Jump to content

"Love One Another" v. "Black Lives Matter"


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The entire issue of racism and the police has been focused on the death of unarmed black individuals by police. It was the numbers of blacks that was constantly, unendingly in the news. Unfortunately, mass media was almost completely silent on the same thing that happened to white individuals. Not a peep, and yet there were more unarmed white people killed by the police. 

I don't get your second clause; your point escapes me. When numbers fail, humans often resort to percentages and/or statistics. I contend that if the mass media had paid the same attention to the killing of white individuals we may very well be at a different place in society and the incessant claim of racism may actually retain some value. As of now, racism has been used so often, it has lost the impact it could have retained. 

It is the community reaction to the killing of the unarmed that sparks the media attention. Are you suggesting that white communities protest but lack the national media coverage? Or why, unlike the white communities, do black communities protest the killing of their people? What is the difference in their experience and how they interpret and process these events?

Yes, numbers are statistics and both lack of expertise and bias can affect their use. The paragraph above is supported by the numbers you pointed out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:

No, not by my logic. I never claimed “should” in there. I was putting up stats and pointing out what they meant. Not drawing conclusions of the whys and shoulda about them.  Just pointing out that using absolute numbers ignors a huge factor of rates and leads to bad conclusions like suggesting people are sweeping away  the real tragedy of police deaths out there, the number of whites being killed or whatever version of justifying ignoring rates SR wants to go with. 
 

If whites were killed at the same rate, these would be the numbers. People can compare that to the absolutes and draw their own conclusions or better yet do some research on why this could be happening. 
 

Imo, there is a very complicated dynamic in place with hundreds of influences impacting those numbers. 

You say that "people can compare that to the absolutes and draw their own conclusions..." Okay. Briefly, if hate keeps women from financial success, what makes men go to prison in disproportionate numbers? Here is my conclusion: I believe in the equality of men and woman of all races, in that they all have the same difficulty in loving their neighbor. No group has a monopoly on love or hate. But all groups tend to have strengths and weaknesses which might explain why fewer women go to prison as well as why fewer women succeed in business. It does not make sense to try to say that men hate women in business but that they hate men in criminal justice. It is better explained by accepting that the groups have different behavior patterns, without proposing that one group has more or less love or hate than another group.   

Many, including increasing numbers of white men, seem to assume that unequal statistical proportions are best explained by accusing a predominant group of hatred and suppression. I do not think this harmful theory is theologically tenable. I believe the theory tends to increase tension, and unfortunately, tends to give rise to true hatred in the class of those presumed guilty, especially among those who knew themselves to be neither racist nor sexist, (at least originally).

Those are my conclusions. As a Catholic, I think men and women of every race are absolutely equal in how they have to deal with the wounds of original sin, which makes us love ourselves out of proportion to right reason. I hold that only through Christ can we properly love our neighbor (supernaturally) as we love ourselves. I am not saying that the BYU Football team agrees with my original sin/supernatural theology, but in practice, they are trying to have a vision of love and good will for all of their neighbors, and I approve. Do Black Lives Matter (BLM) promote love of me, a white man, as their neighbor? Maybe I have missed it? I have not seen it. I see the movement as one which promotes assumptions of injustice, which tends toward hatred for law enforcement officials, and anyone who disagrees with the theory that I find to be theologically untenable.

I think guys like Storm Rider and I feel sometimes like BLM people hate us. This would be more for what we don't believe (their "untenable theory"), than for being white. Maybe it is because one of our boys is a law officer, but because I love him and approve of his work, I feel like BLM's unwarranted judgment of him and his fellows transfers to me too. When it comes to equality, I think that all races and sexes are equally prone to fail to love their neighbors. We are all brothers and sisters in our failures to love. I can not explain unequal measures of success and failure among the races and men and women, but I abhor the idea that they are explained through unequal measures of love or hate which inheres in any particular race or sex. 

Rory

 

 

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 3
Link to post
16 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

Right.  Your ancestors did not spend hundreds of years in slavery.  Your ancestors were not kidnapped from their homes and thrown into hell.  

Hi Bob Crockett.

I do not know that you will disagree with much of what I write below. I disagree with Storm Rider if he is saying that different life experiences naturally leads to different conclusions. I think we need to try to exclude our life experiences from our conclusions. We especially need to exclude the life experiences of our ancestors from our conclusions. If we say otherwise, how could there be any unity of thought, except among people with similar life experiences? What would be the point of discussion?

