National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (and now ICE)

[GOTWA]

BLMs coffers are FULL yet blacks lives don’t seem to be improving. Why?

Pick me, pick me! Because the election is over...

 

[Brill]

Pick me, pick me! Because the election is over...

Winner, winner, smoked turkey dinner!!!

 

[RackMaster]

I think the real eyebrow raising part is that BLM has been able to successfully market “white guilt” yet who benefits?

Baltimore, a city with heavy minority population, is full of crime, low literacy, unemployment, terrible housing, etc.

BLMs coffers are FULL yet blacks lives don’t seem to be improving. Why?

In the 70's, I spent a lot of time very close to an indian reservation in WA state. The majority of housing on that "res" was terrible...3rd world terrible. Sometime after the turn of the century (ish), they constructed casinos and within just a few years, housing on the reservation was drastically improved because of the influx of cash from casino ops going to the tribe. Next the tribe built a HUGE school with all the latest stuff for sports and academics. Graduation rates soared because of increased education requirements for good workers in the casinos and within tribal offices. The Muckleshoot tribe was taking care of themselves.

If an indian tribe can do it, why cannot BLM? Where are the college scholarships? Where are the community projects? Where are local private security forces so the kids of Baltimore can just go to school without gang intervention?

In my opinion, BLM seems more like a Homeowners Association paid for by others (homeowners) to benefit others (lawyers who manage the HOA) who don't live in the neighborhood.

That's so blatantly obvious. They don't want to use their new found money. They want your money and to put you in the poor house, for equality and shit.

 

[Cookie_]

Where are the college scholarships? Where are the community projects? Where are local private security forces so the kids of Baltimore can just go to school without gang intervention?

This country has a pretty shitty history of killing black people when they try to do community projects

In 1969, charismatic Black Panthers leader Fred Hampton was killed in a hail of gunfire. 50 years later, the fight against police brutality continues

Or banning weapons when black people start carrying arms.

The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons

 

[Cookie_]

A point I'd like to make about all the "where's all the BLM people at now?" comments:

Just because you aren't aware of it on your preferred "mainstream media source" doesn't mean that it isn't happen. It just means that the people who run those news organizations don't see anymore value on covering it.

I guarantee that if you live in or near a decently large city, there are still a bunch of minority ran organizations still trying to tackle community issues. They may not be connected to the "Marxist" HQ of BLM, but I they are there and functioning.

 

[GOTWA]

A point I'd like to make about all the "where's all the BLM people at now?" comments:

Just because you aren't aware of it on your preferred "mainstream media source" doesn't mean that it isn't happen. It just means that the people who run those news organizations don't see anymore value on covering it.

I guarantee that if you live in or near a decently large city, there are still a bunch of minority ran organizations still trying to tackle community issues. They may not be connected to the "Marxist" HQ of BLM, but I they are there and functioning.

If the media doesn't see any value in covering it, is there any value left to the movement? My point was they went so hard in the paint, then one day it was over like the problems were no more. Just like in 2016. And we're not talking about other minority run organizations, we're talking about BLM actual.

And to the NRA comment above, ain't nobody care about the NRA these days. They're clowns and I would say the majority of gun owners would like to see them gone and replaced.

 

[Kaldak]

Winner, winner, smoked turkey dinner!!!

Cross thread points awarded!

 

[Brill]

This country has a pretty shitty history of killing black people when they try to do community projects

In 1969, charismatic Black Panthers leader Fred Hampton was killed in a hail of gunfire. 50 years later, the fight against police brutality continues

Or banning weapons when black people start carrying arms.

The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons

Race relations in 2020 are nothing like they were coming out of the Jim Crow era.

 

[Brill]

A point I'd like to make about all the "where's all the BLM people at now?" comments:

Just because you aren't aware of it on your preferred "mainstream media source" doesn't mean that it isn't happen. It just means that the people who run those news organizations don't see anymore value on covering it.

I guarantee that if you live in or near a decently large city, there are still a bunch of minority ran organizations still trying to tackle community issues. They may not be connected to the "Marxist" HQ of BLM, but I they are there and functioning.

Like what? Seriously, there is the chance to influence or inform.

I'm more curious where the money has gone. Same feeling when I see my HOA statement and see 80% of the money goes to running the HOA.

 

[Locksteady]

If the media doesn't see any value in covering it, is there any value left to the movement?

I'm pretty sure that sentiment right there is one of the exact criticisms being made: The inherent 'value' of any movement or the lives it is highlighting isn't defined by the media (despite the media serving a functional role in trying to tell people what to care about) , and it shouldn't take that degree of civil unrest or number of lives lost for a society and its leaders to suddenly start caring, much less having nation-wide discussions like this one in the first place.

