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

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You use the word coerce.  I would rather use another word... encourage.  Legislating morality isn't a bad thing in itself, as legislators try to encourage people to do good things.  And not discriminating against someone's skin color would be a good thing.

Law is by nature coercive.  You use the word "encourage", but when someone is "encouraged" by use of threats or force, that is called coercion.    

Quote

 

One of the central features associated with law is its coerciveness.

https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-abstract/20/1/39/1582767?redirectedFrom=PDF

 

 

[Jared Livesey]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Funny, I asked my question four times. Is there truly no fruit forthcoming?

Well, it is only a working conclusion that you won't answer the question.  Analogously, if you ask me "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and if I were to respond, "upon what basis do you claim I beat my wife?" my question would take logical priority.  After all, the point of your question would not really be to ascertain whether I have stopped beating my wife, but to make the accusation, at the least, that I have beaten her, and my question would address the potentially false accusation entailed in your question.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Jared Livesey

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Jared Livesey said:

I prefer to call things by their true names.  It helps clarify things.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

 

God, our Father in heaven, is a force.  Do you think he coerces or would you rather call it encouragement?  He makes laws, like a legislator, and he encourages us to obey them, saying we should obey them. But we are free to obey or to not obey.

The law is not the problem, especially when the laws are good, and law enforcement officers aren't the problem, either, especially when they are only enforcing good laws.   And force can only go so far when we are free to obey and to not obey laws.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

My remark about bigotry and racism was directed to your post, not to you, and it was not baseless. 

My post was written by me.  And it is baseless.

Quote

Nor am I trying to coerce anybody into silence. 

Publicly branding someone you don't know, whom you've never met, of being a bigot and racist for being critical of riots and looting is nothing but coercive.

You publicly disparaged my character in order to silence me.  Classic intimidation tactic.

Quote

Nor could I with you; you say what you want. 

I say what I want, and as a result get to see you publicly slander my character and good name.

Yeah, that's not coercive or manipulative at all.

Quote

Further, it would be interesting if I were banned for mildly sticking up for the premises of the BLM movement. Nor am I defaming you; I have no idea who you are.  

My name is literally in every post I write.  

And calling someone whom you've never met, and whom you don't know, a bigot and a racist is pretty much per se defamation.

Publicly branding me a bigot and a racist is not "mildly sticking up" for anything.

Quote

I plead for you to consider the fundamental desires of our black brothers to dig themselves out of hundreds of years of institutionalized persecution.

And I ask that you not baselessly slander me for criticizing violent riots, looting, murders, and so on.

I won't hold my breath, though.  I think I have a measure of you now.

Quote

Please develop with me and others a Christian magnaminity about the BLM movement.

I refuse to condone or excuse or justify violent riots, lootings, killings, etc.  

I also refuse to do anything via coercive manipulation, such as what you are doing.  "Please develop with me and others a Christian magnanimity about the BLM movement {and if you don't kowtow to my say-so I'll publicly brand you a bigot and a racist}.

I dislike bullies.  I dislike efforts to coerce and intimidate people into A) capitulation, or B) silence.

That's all you have done here.  And I think the less of you for it.  Big time.

Quote

The movement wants to bring all this history to the attention of the white ruling class. 

By rioting and looting, often in minority neighborhoods.

And what is this "white ruling class" crapola?

Quote

They want to see change in the way police treat them. 

There are ways to achieve such ends without causing $1-2 billion in property damage, causing dozens of deaths, etc.

Quote

I just think this is a decent objective and I support it. 

Again: "I am strongly supportive of peaceful protests, and of using legal means to affect political and social change.  Riots, looting, etc. are extremely destructive and counterproductive."

And yet here you are, publicly calling me a bigot and a racist for expressing such views.

There is nothing "decent" about what you have done here.

-Smac

Edited November 10, 2020 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

I apologize for my posts using the term "bigoted" and "racist."   You should say whatever you'd like.  Bless you, brother.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet nobody is excusing or rationalizing or justifying that behavior.  Instead, such incidents are investigated, punishments are meted out, lawsuits are filed, big settlements are paid out, and so on.

Our society is not winking at or ignoring or justifying police misconduct.  However, some segments of our society are winking at / ignoring / justifying misconduct by BLM, to the tune of $1-2 billion in property damage, dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries, and so on.