-------       

If we judge today's people according to their ancestry, who is not guilty, who has not suffered? It does no one any good to nurse wounds received by great great great great grandpa or grandma who suffered at the hands of somebody else's great great great great grandpa or grandma. It will only nurture resentment and hatred if we are tolerant of the idea that ancestors of people who did bad things owe reparations to ancestors of people who were victims of bad things.

It would be better if we could be concentrating on how we ourselves do bad things today. Maybe the only reason some aren't slave traders today is because there is no market, and that includes all races. Money can make us do bad things. But who is not susceptible to this temptation or another? There is enough present day selfishness without getting worked up about injustices from the distant past that we did not even personally see or feel. If we can really recognize how bad we are now, it can help us to be forgiving of others, both past and present. When we forgive, we love. When we don't forgive, we hate. Hate is a terrible tyrant. It is a worse slavery than to be in the bottom of a slave ship. Even so, being in the bottom of a slave ship, one could still hate, a double slavery with the hate being the worst. We all have to answer for what we loved and hated someday. Love or hate is determined by what we meditate upon, the sins of others, or our own sins.

In this respect, I am afraid the Black Lives Matter movement imposes slavery on those who adopt its principles.

   

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

You say that "people can compare that to the absolutes and draw their own conclusions..." Okay. Briefly, if hate keeps women from financial success, what makes men go to prison in disproportionate numbers? Here is my conclusion: I believe in the equality of men and woman of all races, in that they all have the same difficulty in loving their neighbor. No group has a monopoly on love or hate. But all groups tend to have strengths and weaknesses which might explain why fewer women go to prison as well as why fewer women succeed in business. It does not make sense to try to say that men hate women in business but that they hate men in criminal justice. It is better explained by accepting that the groups have different behavior patterns, without proposing that one group has more or less love or hate than another group.   

Many, including increasing numbers of white men, seem to assume that unequal statistical proportions are best explained by accusing a predominant group of hatred and suppression. I do not think this harmful theory is theologically tenable. I believe the theory tends to increase tension, and unfortunately, tends to give rise to true hatred in the class of those presumed guilty, especially among those who knew themselves to be neither racist nor sexist, (at least originally).

Those are my conclusions. As a Catholic, I think men and women of every race are absolutely equal in how they have to deal with the wounds of original sin, which makes us love ourselves out of proportion to right reason. I hold that only through Christ can we properly love our neighbor (supernaturally) as we love ourselves. I am not saying that the BYU Football team agrees with my original sin/supernatural theology, but in practice, they are trying to have a vision of love and good will for all of their neighbors, and I approve. Do Black Lives Matter (BLM) promote love of me, a white man, as their neighbor? Maybe I have missed it? I have not seen it. I see the movement as one which promotes assumptions of injustice, which tends toward hatred for law enforcement officials, and anyone who disagrees with the theory that I find to be theologically untenable.

I think guys like Storm Rider and I feel sometimes like BLM people hate us. This would be more for what we don't believe (their "untenable theory"), than for being white. Maybe it is because one of our boys is a law officer, but because I love him and approve of his work, I feel like BLM's unwarranted judgment of him and his fellows transfers to me too. When it comes to equality, I think that all races and sexes are equally prone to fail to love their neighbors. We are all brothers and sisters in our failures to love. I can not explain unequal measures of success and failure among the races and men and women, but I abhor the idea that they are explained through unequal measures of love or hate which inheres in any particular race or sex. 

Rory

 

 

(Theologically, both Catholic and LDS as I understand them): Given that everyone is a child of God (one race, or “one blood” per Acts 17-26), it was fallen man in the fallen world who created the artifice of multiple races to serve fallen purposes. These purposes are typically described in terms of uncharitable and illicit material advantage and gain. God want us to overcome these things through His Son.

(My understanding): This corrupt, racially-defined or justified balance of powers set up formal and informal policies to preserve a “predominant group”, and after not many generations take for granted that their position is normal, and perpetuate their traditions, maintaining the “unequal statistical proportions” between their white and other races. Where such racism goes unrecognized or unintentional by the predominant group (but not by others), accusations of hatred and suppression are unwarranted, but a policy analysis is certainly warranted. This of course can be troublesome to the predominant group for many reasons, but open-mindedness and willingness to change are warranted in dismantling the artifice of race.

