This doesn't surprise me in the least... Brazilians were people predicting this exact mess when I visited São Paulo in 2011.
They should say something, anything because whether they like it or not they are a political movement. They are the one's that coined the term "Silence is violence." And right there in front of many members of the community that is demanding that I give a shit about their cause is a person being beaten, kicked while he's down, and robbed while no one does anything. and thus far absolutely no one in that community has come forward and identified the assailants who invoked the name of their movement. I would think they'd want to distance themselves from this thuggery. Apparently not. Then again, look who their martyr is: Micheal Brown: Had just robbed a store, got in a scuffle with a cop and was shot and killed. "But he was a good boy, a gentle giant, he was going to start trade school." He attacked a cop. "He had his hands up saying "Don't shoot."" A complete fabrication. The autopsy and court files are available online. I guarantee that grand jury was looking for anything they could use to send that case to trial to avoid a riot and they couldn't find anything the officer did wrong. Then Michael Brown's upstanding citizen of a step father stands up in front of a crowd and yells "Burn this bitch to the ground!" They've burned down and looted Baltimore and Ferguson. Their movement has caused police to back off stop and frisk in Baltimore and Chicago and murder rates have gone through the roof. This year there have been 425 people shot in Chicago. 77 of those people died. Almost 75% of those killed have been black. You know how many the police have shot and killed this year in Chicago? One. Clearly the police are not the problem. Instead of burning communities, blocking traffic, yelling at Sander's supporters and college students, they need to have a dialogue with the members of their own community before I'm going to give a shit about them being victims.
Take a look at history. Every time one group of people has treated another group of people as a lesser entity not worthy of dignity, how well has that worked out for society? It's almost like there's a consequence to shitty behavior. But by all means don't give a shit for the group that has been kicked so many times that it bites back. It will all work out in the end as long as they realize that they need to fix the problem created by someone else.
Worth reposting. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...un/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database It seems far less people care when the person killed isn't black. Where were those other stories and uproars? About 25% of victims of police shootings were black. It doesn't seem to have been 25% of the give a fuck. We are talking about BLM here, right? As far as nobody cares in general, I've heard of little else regarding black minority issues over the last two tears. What institutionalized group in the United States do you think is doing this to what group? How are they doing it? Who's kicking them? Is it the cops? Is it most cops or a small percentage? All cops? Is it the politicians? Is it the discrimination laws or an insufficient number of affirmative action laws?
Ok, so by your logic here, let's assume I bump into a girl I don't know. Then let's assume I ask her 'if she wants to make America great again.' Then let's assume I rape her while shouting 'making America great again!' Is Donald Trump now on the hook to publicly decry my actions or face being 'illegitimate' in your eyes because I used his slogan during the commission of a horrible crime? Or can we go ahead and just assume, absent an actual connection to a political movement that includes directives to commit crimes in the name of that movement, that pretty much everyone, regardless of political party/activism/bent/affiliation thinks crime is shitty? I don't get why the BLM movement needs to respond to this to be legitimate just because some tool decided to use their slogan while targeting an individual. As far as I've seen, the BLM movement had nothing to do with this, and by requiring any movement to account for actions by third parties whom may or may not actually be a member of that movement, without anything more, seems to be ludicrous to me.
But what if, like Anonymous, they self-identify as being a member of that group? Neither has an official membeship, nor any kind of formalized guidelines of what they stand for or believe in. BLM is a nebulous idea that started as a Twitter hashtag that is open to interpretation by those who choose to believe they are part of it. The only thing that says that those actions mentioned earlier aren't part of the BLM is common sense. What if those who did them actually thought that was their way to promote BLM?