I disagree that there are no segments of society that are winking at/ignoring/justifying misconduct by police - including by many police.   I think the behavior has been internally ignored, winked at, rationalized for years in some segments - hence the reaction. 

I would also suggest that such incidents from the other side are also "investigated, punishments are meted out, lawsuits, etc."  

 

 

[Raingirl]

57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I believe you mean I was countering assertions made without facts or sources. No one called out the original assertion that BLM is always involved with the rioting and vandalism but when I point out that the actual literal membership of BLM the official organization is incredibly small and that makes it impossible for them to be present at all criminal activities and suddenly I am expected to have polled everyone at every protest and/or riot to see if they actually belong to the BLM organization and the burden of proof is suddenly entirely on me when I use a logical argument without explicit proof to counter an irrational argument made with even less proof.

It is facile and stupid to make the protests about vandalism when the reality is more....stark.

 

Pearl clutching over property damage is insulting to everyone involved, vile or benign.

You made a specific statement about specific numbers, but when issued a CFR you post nonsense and evasions and whining. Even the mods called you out. Your MO of making supposed statements of fact without back-up is tiresome and lazy. 
 

But I’m glad to know where you stand on wantonly destroying others’ property and livelihood. Perhaps you can volunteer your employers facility (if you are employed) for destruction (although I doubt that will win you a promotion), or perhaps you should volunteer your own home for destruction, since you feel so strongly that the destruction will accomplish- what exactly? No matter. Since you clearly believe destruction is a good thing, I’m sure you’ll be more than willing to be the next target.  Or is destroying property and livelihoods only acceptable to those you see as “other”? 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Law is by nature coercive.  You use the word "encourage", but when someone is "encouraged" by use of threats or force, that is called coercion.    

 

Law is simply a setting of boundaries, a defining of what is and is not acceptable behavior.  We determine our own fate by whether or not we obey laws that are applicable to us, with God simply rewarding us when we obey them.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

Well, it is only a working conclusion that you won't answer the question.  Analogously, if you ask me "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and if I were to respond, "upon what basis do you claim I beat my wife?" my question would take logical priority.  After all, the point of your question would not really be to ascertain whether I have stopped beating my wife, but to make the accusation, at the least, that I have beaten her, and my question would address the potentially false accusation entailed in your question.

Given that my question did not pose the observation that law enforcement policy has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities as a claim, beating your wife is a false analogy.

The point of my question(s) is to ascertain, first from the person I was addressed, and now from you, frustrated Protagoras, whether, after finding out what you, at least for the time being, conclude to be true from slanted news and countering sources (realizing that one's assessment of the reliability of either source is subjective and therefore biased) alter the observation (Note: not a claim, but what has been reported by these sources) that law enforcement policy has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities.

You might answer this whether you have done the wise thing or not.

[Jared Livesey]

@CV75 If I rhetorically characterize my claims as observations, then they aren't claims?

Hit my post limit, unfortunately.

I guess I don't quite understand your question.  Whether what?  Could you restate it?

Edited November 10, 2020 by Jared Livesey

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Law is simply a setting of boundaries, a defining of what is and is not acceptable behavior.  We determine our own fate by whether or not we obey laws that are applicable to us, with God simply rewarding us when we obey them.

Laws enforced by threat or force is coercion, by definition.  We are talking about government, not God.  One theory suggests that God doesn't create eternal law, he is subject to it, he simply warns us of the natural consequences.  That is different from what governments do. That is part of the social compact we make by participating, however.  We sacrifice certain liberties in place of certain protections.  Those protections can only exist through coercion.  

Edited November 10, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Laws enforced by threat or force is coercion, by definition.

When I think of coercion I think of someone trying to coerce someone else by holding one of their arms behind their back and threatening to break it unless they do what they want them to do.  A physically forceful action.  Maybe I just need to redefine my understanding of coercion to think of it as someone telling someone else they should do what they want them to do otherwise they will be in big trouble.  Just talk and then a penalty for noncompliance.  Like being locked up in a jail cell or being told to give them some money. Not necessarily any physical torture.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

  We are talking about government, not God.  God doesn't create eternal law, he is subject to it, he simply warns us of the natural consequences.  That is different from what governments do. That is part of the social compact we make by participating, however.  We sacrifice certain liberties in place of certain protections.  Those protections can only exist through coercion.  