(My reply to your post): If BLM is not the organization to constructively and effectively point out real problems and participate in solutions, there are better organizations.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Bob Crockett.

I do not know that you will disagree with much of what I write below. I disagree with Storm Rider if he is saying that different life experiences naturally leads to different conclusions. I think we need to try to exclude our life experiences from our conclusions. We especially need to exclude the life experiences of our ancestors from our conclusions. If we say otherwise, how could there be any unity of thought, except among people with similar life experiences? What would be the point of discussion?

-

In this respect, I am afraid the Black Lives Matter movement imposes slavery on those who adopt its principles.

   

Sure.  One wonders why many Saints are so intolerant. 

I'm not talking about your white great grand mother. 

I'm talking about hundreds of years of government supported kidnapping and transportation.  Murder, rape and slavery.  You see nothing wrong with that?  Or that would have an effect for generations to come?

Link to post
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Bob Crockett.

I do not know that you will disagree with much of what I write below. I disagree with Storm Rider if he is saying that different life experiences naturally leads to different conclusions. I think we need to try to exclude our life experiences from our conclusions. We especially need to exclude the life experiences of our ancestors from our conclusions. If we say otherwise, how could there be any unity of thought, except among people with similar life experiences? What would be the point of discussion?

-------       

If we judge today's people according to their ancestry, who is not guilty, who has not suffered? It does no one any good to nurse wounds received by great great great great grandpa or grandma who suffered at the hands of somebody else's great great great great grandpa or grandma. It will only nurture resentment and hatred if we are tolerant of the idea that ancestors of people who did bad things owe reparations to ancestors of people who were victims of bad things.

It would be better if we could be concentrating on how we ourselves do bad things today. Maybe the only reason some aren't slave traders today is because there is no market, and that includes all races. Money can make us do bad things. But who is not susceptible to this temptation or another? There is enough present day selfishness without getting worked up about injustices from the distant past that we did not even personally see or feel. If we can really recognize how bad we are now, it can help us to be forgiving of others, both past and present. When we forgive, we love. When we don't forgive, we hate. Hate is a terrible tyrant. It is a worse slavery than to be in the bottom of a slave ship. Even so, being in the bottom of a slave ship, one could still hate, a double slavery with the hate being the worst. We all have to answer for what we loved and hated someday. Love or hate is determined by what we meditate upon, the sins of others, or our own sins.

In this respect, I am afraid the Black Lives Matter movement imposes slavery on those who adopt its principles.

   

Whites have different life experiences than blacks by virtue of the artifice of race that has been introduced and which children unwittingly absorb. One of the bad things people do today in a racial sense is keep ourselves separate from others due to the policies of the world. White and black people do not share their respective racial experiences either objectively (the statistics) or subjectively (through friendship and community). Policies and ignorance of each other’s true natures (their common humanity) keep in them in separate neighborhoods with separate amenities and economies. This bad thing that we do today is not share our experiences, and so we naturally, without any ill-will, perpetuate harmful policies to keep what we have.

I think this bad thing we do today will be perpetuated unless the root cause of not sharing our respective racial experiences is recognized as a historical pattern of artifice.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Love One Another requires forgiveness from both sides and offers redemption for those who fall short and want to make amends.  The BLM movement doesn't seem to offer any redemption for anyone who may have offended them or any part of the movement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, gopher said:

Love One Another requires forgiveness from both sides and offers redemption for those who fall short and want to make amends.  The BLM movement doesn't seem to offer any redemption for anyone who may have offended them or any part of the movement.

My thought is it helps in the forgiveness process by helping us identify where we might personally need to repent  with our actions towards our fellow men.  I know it has helped me in looking inside myself with the Lord's help.  

That isn't to say it is a perfect organization (but then neither is the BYU team.)  I'm just grateful for the help it gave me. 

Edited by Rain
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
49 minutes ago, gopher said:

Love One Another requires forgiveness from both sides and offers redemption for those who fall short and want to make amends.  The BLM movement doesn't seem to offer any redemption for anyone who may have offended them or any part of the movement.

“Stop killing us.”

”lol, no.”

”Okay, we will make noise until you stop.”

“Why won’t they just forgive us?!?!?!?!”

