TREATING PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY BASED ON THEIR RACE IS THE ESSENCE OF RACISM.

You've actually missed out the essence entirely: it's treating people derisively based on their race.

Would you say the icons being removed due to the potentially harmful depictions of stereotypes were creations of derisive behavior?

If one group is receiving complimentary treatment based on race, that necessarily means that other groups are being treated derisively based on race.

The KKK has claimed that they're not an anti-black organisation, they're a pro-white organisation. On the other side of the racist coin, BLM has claimed that they're not an anti-white organisation, they're a pro-black organisation. They really are two sides of the same racist coin.

Martin Luther King Jr dreamt of a day that people would be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. Perhaps with the best intentions, treating people differently on the basis of the colour of their skin is antithetical to Martin Luther King Jr's dream, precisely because treating people *differently* on the basis of skin colour is the essence of racism.

No, I would not compare the KKK to BLM. They come from two very different perspectives and I'm not talking about race. The KKK advocate white supremacy and do that by intimidating black civilians.

BLM advocate black equality and do that by intimidating law enforcement and complacent society. They are not strictly pro-Black, but they recognize the disproportion of treatment between blacks and non-whites in regards to law enforcement and prison population. They appear to target primarily those cities where cops have not only shot an unarmed black civilians but those that also have a tendency of suspending an officer with pay for manslaughter. Something for which if a civilian had done, they'd be arrested, without pay, and unable to pay their bills whether they actually did the crime or not.

You could argue that both organizations at the start that they may have had good intentions in regards to racism; seeing an injustice against their race and trying to rectify it by taking the law into their own hands, sort of speak, but that is where the similarities die.

While the history of the KKK has been rightfully marred, the intention to hold them in the same regard as the KKK is despicable. A more qualified group would be the Black Panthers, who actually openly advocated Black Supremacy. It would even be unfair to call BLM an offshoot of the Black Panther organization. Different organizations, radically different operations, and an overlap of some agendas.

In fact, BLM is more akin to the modern Civil Right's movement that Martin Luther King Jr. advocated. I'm not sure if BLM supports any particular party, I'd need some source on that, but it can be argued that Democrats are more sympathetic to their cause; especially as they are advocating reform right now and their base is more open to regulations and decrease in funding of law enforcement than a conservative party might.

I've heard it claimed that BLM start these riots but that's not entirely true. I've also heard the claim that Democrats support the rioting, that is also not entirely true. What is true is that people are frustrated with the system enough to riot. And that even if these riots are manufactured, it didn't take much to light the gas-lit house to blow it up. And most are less concerned about the match and who threw it than the source of where the gas is coming from.

So, now, everyone is madly scrambling to patch it up wherever it might be.

>> BLM advocate black equality and do that by intimidating law enforcement and complacent society. <<

Well, BLM™ ostensibly advocates black equality, but that's not what they're really about. In any case, their intimidation tactics effectively make them a terrorist organisation.

>> They are not strictly pro-Black, but they recognize the disproportion of treatment between blacks and non-whites in regards to law enforcement and prison population. <<

No, they misrepresent the statistics, to appeal to, and manipulate, white guilt and black rage.

Men account for about 98% of people killed by police. Does that mean police have an anti-male bias?

>> They appear to target primarily those cities where cops have not only shot an unarmed black civilians but those that also have a tendency of suspending an officer with pay for manslaughter. Something for which if a civilian had done, they'd be arrested, without pay, and unable to pay their bills whether they actually did the crime or not. <<

False comparison; police have a "duty to act", and deal with violent criminals, while civilians generally have a duty to protect themselves and call police.

In any case, not all police shootings are unjustified, but BLM™ exploits such incidents as if they are all unjustified.

>> In fact, BLM is more akin to the modern Civil Right's movement that Martin Luther King Jr. advocated. <<

That's laughable. MLK very explicitly and adamantly condemned riots, and in his later years stopped identifying as a "black rights activist", and identified as a "human rights activist". And of course, MLK's dream was that people would be judged on the basis of their character, *NOT* the colour of their skin; BLM™ wants people to be judged (both rewarded and punished) by the colour of their skin, *NOT* on the basis of their character. As such, BLM™ is a racist organisation.

