I would not expect innocent people to be unduly targeted by police no matter what. What’s wrong with just going after criminals?
Police should do their jobs, not act as an around the clock minority harassment brigade.
Disproportionate targetting of innocent black people just feeds into the vicious circle.
What magical tool are the police supposed to use to determine who is a criminal and who isn’t, particularly in neighborhoods where everyone is afraid to talk or testify?
So you think policework is about randomly stopping citizens and hoping they are criminals?
I mean they do do that, but that is a toxic, lazy, bullshit “crime prevention” technique.
Imagine the whole population had the same colour skin… I suppose you think the police would be baffled.
How about the “magical” tool of actually remembering what individuals you’ve stopped and questioned in the past, so you don’t get the situation of the guy in Baltimore who was stopped “driving/walking while black” something like 30 times over 4 years (IIRC) and never found to be doing anything he could be cited for? I think that that would get more than annoying. But there’s clearly a cop culture in Baltimore that just assumes black people are up to no good “because reasons.”
The Constitution? Though, it isn’t exactly magical per se.
Edit: Think of it this way. statistically you have a much higher chance of being a domestic terrorist because of your political affiliations, so should we start randomly searching/frisking you when you leave the house?
I hesitate to post because this is a controversial topic (and arguing with both extreme conservatives and extreme liberals/SJWs is typically hopeless), but I do think the name of the movement is needlessly volatile. I get it, it’s about stopping police corruption. That’s a cause I can agree with…I’d like to think it’s a cause we can all agree with. But choosing a name like BLM…it’s easy to see how people that missed the context of it would consider it divisive. It makes it sound like they just want to stop police corruption for blacks. I KNOW THAT’S NOT WHAT THE MOVEMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT.
I also think that I can understand though, when people read the hashtag and take it literally, why they think it is. So, if we get change police brutality to a point where all races are beaten equally, we’re good? Hell no, the point should be to stop all police corruption. The unfortunate name they’ve chosen does make it sound exclusive to blacks. I KNOW THAT’S NOT WHAT THE MOVEMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT (at least I hope it is).
So I am left wondering, why couldn’t they have selected a name like Stop Police Corruption? You wouldn’t see people responding with All Lives Matter. Isn’t stopping all police corruption better for everyone, including minorities?
Mostly because the name grew organically rather than being created by a committee. “Black Lives Matter” was (at first) simply a pithy sign held up by a handful of protesters to point out that a black kid killed by police was every bit as meaningful as a white kid being killed by police, despite the relative disparity in social and media attention.
That a larger movement with fairly easily-articulated purposes and (to some extent) goals grew out of that is pretty impressive. It also trips off the tongue better and has a better acronym.
There was always going to be an “all lives matter” response to such a movement, regardless of what it was called.
I’d also argue the assertion that the movement is about police corruption – I don’t think it is. Not unless you expand the term “corruption” to include prejudicial attitudes and policing methods. I believe it is primarily about police relations with minorities and one minority in particular. It’s a movement intended to make things better for the black community. If it succeeds it should make American policing methods better for a large proportion of the US public that includes all ethnicities, but that’s a side-effect, not a primary goal.
Things would be so much better if they could just stop being poor and black. Why anyone would choose to be either - let alone both! - is beyond me.
I don’t give a shit about acronyms and slogans. I want a better world for EVERYONE. Selectively applying a benefit is technically a form of discrimination, even if the intentions are good.
Thanks for your answer though. It seems I may have been wrong in my interpretation.
Yes, it would be best not to he selective about it, but let’s face it, when it comes to our culture and many cultures, white people like myself have benefitted greatly from society while watching other groups barely make head way. To NPR reports I heard put a lot in perspective.
First, several states and cities have banned the use of felony questions when applying for jobs. They wanted to help these people who have served their time get jobs since most businesses will skip over candidates that answered yes.
Studies found that this rule had the unintended side affect of reducing the number of African Americans hired. Why? What is the link? The argument is that people assume African Americans are more likely to be ex felons so avoid them entirely if they can’t verify the information.