Link to post
16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“Stop killing us.”

”lol, no.”

”Okay, we will make noise until you stop.”

“Why won’t they just forgive us?!?!?!?!”

little stronger...

2/10

Link to post
20 minutes ago, gopher said:

little stronger...

2/10

I think the two organizations (or the two kinds of organizations) would benefit from establishing a dialog (even if between their more politically experienced surrogates), their common strategy being to change the attitudes and actions of white Americans in general. They are the dominant group in our democratic republic (overall population and positions in the three branches of government) and thus are in strongest position to carry out changes. These demographics are slowly changing, but that will likely not drive change in policy as a perceived threat could motivate resistance to preserve the relatively massive wealth held by a relatively few white people.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 11/7/2020 at 2:00 PM, bluebell said:

Can you provide a reference for the bolded statement?  I hear this a lot from certain groups but I've never seen where it comes from.  Thanks!

How many times have you seen on the news in the last 12 months a report on an unarmed white person killed by police?  How many times has the media covered events where an unarmed black person was killed by the police? Think about it. You have virtually no news, zero, nada coverage for white people and every single time for a black person. Who pushes that kind of narrative? Why?

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

How many times have you seen on the news in the last 12 months a report on an unarmed white person killed by police?  How many times has the media covered events where an unarmed black person was killed by the police? Think about it. You have virtually no news, zero, nada coverage for white people and every single time for a black person. Who pushes that kind of narrative? Why?

White people are just okay with being killed and don’t complain? I am just speculating.

Link to post
50 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

How many times have you seen on the news in the last 12 months a report on an unarmed white person killed by police?  How many times has the media covered events where an unarmed black person was killed by the police? Think about it. You have virtually no news, zero, nada coverage for white people and every single time for a black person. Who pushes that kind of narrative? Why?

The media covers the protests. White people do not protest the killing of their unarmed suspects, nor do they organize protests across the nation. Black people do.

I suggest the reason for this is that, generally speaking, whites in the USA for hundreds of years have been socialized as individuals responsible for their own problems. This is to counter the problem of being a superior racial byproduct of the immoral invention of an inferior black race, needed to support the colonial economic strategy. So, they lack a personally meaningful racial identity but see one on their inferiors. This sense of superiority runs so deep that whites assume that only inferior people, white (the exception) or black (the norm), get themselves killed like this and their lives goes on.

On the other hand, generally speaking, blacks in the USA for generations have had to acknowledge the pervasive, false narrative about their race in order to navigate the white system into which they were liberated (to the degree the white-controlled laws and customs permitted), including to stay alive. So generally speaking, they relate to each other on racial issues on a racial level much better than white people do.

Of course, there have been policy improvements over the years, but the basic dynamics of the racial psyche are still the same and policies still need to be improved. Law enforcement is as good a place to start as any, and is more concrete than economics (including education, employment and housing), health, etc. White people have less to give up with law enforcement reform than they do in these other areas where more opportunity translates into more competition to advance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

White people are just okay with being killed and don’t complain? I am just speculating.

They are OK with stupid (as in Darwin Awards) white people getting killed. Who else would let themselves be killed like this, whether white or black?

Edited by CV75
Link to post
2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

They are OK with stupid (as in Darwin Awards) white people getting killed. Who else would let themselves be killed like this, whether white or black?

Are we going beyond police killings now?

Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

So your Darwin Award comment was about idiots committing suicide by cop?

No, it was made in context of my prior post about the different attitudes of whites and blacks about protesting unarmed people getting killed by police: Posted 10 minutes ago

Link to post
On 11/7/2020 at 1:23 PM, Calm said:

According to Washington Post data, 14 unarmed blacks and 23 whites were fatally shot by police. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5

Again when you are comparing 14 deaths in 13% of the population to 23 in 76%, this is not the same as if the populations were equal in number.  For it to occur at an equal rate, that would mean 81 unarmed whites would have to be shot. 
 

 

Blacks constituted 27% of arrests in 2016 (see https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/) but were “only” 23% of victims of police shootings in 2017 (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/).  So statistically, assuming 2016 and 2017 were comparable (and I apologize that I wasn’t able to find comparable data for a single year), police seem to actually be slightly less likely to shoot a suspect if he’s Black.