The protections come from obeying the laws.  Not necessarily because someone was coerced to obey them.  Anyway.  Maybe only a minor point here.  My main point is that nobody can make anyone do anything they are not willing to do, so even if it is called coercion it is really not a big deal.  Just someone trying to get someone else to do something they want them to do.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Maybe I just need to redefine my understanding of coercion to think of it as someone telling someone else they should do what they want them to do otherwise they will be in big trouble.

That would be more in line with how society uses the term.  Coercion is not just physical force, but it also consists of threats for disobedience.

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The protections come from obeying the laws.  

Government protections are set up to protect the public from people who disobey/violate the law.  The protections are from violators.  People are protected by the government everyday in the US - not because everyone is obeying the law, but because people are disobeying.  

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

That would be more in line with how society uses the term.  Coercion is not just physical force, but it also consists of threats for disobedience.

Not just physical force?  How about not necessarily involving any physical force at all?  Just talk. The latter is what I understand you to be saying.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Government protections are set up to protect the public from people who disobey/violate the law.  The protections are from violators.  People are protected by the government everyday in the US - not because everyone is obeying the law, but because people are disobeying.  

That's a whacky way of looking at things.  Look, victims, the criminals are actually protecting you.  They used physical violence against you and your family but we caught them and that means we can now put them in jail so they will be protected there and you will also be safe from them while they are there too.  Look at this wonderful society we live in.

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Not just physical force?  How about not necessarily involving any physical force at all?  Just talk. The latter is what I understand you to be saying.

"Just talk" is not how the law works.  There is threat of actually penalty, by force if necessary. 

[Calm]

“Black Lives Matter” is not trademarked (wiki) and is instead imo encouraged to be used by anyone in order to ‘spread the word’. 

This means there is really no way to know if someone unidentified at a protest is associated with the organization, is following the principles of the organization, or usurping the label or phrase for their own purposes....anyone can join even if their purpose is the complete opposite of the organization sponsoring the event (which is often not a BLM chapter from what I have read). No one is checking ids, voter registration, what they are saying on social media or whatever...even if it were possible.   Vetting is impossible based on the very nature of protests. 
 

Since that is the case, it seems to me that the best measure of whether the BLM organization itself supports “Love One Another” or not is to look at what they do in other areas if they have such activities and what their official spokespersons are saying in the here and now about riots, etc as well as positive actions such as community activism...because attitudes and beliefs change over time and even Marxists are known to become capitalists or the reverse. 
 

Holding BLM responsible for the actions of a small group of protestors mixing in with other numerous protestors with no evidence of their affiliation with the BLM organization would be like holding BYU responsible for a handful of ‘fans’ at an away game intent on attacking a ref over what they see as a bad call against the cougars.  BYU is not in charge of security in that case nor are they capable of vetting tickets buyers to make sure they don’t have violent goals.  BYU as an organization can only react afterwards by condemning the violence. 
 

The first question for me therefore is if the BLM organization is doing that?
 

I am reading stuff saying they are and aren’t.  I find some quotes problematic and other understandable, could be read if so inclined as supportive or just as emotional reactions not meaning to promote violence such as one leader of a local chapter feeling “liberated for a brief moment” when seeing the flames. In the latter case, I don’t think we should settle for the sound bite, but demand the full interview or even better, pay attention  to what that individual has said elsewhere to see if an interpretation of promotion of violence is consistent with his general attitude (he also said in the interview his group did not commit acts of violence, could be read as a denunciation or avoiding responsibility).

iffy statement:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cbs6albany.com/amp/news/local/local-black-lives-matter-leader-speaks-on-protests-riots-after-returning-from-minneapolis

Interview in Feb of Newsome that from quotes seems to be Newsome supporting violence, but haven't watched yet to see if nuances place limits on such violence or is 'it is part of history and is understandable when it happens, though not desirable' comment as opposed to something closer to 'change is only going to happen through a violent response to police violence and the sooner the better' (this last is not even a paraphrase, but completely imagined by me for a possible position condoning violence):

https://nation.foxnews.com/watch/4fcbfa667d49797fd83bebc3ec9fc89c/

 condemnation:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kutv.com/amp/news/local/utah-black-lives-matter-leaders-condemn-violence-and-vandalism-at-protests

https://time.com/4400330/st-paul-protests-philando-castile-black-lives-matter/?amp=true