Ok, let's go this way. I'm a conservative (but not a Republican). There are many self identifying conservatives. Some of them bomb abortion clinics, killing people. Some may say that those people believed that was a way to promote conservatism. Am I now, as well as all conservatives, required to condemn their actions as not being part of conservatism? Or is it self evident to everyone else. Ultimately, a person can choose to self identify however they care to. That choice does not suddenly make it inherent on everyone else whom self identifies that way to somehow be responsible for the actions of that choice by a third party. Because an NRA member goes out a shoots a bunch of folks, is the NRA now responsible for that action? Of course not (and let me be clear, I'm not particularly a fan of the NRA, yet their basic premise is a non violent one). Do people that identify as bi-sexual become responsible for other bi-sexuals' actions if that action, in the mind of that particular bi-sexual, is somehow promoting the cause? In short, people have misused political ideologies since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so. That misuse does not somehow - in most cases - rise to the level of requiring other proponents of that ideology to have to repudiate everything done in misuse of that ideology.
I think you both make pretty good points. I agree with VI that a group shouldnt have to explain itself each and every time something is ostensibly done its name. However perception is reality, and I think in order to combat negative perceptions based on the actions of an extreme minority, its important to make sure the group/organization's platform is vocal and well-defined.
Of course the NRA would not be responsible for those actions, just as BLM is not responsible in the case at hand. However, if a middle-aged white guy shot three people in a convenience store while asking if the victims supported the NRA, you can sure as hell count on the NRA making a statement distancing themselves from the event and stating that his action were exactly opposite of what they believe.
Sorry for the double post, but on a different subject, the FBI fucked up and now wants the courts to force Apple to fix their mistake. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...or-probe-but-someone-changed-icloud-password/
Interesting. Wasn't there just a huge flap about a certain flag that didn't belong on public property? Yet posters promoting a group that openly chants for the killing of law enforcement is allowed? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/2...thouse-ignites-controversy.html?intcmp=hplnws
And I question... who exactly is in that group? The NRA has a charter, with executives, and clearly stated mandates, and official spokesmen, never mind lobbyists. BLM? If a group of people does something "bad" in the name of BLM, then you can't say that that group isn't really in BLM when shit goes sideways or against your interpretation of what BLM should be about, because you aren't the one to decide for everyone what BLM is about. Where there is no clear and concise definition or rules of engagement or membership around BLM it is important that those who identify as being part of it speak up, quickly and vocally, to condemn "bad" actions that are done in its name, for that is the only way that the "group" (or social action) is defined. If they don't, it can be taken as affirmation of those actions.
You seem way off the rails about this movement, and I can't figure out why. You are comparing the Confederate flag to a poster that says 'Stop the Violence. Black Lives Matter. Stop the Racism.' And your last contention is not shown in the article. The article quotes a former officer as saying they have video of such a thing. The video is not included in the article. As with any movement, I don't care what's its for, there will be some extremists. Ultimately, from what I've read and gathered from the website - the biggest concern and point of the BLM is they want to be treated equally by police. In a country that has one of its founding principles as equality before the law, I'm not so sure what about the overall message is so odious. Are some people assholes? Sure. But you can say that for every movement, no matter how well intentioned the movement may be.
If only that were all that BLM was doing... but they are, from what I've seen, a racist organization. They are calling for "black people only" groups and segregation. You don't fix racism with more racism. http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...y-rule-runs-afoul-nashville-library/80606970/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-black-lives-matter-inspired-student-groups/ http://www.speroforum.com/a/JANCZNN...lack-students-demand-segregation#.Vss2XhjdlFA
There isnt one. Like the ultra-retarded Occupy movement, the "group" ranges from people who will protest when something bad happens, to someone that throws a hashtag on their twitter post when they're feeling edgy. My point is, if there was organization and an identifiable leader, it would be easier to establish a PR campaign overlaying the movement. Maybe its a lack of fair reporting, but what positive impact has the BLM movement had? Whenever its reported on its beating the shit out of a war vet, demanding segregation on college campuses, holding a parade while chanting for more dead cops, etc. Of course its easy to say that "well you dont hear the positives cause racism." Fine, lets assume that for a minute. Im genuinely interested in understanding the positive impacts that its had other than empowering assholes (white and black) with a vaguely defined cause.