>> I'm not sure if BLM supports any particular party, I'd need some source on that, but it can be argued that Democrats are more sympathetic to their cause; <<

It seems that BLM™ is little more than an illegal fundraising front for the Democratic Party, and they're puppets of the Democratic Party. We'll be seeing more about this as the November elections get closer.

No, they don’t. Terrorist organizations tend to include conspiratorial homicides. In fact, even the KKK, which openly harassed black individuals, is still not considered a terrorist organization today.

The problem with police shootings is that they violate due process. How are civilians suppose to protect themselves armed or not by homicidal cops? They can’t. They either die or are charged as cop killers.

He did condemn riots, and BLM do not organize riots but peaceful protests. The riots that are organized and the ones that naturally occur are used to discredit their movement. I’m sure the FBI is investigating their involvement of course. I would love to see evidence that they are directly responsible but just because they may sympathize with rioters doesn’t mean they are responsible or that there is no overlap in their tactics with MLK’s civil right’s movement. Using riots to delegitimizing BLM, is no different than using them to delegitimizing MLK and the movement. Indeed people tried to silence MLK right up until his murder.

You sound like you have evidence to back the claim that BLM supports Democrats. If I remember correctly, they didn’t seem to take kindly to Bernie Sanders. But I’d have to look that up again.

I imagine small business run by black people will suffer the most from these riots. Not to mention black employees looking for work. It seems white supremacists would logically benefit from this. So if you’re arguing otherwise to discredit BLM’s stance about cracking down on police brutality; you’ve made a very poor point.

I don’t think the protests are a cover for riots. I think the riots are an attempt to discredit peaceful protests. Either by the cops, the local government, or even the media. It is entirely possible, of course, that BLM is organizing them as you say but what endgame would that serve except to counter their movement?

I’m afraid I won’t be listening to the podcast. You can listen to it and break it down if you like. If you feel uncomfortable with what you want to say, I suggest you do not let others speak for you. Unless you’d like to give facts or quote people that support your claims.

I only speak from a matter of opinion and have no wish to validate them. You may challenge them if you like.

I will add, I’m not a fan of BLM or their methods but I find it absurd to say alarmist things like that they are a terrorist organization or should be labeled as such.

The FBI defines domestic terrorism as: 〃Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.〃

As such, BLM™ is arguably a domestic terrorist organisation.

>> The problem with police shootings is that they violate due process. How are civilians suppose to protect themselves armed or not by homicidal cops? They can’t. They either die or are charged as cop killers. <<

Strawman argument. This isn't about cops dressing up in white robes and white hoods, hunting down black people; the George Floyd case seems to be an example of a cop who stepped far beyond the bounds of what he was paid by society to do, and thus it's an exception, not the rule. Virtually all cases of police violence involve subjective assessment of the degree to which police used violence, and whether or not that was justified in the performance of the job that society pays them to do. If you or me resist arrest, assault a cop, steal a weapon from the cop's belt, and start shooting at the cop with the stolen weapon, any arguments to "due process" fall apart: The cop has a duty to protect himself and the public from an immediate threat.

>> Using riots to delegitimizing BLM, is no different than using them to delegitimizing MLK and the movement. Indeed people tried to silence MLK right up until his murder. <<

Another strawman argument. I'm not trying to discredit BLM™ on the basis that they incite riots, I'm discrediting BLM™ on the basis that they're activism is infinitely more divisive than it is unifying; I'm discrediting BLM™ on the basis that they're fomenting racism; I'm discrediting BLM™ on the basis that they're doing more harm than good, and exploiting the people they claim to be fighting for.

>> I imagine small business run by black people will suffer the most from these riots. Not to mention black employees looking for work. It seems white supremacists would logically benefit from this. So if you’re arguing otherwise to discredit BLM’s stance about cracking down on police brutality; you’ve made a very poor point. <<

I'm arguing otherwise; that's my point. They're doing more harm then good.