But I think we also need to look at whether organizations who are using the untrademarked phrase spontaneously as well as having groups join protests formed under Black Lives Matter as a banner rather than the banner of the BLM organization are condemning violence or not.  Protests are not limited to only BLM chapters. And I think it relatively easy to demonstrate that many of these organizations out there promoting protests are clearly and vigorously rejecting the violence, such as the NAACP.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/denver.cbslocal.com/2020/08/27/black-leaders-denounce-destruction-property-denver-rioters-damage-quiznos/amp/

In that case, I don’t think we should discuss protests as if inherently violent, but rather as there are multiple players involved and only those where there is evidence of obvious support should be held responsible for promoting violence while others should not....especially if one is wanting law enforcement organizations and individuals not to be held responsible as promoting the violence of a segment of their organizations.  Those who want police violence addressed on a case by case basis, focusing on individuals rather than organizations should be doing the same when it comes to the much less organized, much less capable of surveillance or enforcement of its members protest movements. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Just an FYI, this seems a relatively balanced interview of the context of the Black Lives Matter movement (not organization) as he refers to studies of multiple POV, over 2 years old but still very relevant imo  

https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/media/2017/january/police-violence-data

[Calm]

Here is a detailed article discussing the structure of Black Lives Matter Global Network and local chapters. Also deals with the contradictions of statements among its leaders:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-cb-black-lives-matter-chicago-20200903-xh75kbw5nfdk5joudlsgb2viwq-story.html?outputType=amp
 

Quote

Does the Chicago Chapter condone looting?

Black Lives Matter Chicago organizer Ariel Atkins went viral in early August for calling the looting of downtown stores a form of “reparations.” The statements were made in the wake of the Aug. 9 shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen by police in Englewood. Atkins showed support for the looters, cited anger as the reason for their actions and claimed that history has not been changed through peaceful protests.

But, as an organization, Tendaji said BLM Chicago does not condone looting.

“There was definitely some misspeak, some things missaid in the press recently from one of our folks that may have sounded like support for or condoning looting,” Tendaji said. “Organizationally, we certainly don’t have anything to do with — or condone — illegal activity that, you know, really frightens and, quite frankly, pisses off a lot of Black folks.”

Tendaji said BLM Chicago’s organizers are typically on the same page because they work so closely. “But — the same for everybody around the world, now — folks are much more stressed, much more tired, much more anxious,” she said. “This is the time where people speak out more without having actually thought about ‘What am I saying?’”

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Jared Livesey said:

@CV75 If I rhetorically characterize my claims as observations, then they aren't claims?

Hit my post limit, unfortunately.

I guess I don't quite understand your question.  Whether what?  Could you restate it?

The wife-beating question is loaded unless we share the observation that you have a wife and have beaten her.

My question is not loaded because the reporting of these protests, which we (originally the other poster, and now presumably you after becoming involved in the conversation) have both seen, ties to and includes data that some law enforcement policy (including both formal and informal practices) has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities. I did not ask whether either of you have stopped hurting black citizens and communities; I asked whether either you have any reason to think that such harm is not occurring.

Edited November 11, 2020 by CV75

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

No so.  CFR, please.

You are CFRing that the police are a sanctioned arm of the government? Are you disputing this or are you just not sure and need evidence?

[smac97]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Quote

There have also been extensive and well-documented instances of police bullying, threatening, intimidating, etc.  And those have the backing of official sanction.

No so.  CFR, please.

You are CFRing that the police are a sanctioned arm of the government? Are you disputing this or are you just not sure and need evidence?

Perhaps I misunderstood you.  When you said "And those have the backing of official sanction," I took that as "And those {extensive and well-documented instances of police bullying, threatening, intimidating, etc.} have the backing of official sanction."  

If you are claiming that "instances of police bullying, threatening, intimidating" have been officially sanctioned, then yes, I'm presenting a CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jared Livesey]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

The wife-beating question is loaded unless we share the observation that you have a wife and have beaten her.

My question is not loaded because the reporting of these protests, which we (originally the other poster, and now presumably you after becoming involved in the conversation) have both seen, ties to and includes data that some law enforcement policy (including both formal and informal practices) has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities. I did not ask whether either of you have stopped hurting black citizens and communities; I asked whether either you have any reason to think that such harm is not occurring.

The question is loaded because the claim that blacks are disproportionately harmed by law enforcement on the basis of race is not a shared observation, but a contestable claim.