But it did, and it's remains in the public consciousness well after people removed from more vocal areas began asking, "Where are they now?"

 

[ThunderHorse]

[/QUOTE]

Or banning weapons when black people start carrying arms.

The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons

For being the history channel, that article is missing so much context. Colion Noir did a great video on that. The Black Panthers basically just followed every Oakland Patrol car, whilst armed for months on end. Even interfered with police work. What got the Mulford Act passed with the overwhelming majority was the Black Panthers showing up to the State Capital with firearms.

This video has been posted at least once on the board, it came out after that Chappelle set.

 

[DA SWO]

This country has a pretty shitty history of killing black people when they try to do community projects

In 1969, charismatic Black Panthers leader Fred Hampton was killed in a hail of gunfire. 50 years later, the fight against police brutality continues

Or banning weapons when black people start carrying arms.

The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons

He was the leader of a criminal/terrorist organization.
I am saying this as someone who lived in Cook County/Chicago from birth to college.

 

[Brill]

I'm pretty sure that sentiment right there is one of the exact criticisms being made: The inherent 'value' of any movement or the lives it is highlighting isn't defined by the media (despite the media serving a functional role in trying to tell people what to care about) , and it shouldn't take that degree of civil unrest or number of lives lost for a society and its leaders to suddenly start caring, much less having nation-wide discussions like this one in the first place.

But it did, and it's remains in the public consciousness well after people removed from more vocal areas began asking, "Where are they now?"

Ah, no. I was lectured...at work...that my aloof attitude about BLM was because I was a bad person and I didn’t care about human life.

As a result of my retort “If this (BLM movement) is about human life, why isn’t there a movement highlighting that black men are dying at the hands of other black men*?”, the federal employees repeatedly labeled me a “racist and bigot” for citing data.

*per CDC, the leading cause of death for young black males is homicide. Per UCR, the overwhelming number of victims of murder are black men attacked by other black men.

The “discussion” NEVER involves black women abortion rates OR death from drug overdose, poverty, etc but MUST remain focused on cops killing unarmed blacks. Yet what does the data show??? More unarmed whites were killed by cops than blacks. <— Racist, yes, I know...hear it all the time. The “problem“ is IDGAF which names I’m called. Liberals burned that after 4 years of deplorable crap.

The criticism of the BLM movement is its all based on a false narrative (aka...a lie) in order to grab power or money which begets power.

This is what they want



This pisses them off when We don’t comply

 

[Kaldak]

Best part of my being im my wheelchair, nobody in the protests ever bothers me. It's the parting of the Red Sea when I roll through their gatherings.

It's quite entertaining.

 

[GOTWA]

Ah, no. I was lectured...at work...that my aloof attitude about BLM was because I was a bad person and I didn’t care about human life.

"I don't. Have you seen what I can do with a pocket translator book and a radio?"

 

[Locksteady]

Ah, no. I was lectured...at work...that my aloof attitude about BLM was because I was a bad person and I didn’t care about human life.

It sounds like they chose an inappropriate time and place (work during work hours) to tell you what they felt about something that didn't directly relate to your project.

As a result of my retort “If this (BLM movement) is about human life, why isn’t there a movement highlighting that black men are dying at the hands of other black men*?”, the federal employees repeatedly labeled me a “racist and bigot” for citing data.

If it occurred as read, that sounds highly inappropriate and grounds for an HR complaint, at minimum.

Based on earlier posts you've made (which were pretty fun to read for your retorts), it seems like your work culture doesn't discourage these kinds of interactions. I've always found that to prevent the social inclusivity that is preached in HR trainings, mainly because the only times those interactions doesn't cause unnecessary friction is when the people engaging in those discussions are singing on the same scale.

*per CDC, the leading cause of death for young black males is homicide. Per UCR, the overwhelming number of victims of murder are black men attacked by other black men.

The “discussion” NEVER involves black women abortion rates OR death from drug overdose, poverty, etc but MUST remain focused on cops killing unarmed blacks.

Yes, their focus is on the practices of people in legally mandated positions of authority against a huge subsection of the populace that earned the right to vote only 55 years ago due to mass civil unrest of the sort you are witnessing this year.

This doesn't absolve any of the statistics you mentioned, just as much as those statistics don't dissolve the problem they've highlighted.

Yet what does the data show??? More unarmed whites were killed by cops than blacks. <— Racist, yes, I know...hear it all the time.

