and weaken your movement either way, if you gave a straight answer. So unless you consider it as an important question which needs an answer, in many cases it may be wiser not to fall for the trap.

In those cases a non-answer isn't equivalent to endorsing looting or whatever - that's presumption of guilt thinking - it's just recognizing the hostile intentions of the challenge and taking the perceived least damaging route.


An ironic contrast to this is the inverted scenario of a president who habitually volunteers racially inflammatory/ambiguous remarks: In that case critics of BLM are often all too eager to demand benefit of the doubt/presumption of innocence, despite the voluntary, habitual nature of such comments and the responsibility of the office from which they come weighing heavily against that possibility... but when anyone who claims to be associated with BLM is ambiguous in answering a peremptory demand for 'condemnation' on some issue or other, boy howdy does that get endlessly trumpeted around as proof positive of evil intent!

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Black Lives Matter and Violence

Post #26

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to Mithrae in post #25]

Then an explicit "some people in our movement thinks it's okay, others don't, I will not risk fracturing the movement by offering my personal opinion one way or another until our goal is achieved, which is what we should be focused on right now" would look better than a shouting match.

Post Reply