I point you again towards the hypothetical Supreme Court justice who over her career hires 1 law clerk from a race that makes up 13.4% of the US population, and 149 law clerks from other races.  I might ask, directly analogous to your question, "whether in light of those observations do you have any reason to think this Supreme Court justice is not motivated by racial animus in her hiring policies and practices?"  Yet the loaded nature of the question is readily apparent - the hidden assumption being smuggled in is that all races possess aptitude for the job equal to their proportion in the population, which, if true, would entail that racially disparate outcomes can only be the result of discrimination on the basis of race.  That assumption is not an observation, but a contestable claim.  The hiring data given in the hypothetical does not prove the contested claim, since the data might be fully accounted for on a basis other than racial discrimination, such as by the existence of differences in aptitudes between the races.

I have been asking you variations of the same question: how do you know blacks are disproportionately harmed by law enforcement on the basis of race?  How do you know there is not a relevant criterion upon which law enforcement action is predicated which just so happens to be more concentrated among blacks than it is among other races?  If such a criterion exists, then much, if not all, of the alleged disproportionately baleful effects of law enforcement upon the black community might be explained by those meeting the relevant criterion being themselves disproportionately represented among blacks.

Neither disproportionate racial representation nor racially disparate outcomes is necessarily evidence of racial discrimination.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Jared Livesey

[stemelbow]

27 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

The question is loaded because the claim that blacks are disproportionately harmed by law enforcement on the basis of race is not a shared observation, but a contestable claim.

I point you again towards the hypothetical Supreme Court justice who over her career hires 1 law clerk from a race that makes up 13.4% of the US population, and 149 law clerks from other races.  I might ask, directly analogous to your question, "whether in light of those observations do you have any reason to think this Supreme Court justice is not motivated by racial animus in her hiring policies and practices?"  Yet the loaded nature of the question is readily apparent - the hidden assumption being smuggled in is that all races possess aptitude for the job equal to their proportion in the population, which, if true, would entail that racially disparate outcomes can only be the result of discrimination on the basis of race.  That assumption is not an observation, but a contestable claim.  The hiring data given in the hypothetical does not prove the contested claim, since the data might be fully accounted for on a basis other than racial discrimination, such as by the existence of differences in aptitudes between the races.

I have been asking you variations of the same question: how do you know blacks are disproportionately harmed by law enforcement on the basis of race?  How do you know there is not a relevant criterion upon which law enforcement action is predicated which just so happens to be more concentrated among blacks than it is among other races?  If such a criterion exists, then much, if not all, of the alleged baleful effects of law enforcement upon the black community might be explained by those meeting the relevant criterion being themselves disproportionately represented among blacks.

Neither disproportionate racial representation nor racially disparate outcomes is necessarily evidence of racial discrimination.

It's complicated.  We can spout figures but they don't necessarily tell the story because each incident is individual and unique.  What we don't know is what is the motive of the cop who does the violence?  Any given scenario could be racial discrimination.  The numbers can tell us trends and cause us to ask questions.  Is the criterion racial?  Or do individual cops see race and are so motivated when they act?  We can trace any one incident back and draw conclusions but are those conclusions sound?  If any or most of those conclusions are influenced by the assumption of racist discrimination does that hinder the results?  A question that ought to be asked is if in evaluating racial injustice are those so evaluating looking to find injustice and if so, does that negatively result in bad evaluations?  

[why me]

Now that Biden has won, it seems that BLM went away. The demonstrations more or less ended with his victory. It should be obvious to all that the BLM demonstrations were just an act to harm Trump. I don't think that we will see them again anytime soon. It was all political.

I think that being a police officer in the USA is very stressful. Not an easy job because everyday could be your last. Does color of skin matter? I only know that in the USA if the police stop you one must obey the officer. If not, trouble can happen. Also, many police departments are multi-racial. It is not just a white/black thing. It is more or less a job thing. But it is a miracle that the demonstrations stopped, or is it?

Love one another is a good commandment but it has been lost for quite some time now. It is not about bring people together but about separating people according to race, creed and gender or anything else that may divide humans into subgroups.  To love one another we just need to see the human in our being.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, why me said:

Now that Biden has won, it seems that BLM went away. The demonstrations more or less ended with his victory. It should be obvious to all that the BLM demonstrations were just an act to harm Trump.

https://southseattleemerald.com/2020/11/09/celebrations-on-capitol-hill-and-continued-blm-protests-after-election-results/

https://www.vox.com/21542502/black-lives-matter-protests-election

Edited November 11, 2020 by pogi