The second was about wealth. According to economists, it will take 200 or so years for Hispanics and African Americans will have the same average wealth that white people have, if we go on the path we have current. Slavery and discrimation has put both groups so far behind that in order to catch up, we do need positive discrimation.
Anyway, that reporting by NPR has made me realize that I have benefited, not just in skin color, but the social and economic standings of my parents.
I found that the political platform espoused by “The Movement For Black Lives”, an umbrella group that encompasses at least some splinters of Black Lives Matter, was pretty comprehensive and actionable. The short version is this:
Then they go into more detail as to why they chose those particular goals and how they expect to implement them at https://policy.m4bl.org/political-power/
It’s certainly more structured and reasoned than the aimless reputation some people are painting BLM with. It’s at least worth a read.
Thank you too legowarrior (great name, by the way) for your response.
I’d heard of the first report you mention but not the second one. The first one shows how government intervention based only on good intentions and not thorough analysis can often have unintended consequences (our history is filled with stuff like this).
The second one is interesting but my crystal ball isn’t as good as the economists in the story so I can’t be sure they’re right or wrong. I understand that wealth can be passed down from generation to generation and this, going back to the days of slavery, can be one reason for the now multi-generations-old apology. But Hispanics weren’t slaves, how did they get lumped in with African Americans on the projection numbers? Why no inclusion of Asians? Many questions remain and there are many counterpoints. Fredrick Douglas, Bill Cosby (tainted example, I know, but he did achieve success through education), Benjamin Davis among others - role models for success are there.
I don’t think positive discrimination is the best way because I think it attacks the symptoms and not the cause. But I get what you’re saying, that against a particularly intransigent bad actor, forcing them to comply may be the only way to guard against discrimination. I feel however that this is a superficial balm at best and can have other unintended consequences. And are the measures being applied equally for all minorities or just the ones someone wants?
I grew up with discrimination. I think things are generally better now than when I was a child, but perhaps you’re right. I still see traces of poor attitudes among the less educated and unsophisticated in the world and it is very sad that people are like this. I am disappointed that more discrimination seems to be the only half-measure people want…quality leadership should be the more effective solution, but even it may not be enough to defeat human frailty.
OK, agreed!
But what’s the best way to go about that?
I’m an engineer. When I set out to improve a broken software system, I start by fixing the parts that are the most broken first. If I try to improve every part of the system all at once, one of two things will happen. I might end up making minor improvements to clean up many parts that weren’t all that broken to begin with. The system will perform about the same, but it will look better. More likely, I will get nothing done because the problem will be too large and too spread out to solve, and I will give up.
By using a “worst first” approach, we can bring about the greatest net improvement in the system for the least effort. And in the case of BLM, “the least effort” is still a hell of a lot.
Once you get done reading that section, you can move on to some of their other platforms such as reparations and freeing the murderers of police officers.
Trying to think about the Guard being deployed in Milwaukee. On the one hand , it’s clear that the riot was unwarranted last night, but it seemed to be under control now so I suspect Walker is playing politics- he does not get benefit of the doubt from me.
Well, sure. There’s the “must-haves”, and down the line there’s the “nice-to-haves”.
Hmm, that’s funny. I don’t see “free the murderers of police officers” anywhere in their platform…
The group at the Univ of Missouri went from complaining about the supposed racist activities of the administrator to demanding separate black dorms. I understand BLM groups aren’t necessarily working together and that the leadership is at best sometimes shoddy, but I think there are rimes they are their own worst enemy.
It’s the very first item on the page Djscman posted. The “political prisoners” mentioned are all convicted murderers of police officers.
Quite the projection you have there. Or, perhaps, it is people who have been arrested in relation to marches and protests. People like DeRay Mckeeson who have, due to their political activism, have been targeted for arrest at multiple sites. Last I checked he hasn’t gone around shooting cops, but was for a time a political prisoner.