The issue* isn’t that police are insensitive to the deaths of Black people.  The issue is that there is some factor or group of factors that make people who are Black, more likely to run afoul of those whom our society tasks with maintaining law and order.  Those factors could include direct racism, institutional/systemic factors, and/or cultural issues within the Black community itself.

Any solution to the issue requires a holistic approach that seeks to alleviate *all* the factors; and the concern I have about BLM is that most of them seem less interested in that kind of a careful analysis and more interested in using a few tragic deaths (and the outrage they naturally garner) to double down on the same sort of largely-ineffective social welfare agenda that progressives have pushed for sixty years, while abandoning much of the thoughtfulness and tolerance and respect for intellectual diversity that characterized their forbears.

*The racial issue, anyways.  There’s an even broader issue in that any time you make a law and task gun-toting police officers with enforcing it through force or threat of force, you are going to see some deaths among that subset of people who don’t wish to obey that law.  If we don’t want to see so many police shootings, we should probably consider whether we ought to have quite so many laws.

Edited by mgy401
Link to post
31 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

 If we don’t want to see so many police shootings, we should probably consider whether we ought to have quite so many laws.

I am not sure what kind of rep point to give you...or if to give you at all. You have made me think, but I also feel I need more details to unpack what kind of assumptions you are bringing to the discussions, whether I will see them as in the right track or not. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 11/6/2020 at 2:55 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

"Often associated with" BLM by whom and how accurately representative of the general case?   

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

Also, are we asking this question of police-involved shootings? 

Quote

Most of the protestors and protests were peaceful.

Most police interactions with society are peaceful, yet nobody uses this to justify or excuse instances of police misconduct.

I found this article fairly thought-provoking: ‘Mostly peaceful’ lets Black Lives Matter off the hook for real violence

Some excerpts:

Quote

Several days back, a group of academics called the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, or ACLED, released its own analysis on Black Lives Matter and the protests surrounding it. The verdict, from both ACLED and the media: 93% peaceful.

The number was picked up and disseminated by major media nearly everywhere. “The vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests — more than 93% — have been peaceful,” declared Time.

The clearly intended message is that BLM is moral in both its aims and its methods. Immoral methods, for example, burning down city blocks and terrorizing local residents and entrepreneurs, are not representative acts.

All this raises two questions. First, are ACLED and the media accurately communicating the content of the ACLED data? Second, is “93% peaceful,” which could also be stated as “7% violent,” really that low a figure?

For example, I was personally present to witness the violent threats in the streets of Washington toward attendees of President Trump’s convention address. For that date, ACLED lists three “peaceful protests” and one “protest with intervention.” The ACLED data set is, therefore, charitable toward anyone who, from May to August, wished to communicate that he or she might visit harm upon others.

Still, of the 11,541 civil-society incidents recorded by ACLED, 1,101 — just under 1 in 10, or 9.54% — were violent, according to ACLED’s own classifications. This yields a “peaceful” rate of 90.46%, rather than the reported 93%. That’s because the latter figure only counted BLM-involved events. Looking at the whole data set gives a more comprehensive picture.

In any case, a nearly 1-in-10 chance of civic violence seems like quite a risky proposition. The United States, after all, once set the standard for the absence of this sort of thing. It’s when you dig into that 9.54%, those 1,101 violent incidents, that things get interesting. ACLED helpfully records the participants. Looking at them shows that of the 1,101 violent incidents across 97 days, 933 of them directly involved Black Lives Matter. That’s 84.74% of the civic violence in America across summer 2020.

This is where a tremendously interesting, alarming, and entirely unreported-by-the-media fact comes into focus: Black Lives Matter participated in the overwhelming majority of civic violence this summer.

Police interactions with the black community are "in the overwhelming majority" peaceful, yet nobody seems to be using that percentage to excuse instances of police misconduct.

Quote

Yes, some cars got burned in some places and windows broken, and looting happened.   But nothing like Watts in the 1960s. 

So because BLM-related violence was not as bad as Watts, it's acceptable?  Okay to ignore?

Quote

I think BLM is important and inspiring. 

BLM was co-founded by Patrisse Cullors, a self-described "trained Marxist."  She is also "the protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terror organization, and spent years absorbing the Marxist-Leninist ideology that shaped her worldview."

