What Black Lives Matter Believe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paddy1989
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
The movement and it’s goals that are shared by the vast majority of participants in the movement are consistent with Catholic Social Justice teaching
Click to expand...
How is singling out one race of people consistent with Catholic Social Justice teaching? God says all lives matter, not one over the other. The BLM people only care about black lives when one is taken by the police or by a white person. All the black people killed in Chicago are not included in the BLM program.

As for things relating to the law, our constitution is all about equal justice for every citizen, not “social justice”. I believe that is a “social construct”, something designed to place citizens in separate camps. You do realize that a nation divided cannot stand? We are falling as a nation as evidenced by Seattle, Portland and other U.S. cities.
 
Odilon said:
How is singling out one race of people consistent with Catholic Social Justice teaching?
Click to expand...
Recognizing that one race has already been singled out for discrimination by Jim Crow and beyond is just recognizing a truth and opposing that discrimination.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Various people. It is not a universal demand among the protesters. They all want reform, but not everyone thinks total defunding is the way to get it.
Click to expand...
I think this is a symptom of a problem within the black lives matter movement. There is not one unified message within the various groups as to what it is they want and how they want to go about obtaining it.
This is one of the reasons why I cant get on board with black lives matter. The other reason is because I do now associate the BLM movement as being related to the criminals who are rioting, looting, committing acts of arson and vandalism.
I do understand that is a completely unreasonable thing to admit to you. But, from my perspective the people who commit egregious acts control the narrative and have the power to mold the message.
Take the swastika for example. In Hinduism It has been used for thousands of years as a symbol of love and marriage but through the egregious crimes of the nazis the swastika has been molded into a symbol of hate. I once received a wedding invitation from a hindu friend with swastikas on it. I still cringed when I saw it. Because unfortunately people who commit egregious acts control the message, and I do associate the swastika with nazism.
My last reason is I believe All Lives Matter. That is what I believe from conception to natural death
 
Last edited:
K, since I began this thread, I have discovered something. As a white male, unless I wholly agree with and support BLM, they do not wish to discuss anything with me or anyone like me. And that is fine, I simply do not wish them luck in achieving the goals of the stated movement I had read, and I sincerely hope I am never near any of their rioting supporters.

If I wish to express my political views to those in office, I compose and send an email or actual hard copy letter, not get hundreds like me together and start burning the city. I consider that criminal behavior. I therefore can not fathom how BLM wants their name associated with such things, but from my vantage point, it appears they support it. No wonder they want to defund LE, they’re breaking our laws.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Recognizing that one race has already been singled out for discrimination by Jim Crow and beyond is just recognizing a truth and opposing that discrimination.
Click to expand...
When the Irish came here they were discriminated against, as were the Italians. And we cannot forget the eternal hate that has followed Jewish people since time began. Not one race or group of people has a monopoly on being discriminated against.
 
Allie1 said:
I think this is a symptom of a problem within the black lives matter movement. There is not one unified message within the various groups as to what it is they want and how they want to go about obtaining it.
Click to expand...
This is a symptom in all large movements. There is always some diversity in view, goals, methods, etc. Black Lives Matter is no exception. What these means for would-be supporters of this movements is that they must be more nuanced in their support of the movement so as not to be seen as supporting absolutely everything done in its name, such as the violence, burning, and looting. It is more challenging than expressing blanket support, but that is true of any movement that is not ruled by a single centralized authority.
Allie1 said:
The other reason is because I do not associate the BLM movement as being related to the criminals who are rioting, looting, committing acts of arson and vandalism.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out above, that required nuanced support.
Allie1 said:
But, from my perspective the people who commit egregious acts control the narrative…
Click to expand...
That is the perspective pushed by Fox News and Breitbart, etc. But it is not the perspective for many others.
Allie1 said:
My last reason is I believe All Lives Matter.
Click to expand...
The expression “Black Lives Matter” does not preclude all lives matter. The reason it is necessary to mention black lives explicitly is that for a long time black lives have not mattered quite as much as certain other lives. To be fair, blacks are not the only ones whose lives have not mattered quite as much as they should. That “honor” also goes to hispanics, refugees, migrant farm workers, and in past times to Chinese, Irish, and the poor in general. So say that each of these groups of lives matters and calling them out by name is important. The saying, All Lives Matter, while true, does not carry the same weight when applied to specific people.
 
Odilon said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Recognizing that one race has already been singled out for discrimination by Jim Crow and beyond is just recognizing a truth and opposing that discrimination.
Click to expand...
When the Irish came here they were discriminated against, as were the Italians. And we cannot forget the eternal hate that has followed Jewish people since time began. Not one race or group of people has a monopoly on being discriminated against.
Click to expand...
Yes, I pointed that out in my previous posting. Therefore it is important at those times to say “Italian Lives Matter”, “Jewish Lives Matter”, and “Irish Lives Matter,” depending on which particular kind of discrimination needs to be called out.
 