Well, there are many more of them to kill than black people, and it is folly to call that statistic racist. They might have decided that your citing it as a counterpoint to their statement was fueled by racism, but it doesn't sound like you're talking with people who are interested in focusing on those facts.

The “problem“ is IDGAF which names I’m called. Liberals burned that after 4 years of deplorable crap.

How about 'shipmate'?

The criticism of the BLM movement is its all based on a false narrative (aka...a lie) in order to grab power or money which begets power.

What lie do you feel is causing millions of people to mobilize?

This is what they want

View attachment 37326

This pisses them off when We don’t comply

In other words, there is mounting social pressure to perform a certain way in public or risk getting socially targeted or ostracized and having your dinner interrupted?

Well, thank goodness we live in a society where it is inherently patriotic to have the mental resolve to behave as one wishes in spite of mounting social pressure to do otherwise, so long as it is lawful.

People who want to break the law to obstruct your right to do as you lawfully please are more than welcome to justify that reasoning to a judge.

 

[Brill]

It sounds like they chose an inappropriate time and place (work during work hours) to tell you what they felt about something that didn't directly relate to your project.

If it occurred as read, that sounds highly inappropriate and grounds for an HR complaint, at minimum.

The best part: this was our Diversity, Equality, and Inclusive folks.

Based on earlier posts you've made (which were pretty fun to read for your retorts), it seems like your work culture doesn't discourage these kinds of interactions. I've always found that to prevent the social inclusivity that is preached in HR trainings, mainly because the only times those interactions doesn't cause unnecessary friction is when the people engaging in those discussions are singing on the same scale.

Yes, they want to lecture on the morality that resistance to anti-racism is bad and anyone who espouses such ideology is a bad person. But when I state "I believe that man was made in the image of God and due to my "deeply held religious beliefs that form my morals", (key language from Title VII of the '64 Civil Rights Act) I believe that judging a person because of their skin color is morally wrong." I get crickets.

Yes, their focus is on the practices of people in legally mandated positions of authority against a huge subsection of the populace that earned the right to vote only 55 years ago due to mass civil unrest of the sort you are witnessing this year.

This doesn't absolve any of the statistics you mentioned, just as much as those statistics don't dissolve the problem they've highlighted.

Well, there are many more of them to kill than black people, and it is folly to call that statistic racist. They might have decided that your citing it as a counterpoint to their statement was fueled by racism, but it doesn't sound like you're talking with people who are interested in focusing on those facts.

I believe the inner city inhabitants NEED police protection to keep the wolves at bay. I've read stats where suburban white liberals overwhelming support defunding police but inner city residents overwhelmingly want MORE police. As I mentioned, our DEI wants to lecture employees, both white and black, about race.

What lie do you feel is causing millions of people to mobilize?

That white cops are killing black people at very high rates and the black lives matter. Human life has intrinsic value and if black lives do matter, why isn't there a national movement to kick the gangs in the teeth...like OPERATION LEGEND.

In other words, there is mounting social pressure to perform a certain way in public or risk getting socially targeted or ostracized and having your dinner interrupted?

I don't personally care what people do or what social pressure they try to exert. My problem is that the liberals do not respond well to "If you want me to kneel or hold up the power fist, you're going to have to MAKE ME. Yep, you're going to have to throw me off a building, put me into an orange jump suit and do what you gotta do but I will not. So now what?"

Well, thank goodness we live in a society where it is inherently patriotic to have the mental resolve to behave as one wishes in spite of mounting social pressure to do otherwise, so long as it is lawful.

I'm not sure about that anymore. I think we have hamlets of patriots but American society overall, I dunno. I'm waiting to see some evidence.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Yes, their focus is on the practices of people in legally mandated positions of authority against a huge subsection of the populace that earned the right to vote only 55 years ago due to mass civil unrest of the sort you are witnessing this year.

Well, there are many more of them to kill than black people, and it is folly to call that statistic racist. They might have decided that your citing it as a counterpoint to their statement was fueled by racism, but it doesn't sound like you're talking with people who are interested in focusing on those facts.

1. To be clear, Black Men received the right to vote in 1869 with the ratification of the 15th Amendment. Black Women received their right to vote along with white women in 1919 with the 19th Amendment. This isn't to say the path was unencumbered with obstacles in many states which were held hog tied by pretty racist state governments. But those rights were conferred in 1869 and 1919. The Civil Rights Act only made it illegal to further discriminate.

2. The FBI Crime data bears out. Minority Race officers are more likely than white officers to be involved in an officer-involved-shooting. A disproportionate amount of unarmed white people get shot per year by law enforcement, but we don't hear about them, ever. Even though it bleeds it doesn't lead. If every officer involved shooting in this country received the same coverage that the Jacob Blake shooting got (which was clean as fuck) we'd be in a completely different place.