My problem with the BLM movement is they want to blame everyone but themselves. PoC are about 13% of this country's population, black males 18-34 are about 5% of the country's total population, yet they commit almost 50% of the violent crime. Instead of yelling at everyone that it's the police's fault, maybe they should go into their own community and try to convince the black community that black lives matter and that keeping information they have about crimes from the police isn't helping anyone but the criminals. But they don't They stand by as communities are burned and looted, innocent children are shot and killed by indiscriminate gang violence, and the whole community claims they didn't see anything.
We are getting far afield from my main point. My main point was as follows: 'If a person commits a crime while shouting a slogan for INSERT ANY GROUP HERE is that group NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR PUBLICLY CONDEMNING THAT ACT without any other evidence that the group was responsible for it? Now I'm sure some of you will think 'Oh, VI, what a ridiculous point.' Fair enough. How many times have we posted something about the SJW movement (and criticized it) for demanding apologies from companies for acts committed by employees outside the scope of their employment? And the consensus generally has been 'why should a company be boycotted and vilified because one of their employees - while on their own personal time - did something retarded?' This is exactly the same thing. The default has changed, and that scares the hell out of me. The default should be that a group is not automatically coopted by the criminal acts of a third party in the absence of any further evidence that the third party was acting on behalf of the group. Hence, my Trump analogy, or any other analogy. Just because someone decides that they're going to commit a criminal act 'in the name' of some movement, regardless of whether that movement actually advocates such an act (for instance, the KKK has routinely advocated violence against minorities, so someone doing such a thing reflects on them because the KKK has explicitly advocated for such acts to their membership). Let's be clear. I'm not advocating for, or against the BLM movement. If and when I do so, I'll be explicit. What I am advocating against is that somehow a 'group' becomes responsible for the actions of some third party regardless of whether or not there is any evidence whatsoever that the group was involved or advocated for such an act. Hence, as I pointed out earlier: can't the default (whether it be SJW or otherwise) be 'we don't advocate criminal acts unless we advocate criminal acts?'
That is the heart of my point... in a case where there are clearly defined "rules" around agency, employment, and private vs corporate action, no such apologies or statements are required (except to appease the idiots). Where it is a socially-defined movement with no such clear rules or definitions, then yes, such public statements should be made by the majority of people who self-identify as part of that group, or those actions will be incorporated into the message that is being made by that group.
There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my analogy. If it makes you more comfortable, we'll go with yours. And why should the media be 'forcing' anyone to do anything? They are not supposed to be actors, they are supposed to report on what people do. And no, I don't believe Trump in your analogy has any responsibility to 'comment' or 'decry' that violence or else be found that he approves of it. It's the typical 'silence is assent' bullshit that I'm talking about. I don't like Trump, and think he's an idiot. However, in your analogy, I would certainly give him the benefit of the doubt - absent any evidence to the contrary - that he didn't approve of such an act without him having to explicitly say so. I don't get what's so hard about this concept. What I'm getting from many of you is that if someone who believes in a similar tenet to me commits a criminal act 'in the name of that tenet' I'm responsible for coming forward and decrying it. And if I'm responsible for apologizing or distancing myself from it, then in some way you're saying I'm responsible for it occurring in the first place. That's taking 'my brother's keeper' to an extreme that is highly problematic.
I'm not going to write an essay, but to me there is a pretty clear progression starting from when the black community was considered to be 3/5 of a person, then gained their freedom but were limited in what they could accomplish by people who continue to see them as less than a person, leading to high percentages of them living in poverty, an economic state which is always highly associated with crime and violence (no matter what color your skin is), and then those statistics serve to justify the racists continuing to see them as less than. It's like the snake eating itself. It's not a new concept, it is very reminiscent of centuries old class struggles between the haves and have nots, it is just highlighted much more strongly because in this case the have nots weren't even seen as human beings. FF a couple of centuries of building frustration, it's textbook sociology. It could be worse, nobody's head is being cut off.