Saw that, and can’t understand why they’d wanna overthrow the family unit.
Click to expand...
Most leftist ideology from these folk has to do with an obsession with equality of outcome. The “problem” with those who have a traditional family unit is that they get an “unfair” advantage.

So, instead of focusing efforts on supporting and advocating for a traditional 2 person household raising children, it has to be torn down in order to make it “fair” for everyone. I guess Massive divorce rates in certain communities are just some fact of life, impossible to overcome or stand against, and so we need to even things out…

Seek the lowest common denominator, as with most things in leftist thought.

That’s just what I gather.
 
Last edited:
The expression “Black Lives Matter” does not preclude all lives matter.
Click to expand...
Rhetorically it’s exclusive language. Using exclusive rather than inclusive language ensures a divisive message. I don’t think that’s up to dispute.

BLM could really help themselves out by rewording their message. However, they won’t, so they’ll continue to be called out on their divisive nature, as they should.

A movement that proudly makes clear that they won’t lift a finger for anyone outside of their skin color shouldn’t be supported as virtuous or righteous… just racist and selfish.
 
Last edited:
Mister_Friscus said:
The expression “Black Lives Matter” does not preclude all lives matter.
Click to expand...
That is the interpretation that is placed on it by people who think black lives already matter too much.
BLM could really help themselves out by rewording their message.
Click to expand...
You mean like “Massa, can we please be treated like human beings?” I’d like to see your suggested rewording and how much it waters down their message.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mister_Friscus said:
A movement that proudly makes clear that they won’t lift a finger for anyone outside of their skin color shouldn’t be supported as virtuous or righteous… just racist and selfish.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean?

Are you saying that special interest groups should be abolished and every group created should have as it’s goal to help everyone? No more children’s cancer charities that don’t help the homeless? No more charities that fight hunger but don’t help the poor prepare for better jobs?
 
That is the interpretation that is placed on it by people who think black lives already matter too much.
Click to expand...
You’re free to think that, but, it’s just your personal angry speculation on those who you disagree with. It’s easy to paint the person you disagree with as a monster, and it avoids having to actually support your own argument.

BLM by definition is exclusive language. You can dance all you want, but that’s a fact. The message is exclusive, and thus, divisive. You can support being exclusive and divisive, that’s fine. Many in history have done so, especially on your side of the aisle. However, rhetoric truth is what it is.
You mean like “Massa, can we please be treated like human beings?”
Click to expand...
Your snarky, disrespectful insinuation aside… Nobody said they shouldn’t be, obviously. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, and read history of how it has over time corrected laws in our country. Abolishing slavery happened, the Civil Rights movement happened. You have to prove that we as a nation, our laws and principles, do not treat people as human beings. You can’t do that, so as we’ve seen before in our encounters… you’ll sprint to anecdotal incidents that have plenty of factors. I’ll want to discuss the factors, you’ll avoid them and just chalk it up to a mythical beast called “systematic racism”.

If you can’t have respectful debate, and have to paste horrible things on people, I wonder if this is the place for you to post.
 
What does this even mean?

Are you saying that special interest groups should be abolished and every group created should have as it’s goal to help everyone? No more children’s cancer charities that don’t help the homeless? No more charities that fight hunger but don’t help the poor prepare for better jobs?
Click to expand...
I’m saying that if I fight for religious tolerance as a Christian, I have two choices:
  1. Only fight for my religion to not be unjustly treated.
  2. Fight for all religions to not be unjustly treated.
I’m a Christian, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t fight for a Muslim who is persecuted unfairly, despite our religious differences.

Justice is justice, If I’m against abortion, I shouldn’t only freak out when it happens to the white ones. We’re all humans. If I make such selective distinctions, I expose myself as the racist… which is what BLM does daily.

If BLM fought against “police brutality” as a whole, they’d have a point. But they don’t, they only care about when blacks are affected. That’s unhealthy racial tribalism, and history says will only grow until a belief of supremacy occurs.

Let’s drop being race-first, and just be humans. Race-first ideology, which is what BLM is, has so much in common with the democrat Jim Crow south it’s alarming.
 
Last edited:
Mister_Friscus said:
If BLM fought against “police brutality” as a whole, they’d have a point. But they don’t, they only care about when blacks are affected. That’s unhealthy racial tribalism, and history says will only grow until a belief of supremacy occurs.
Click to expand...
I totally disagree.

I think that there is a place for affinity groups in politics and in life. Is it the racial angle that rankles you?
 