I believe the inner city inhabitants NEED police protection to keep the wolves at bay. I've read stats where suburban white liberals overwhelming support defunding police but inner city residents overwhelmingly want MORE police. As I mentioned, our DEI wants to lecture employees, both white and black, about race.

Al Sharpton calls them: "The Latte Liberals".

 

[Locksteady]

1. To be clear, Black Men received the right to vote in 1869 with the ratification of the 15th Amendment. Black Women received their right to vote along with white women in 1919 with the 19th Amendment. This isn't to say the path was unencumbered with obstacles in many states which were held hog tied by pretty racist state governments.

To be clear, and to reiterate the thrust of my previous point, that comprised a huge subsection of the populace.

2. The FBI Crime data bears out. Minority Race officers are more likely than white officers to be involved in an officer-involved-shooting.

What point in my post is this supposed to rebut?

The best part: this was our Diversity, Equality, and Inclusive folks.

In an informal setting, I presume? POTUS was quite clear on removing training of this sort on the grounds of divisiveness.

Yes, they want to lecture on the morality that resistance to anti-racism is bad and anyone who espouses such ideology is a bad person. But when I state "I believe that man was made in the image of God and due to my "deeply held religious beliefs that form my morals", (key language from Title VII of the '64 Civil Rights Act) I believe that judging a person because of their skin color is morally wrong." I get crickets.

I think you are indeed engaging in a battle that is functionally religious.

As I mentioned, our DEI wants to lecture employees, both white and black, about race.

As long as they don't break POTUS' cease and desist order by trying to mandate it, it shouldn't be bothering you unless you let it. (not to let that stop you from engaging with them; it makes for great stories here!)

That white cops are killing black people at very high rates and the black lives matter. Human life has intrinsic value and if black lives do matter, why isn't there a national movement to kick the gangs in the teeth...like OPERATION LEGEND.

You sort of answered your own question there. The difference is that it has taken mass civil unrest and repeated laymen's video evidence to get local and national leaders to begin even seriously looking at the issue of police brutality - much less launch a sustained federal-level operation to address it.

I don't personally care what people do or what social pressure they try to exert. My problem is that the liberals do not respond well to "If you want me to kneel or hold up the power fist, you're going to have to MAKE ME. Yep, you're going to have to throw me off a building, put me into an orange jump suit and do what you gotta do but I will not. So now what?"

Unless they're breaking a law in the process of not responding well, I'm not sure exactly what you would be caring about that isn't social pressure?

(They called you shipmate. I knew it!)

I'm not sure about that anymore. I think we have hamlets of patriots but American society overall, I dunno. I'm waiting to see some evidence.

Of course; the caveat is that behaving as you wish is rarely considered patriotic by those who don't approve of what you are doing (or not doing).

 

[Brill]

In an informal setting, I presume? POTUS was quite clear on removing training of this sort on the grounds of divisiveness.

This was soon after the death of George Floyd when our executives rushed to voice support for BLM and before the EO. Oddly, our DEI folks purged ALL refs to CRT, DeAngelo's and Kendi's writings almost as if they feared legal repercussion or something.

I think you are indeed engaging in a battle that is functionally religious.

As long as they don't break POTUS' cease and desist order by trying to mandate it, it shouldn't be bothering you unless you let it. (not to let that stop you from engaging with them; it makes for great stories here!)

There is a massive culture war going on inside the USG but the liberal ideologues are winning. A writer can post something unoffensive but it can be taken offensively just to file a complaint, which will trigger removal. Liberals are very much aware and use this to their advantage. The only thing that bothers me is that our social media reads just like Strozk/Page texts but without the overt conservative refs. The latest "innovation" is our version of a social credit score. Shockingly mine is zero because I purged all my stuff. I wrote up some really detailed AARs with maps, ambush points, intel reports, etc that set the stage of various events so employees could actually see what our military folks go through. Initially they were very well received until I came out anti-BLM, anti-antiracist, and anti-COVID panic.

You sort of answered your own question there. The difference is that it has taken mass civil unrest and repeated laymen's video evidence to get local and national leaders to begin even seriously looking at the issue of police brutality - much less launch a sustained federal-level operation to address it.

Imagine if there was a very well funded group community-centric group that could fill the power vacuum after a local gang was dismantled. Which group benefited from the mass social unrest? Wasn't the people who lived in those burned out areas in Kenosha or St. Paul, MN.