>> It is entirely possible, of course, that BLM is organizing them as you say but what endgame would that serve except to counter their movement? <<

Their long-term goals depend on keeping black people victims of racism, economic disparity, and despair. The more they can perpetuate and exacerbate these situations, the more powerful they become. BLM™ looks out for BLM™, not black people. The proof in in the division that they sow. MLK was unitor, BLM™ is a divider.

>> I’m afraid I won’t be listening to the podcast. You can listen to it and break it down if you like. If you feel uncomfortable with what you want to say, I suggest you do not let others speak for you. Unless you’d like to give facts or quote people that support your claims. <<

I very highly recommend that podcast for anyone who's genuinely interested in the problem, and effective solutions. It spells out some of the things that are not what they seem, and it outlines the real problems, and leads us closer to effective solutions.

It's breaks down what seems like an intractable problem much better than anything I could do in this comment section.

I will repeat, I’m not a fan of BLM or their methods but I find it absurd to say alarmist things like that they are a terrorist organization or should be labeled as such.

You're mistaking strawman arguments as my own. I'm merely attempting to have you understand their perspective as I understand them.

I agree that all cases of police violence should involve subjective assessment of the degree to which police used violence, and whether or not that was justified in the performance of the job but it is of their opinion that this is not the case. And, to a point, they're right. Accountability in most cases are handled internally and do not involve outside assessment unless there is a pattern. And too often police records are fought and protected even if there is video evidence of an officer abusing his power under the pretext to protect the precinct and it's reputation. A better use of such power would be to remove such officers who are incapable of handling such situations.

It is more accurate to call BLM radical. But, again, even the Civil Right's movement was called radical and divisive of it's time. In fact, the same old alarmist accusations used by racist of old against the Civil Right's movement are now leveled at the LGBTQ community of now. They both claim of wanting "more rights" Same with BLM. This is not true. Nor does defunding police mean their permanent disbanding or abolishment. In deed, in many cases fines and seizures of property go toward an appalling awards system. There have been many efforts to curve such things, but police departments should not rack up fines and arrests simply to keep their precincts going. That is where the funding will be taken from first. Not directly from cops who are just doing their job.

At this time, I believe disagreeing with BLM stance against police brutality simply because of it's name and it's focus on protecting black communities is petty. They are allowed to vent their frustrations legally by the right to assembly even if they are wrong in some of their perceptions.

They definitely have a right to be frustrated in regards to the higher than normal arrest rate among the black population. Should their focus be on improving their own communities? Perhaps. But to say that the police are not a fundamental problem would also be inaccurate.

If you want to unify, you do not dismiss dissenting voices as terrorists.

>> I agree that all cases of police violence should involve subjective assessment of the degree to which police used violence, and whether or not that was justified in the performance of the job but it is of their opinion that this is not the case. And, to a point, they're right. <<

Where's the systemic racism in that?

Most of us would agree that bad cops need to be identified and fired. But there are some people who would accuse a coin of being racist, if a coin-flip picked a white person over a black person. These people are insane, but they've been given the stage.

>> Nor does defunding police mean their permanent disbanding or abolishment. <<

In their own words, yes, BLM™'s leadership does want to "abolish" police.

〃We say #DefundThePolice and #DefundDepOfCorrections because they work in tandem. The rise of mass incarceration occurred alongside the rise of militarized and mass policing. They must be abolished as a system.〃

That's particularly insane, since black people are more likely to be victims of crimes, and more often require police assistance.

>> They definitely have a right to be frustrated in regards to the higher than normal arrest rate among the black population. <<

As far as police use of force against blacks being the focus of BLM™, at best they're focusing incredible attention on a symptom of the problem, while drawing attention, debate, analysis, and resources away from actual causes of the problem. This is the exact opposite of helpful.

To the extent that there may be systemic racial bias and systemic racial prejudice, and echoes of systemic racism that account for higher criminality among black people, police interactions with black people are often an "ambulance at the bottom of the cliff". De-funding that ambulance is not an honest solution to any problems that black communities face, but that's what BLM™ is screaming for. And in the process, they're actually perpetuating and exacerbating problems of racial division, which (ironically?) puts them in a stronger and more powerful "leadership" (ha!) position. It's almost like they're trying to make the problems worse…

>> If you want to unify, you do not dismiss dissenting voices as terrorists. <<

They're not just "dissenting voices", they're an integral part of the problem. They're invested in perpetuating the problem.