Mister_Friscus said:
BLM by definition is exclusive language. You can dance all you want, but that’s a fact. The message is exclusive, and thus, divisive.
Click to expand...
Is that so? What about “Make America Great Again” (Are other countries not worthy of being made great? Why focus exclusively on the greatness of the United States?). The fact is that a statement about a subject - any subject - is not overtly exclusive of other subjects.
…read history of how it has over time corrected laws in our country. Abolishing slavery happened, the Civil Rights movement happened. You have to prove that we as a nation, our laws and principles, do not treat people as human beings.
Click to expand...
And at each stage in that process, from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movements and onward, there were always voices saying just what you are saying now, which is, “look how far we have come! It is enough now. We can stop.” And it true. We have come a long way. But it is also true that tremendous inequality remains. Just look at the difference in the quality of schools available to difference classes of people. It is incrementally better now. But the struggle is not over.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
What these means for would-be supporters of this movements is that they must be more nuanced in their support of the movement so as not to be seen as supporting absolutely everything done in its name,
Click to expand...
May I ask specifically of you what it is you are specifically asking within this movement? What are your demands?

Trying to find answers to these questions as you point out is very nuanced. But my opinion still remains that the message is not unified.

For example in Washington DC. The BLM movement is calling for:

  1. Defund Police - I can’t support this
  2. No new jails. - This is a local issue for Washington DC. However the article states that the jail in DC is in such bad shape that it is inhumane. Defense lawyers are even calling for its replacement. If I was a resident of Washington DC, I don’t believe that I can get behind not replacing the jail.
  3. Decriminalize sex work- I can’t support this
  4. Police free schools- I can’t get behind this. In my opinion this is a dangerous demand considering how dangerous Washington DC is even before the these current events. Especially with relation to gang violence. Moreover, the article discusses the good that the police have done in schools
  5. Drop charges against protesters.- peaceful protesters in any type of protest should never be arrested. Rioters should be charged to the fullest extent of the law
  6. End Cash bail in Maryland- they finally came up with something that I can get behind. The cash bail system in Maryland makes it challenging for low income people to get out of jail while awaiting trial.
  7. Ban stop and frisk - I can agree with this too.
 
What would you expect a candidate for president of the US to say…“make Venezuela great again?”

(For Venezuela to be great again it has to figure out how to throw off socialism…)
 
Allie1 said:
May I ask specifically of you what it is you are specifically asking within this movement? What are your demands?
Click to expand...
I should point out that I am not “in the movement”. I have not even attended a protest. Being 72 I am high-risk for covid-19. So I am not the right person to ask. I am just a sympathetic observer. However you are right in saying that various people have thrown all sorts of “demands” - everything but the kitchen sink. But I have seen that sort of thing for a long time - an advantage of being 72. I was more of a 1960’s anti-war protester, and even then just as a sympathetic onlooker. But even in those 1960’s anti-war protests I saw all sorts of signs pushing every kind of social agenda you could imagine. There will always be opportunists who will glom on to whatever the hot topic of the day is. However I still recognized plenty of legitimate complaints about the way the Vietnam War was being handled, and I did not let the presence of those opportunistic protesters invalidate those legitimate concerns in my mind.

As for the racial justice protests of today, I see plenty of cause for legitimate protests. I also think it is a mistake to jump right to the question of “what specifically do you demand”. Although there have been plenty of demands suggested by protesters - some of the quite reasonable too - the real purpose of a protest is not to state demands. It is to point out a problem. The solutions to that problem are not the responsibility of the protesters. Let me say that again, because it is key: The solutions to that problem are not the responsibility of the protesters. Once a problem has been recognized, the proper solutions to that problem should be worked out by all of society - not just the protesters. After all, the protesters are not experts in government and policy. They point out a problem. It is up to all of us to fix it - unless we disagree that there is a problem. And that appears to be the real crux of the issue. Many people just don’t agree that there is injustice toward blacks. However the wider availability of cellphone cameras and police body cams and reporting in general have burst that bubble. This was especially evident with the killing of George Floyd. If that had happened just 20 years ago, and away from a crowd of witnesses, I doubt if it would have even made the national news, let alone spark a work-wide series of protests. I think we are reaching a critical mass of public support for reform. When you have a line of moms and a line of military veterans standing in support of protesters, and even a county Sheriff marching with the protesters, you know the tide is turning. The solutions will not come from ticking off a list of demands made by protesters. It will come from society at large recognizing the problem and seriously dedicating themselves to developing solutions. I don’t know what those solutions will be, but I can tell if they are working or not.
 
Last edited:
So no proof of American values being systematically racist, just empty claims. The usual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top