From this article:

Quote

In the first two weeks after the death of George Floyd, the protests cost $1 billion to $2 billion in insured property damage. In the three calendar months, more than 30 people were killed, and 14,000 people arrested in American protests alone (according to that Wikipedia page). Yet most news media and politicians have followed the line that Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters are overwhelmingly peaceful. Towards the end of August, CNN infamously broadcast from Kenosha, Wisconsin, in front of burning cars with the banner “fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting.”
...
The self-styled “US Crisis Monitor” 
counted about 7,750 BLM protests from 26 May to 22 August, of which about 550 were violent. That’s six violent protests a day. Would you be happy to live in a country with six violent protests a day?

The US Crisis Monitor reports “only” 220 locations where protests were violent but does not admit that this works out at a rate of more than 9 percent of the locations in which BLM protests occurred. Imagine you’re a foreign tourist, thinking of visiting 100 American locations. Would you still travel given an expectation that 9 of those visits would expose you to violence?

The report describes 93 percent of protests as “overwhelmingly peaceful,” and describes the other 7 percent as “miniscule.” Imagine if you interacted with 100 protesters, of whom 7 were violent. Would you describe them as miniscule?

And this article:

Quote

Buried inside the ACLED report, as enterprising journalist Joy Pullmann of the Federalist discovered, are numbers indicating that “of the 633 incidents coded [by the ACLED authors] as riots, 88 percent are recorded as involving Black Lives Matter activists. Data for 51 incidents lack information about the perpetrators’ identities. BLM activists were involved in 95 percent of the riots for which there is information about the perpetrators’ affiliation.”

And this article:

Quote

Fernando Martinez is a Louisville resident, business owner, and former refugee from Communist Cuba who escaped on a raft when he was just 18 years old. His newly opened restaurant, La Bodoguita De Mima, employs more than 30 people, most of whom are immigrants as well.

Last week, he became a target of violent threats by Black Lives Matter activists trying to use locals’ antiracist sympathies to blackmail local businesses.

During a protest in his town that descended into violence, Martinez’s restaurant was approached by a group of the demonstrators. According to him, he and his staff were issued a long list of demands from the group, and were told they had better comply “so your business isn’t f***ed with.”

Included in the list were demands that the immigrant-owned restaurant pay up 1.5 percent of its revenue to affiliates of the protesters, make a minimum of 23 percent of their employees and vendors black, and mandate diversity training for all his staff. He was also ordered to issue a public apology for building on land that used to be a public housing project.

Martinez’s was just one of many businesses in the area targeted. Unlike the others, he had no plans to quietly roll over.

And here:

Quote

Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters issued “social justice” and “black liberation” demands regarding “diversity” to a restaurant owner in Louisville, KY, including a directive for “donations” to organizations run by non-whites.

Listed demands from a BLM affiliate in Louisville include racial quotas for staff and ownership of business suppliers, donations to organizations run by non-whites, and adjustment to dress codes. The posters used the acronym “BIPOC” (“black or indigenous persons of color”) as a euphemism for non-white persons:

23% of Staff is BIPOC in Front of House

23% of inventory is from BIPOC retailer(s)

Regular donations to BIPOC organization

Dress code policy does not discriminate against BIPOC patrons of employees.

BLM is run by avowed marxists.  Proteges of 60s-eras domestic terrorists.

It has been involved in 95% of the riots that have caused 1-2 billion in property damage, dozens of deaths, and untold destruction to (mostly minority) neighborhoods and businesses.  They are involved in shakedowns.  I find it disturbing and troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Most police interactions with society are peaceful, yet nobody uses this to justify or excuse instances of police misconduct.

I find it disturbing that you are trying to establish equivalency between the police force and largely spontaneous gatherings that will accept anyone in terms of their willingness to engage in unwarranted violence or destructive activity. The bulk of BLM protestors have no say as to who shows up and no say as to whether some of them are involved in bad actions. Police departments very much DO have a say in who wears the badge. Expecting equal percentages in "bad apples" is ridiculous.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
11 hours ago, smac97 said:

BLM is run by avowed marxists.  Proteges of 60s-eras domestic terrorists.

It has been involved in 95% of the riots that have caused 1-2 billion in property damage, dozens of deaths, and untold destruction to (mostly minority) neighborhoods and businesses.  They are involved in shakedowns.  I find it disturbing and troubling.

What organization or collaborative have you found that gets it right for identifying and changing policy to reduce violence on Black individuals and communities?

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...