"Where is the systemic racism in that?"

Right here:

"Accountability in most cases are handled internally and do not involve outside assessment unless there is a pattern. And too often police records are fought and protected even if there is video evidence of an officer abusing his power under the pretext to protect the precinct and it's reputation. A better use of such power would be to remove such officers who are incapable of handling such situations."

Yes, I agree, it can certainly be argued that BLM's positions are radical in they claim defunding equals establishment. That is where I disagree with them. Notice how I can do that without calling them terrorists or that their frustrations aren't justified?

Again, to say that militarization of the police and rise of mass incarceration are simply symptoms is dismissive. The police do play a role and accountability is a solution to some of those problems. I'd also argue that incarceration has nothing to do with actual rehabilitation but rather to serve the prison industrial complex. Free (or cheap as free) labor has to come from somewhere with that pesky 13th Amendment. The loophole that the US can have slaves... as a form of punishment. Is it any wonder why black people (who have the highest prison population) are still asking for reparations as if slavery is still around today? Because in their eyes, it is.

If a group of people are part of the problem is the solution to remove them? How would you remove BLM?

You're conflating racism with a lack of police accountability that affects everyone equally. You've failed to uncover racism.

>> I'd also argue that incarceration has nothing to do with actual rehabilitation but rather to serve the prison industrial complex. <<

Show me data that violent recidivists can be rehabilitated. Until then, prisons can't serve as either punishment or rehabilitation; the only purpose they can serve for society is to protect society from violent criminals.

>> If a group of people are part of the problem is the solution to remove them? How would you remove BLM? <<

Their actions do fit the FBI's definition of a domestic terrorist organisation.

You mean, BLM has failed to uncover racism. But, they have, they think that the higher than normal black population in Prisons is a symptom of unaccounted systemic racism.

I'm quite fond of Sweden's rehabilitation program as it serves as a re-education center with the intent to train for work after leaving prison and become functioning members instead of harassing them or preventing them from being able to work through self-defeating screening techniques.

In our country, once you commit a crime, the chance of returning to crime is high if the only way to make a sustainable living is through criminal means.

https://www.mic.com/articles/109138/sweden-has-done-for-its-prisoners-what-the-u-s-won-t#:~:text=In%20Nordic%20countries%20like%20Sweden,it%20works%20far%20more%20effectively.&text=The%20country%20has%20closed%20a,U.S.%20and%20most%20European%20countries.

Violent criminals in prison make up roughly half of our prison population.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

So do the KKK, but after 100 years, I guess they know how to organize a peaceful protest and get the recognition they need. I guess racism isn't the problem. Just better PR. Maybe not with the public, but with those in power.

>> But, they have, they think that the higher than normal black population in Prisons is a symptom of unaccounted systemic racism. <<

If we look at crime statistics, particularly violent crime statistics, we see black people over-represented. Might that account for the racial disparity of prison populations?

>> I've heard it claimed that BLM start these riots but that's not entirely true. I've also heard the claim that Democrats support the rioting, that is also not entirely true. What is true is that people are frustrated with the system enough to riot. And that even if these riots are manufactured, it didn't take much to light the gas-lit house to blow it up. And most are less concerned about the match and who threw it than the source of where the gas is coming from. <<

As a practical matter, does it make a difference if the damage done by these riots was done by BLM™ supporters or white supremacists? These cities are being destroyed just the same as if they were bombed by foreign militaries. Who suffers, and who benefits?

At the very least, BLM™ protests are serving as cover for the riots.

>> So, now, everyone is madly scrambling to patch it up wherever it might be. <<

People are rushing to the wrong solutions, driven by emotion and flawed reasoning and peer-pressure, trying to solve the symptoms while ignoring the causes. This podcast covers it pretty well - https://samharris.org/podcasts/207-can-pull-back-brink/