11 Dallas Cops shot at protest

Would consider if he'd bring some loaves and fishes.

 

The purpose of the movement is to bring awareness that blacks are being disproportionatey targeted by police. That's pretty much it.


Take 10 minutes, go look at "on the street" interviews with protestors. If you can conclude that the people interviewed have a clear and unified message. Clear and unified goals. And is not a bunch of random people, saying whatever the hell they personally believe to be true, I'll concede.

 

Not a fair test. Do that at the Republican National Convention, or the Democratic. Perform the same test at an LGBT rally or an environmentalist rally or a Tea Party and you'll get the same thing. You'll get people from various backgrounds united in some common interests with different aims and opinions and stances. Collectively, they still have platforms and goals and voices, though, some more formalized than others.

The problem is that you and VK are alleging that there isn't an anti-cop message in the BLM movement when there clearly is. It's an influential and vocal contingent. Maybe it isn't a majority--I have no way of disputing that--but when the entire existence of the movement is based on the idea that cops are at war with black people because they think their lives are of no value, it is disingenuous to ignore that faction.

 

I struggle with feeding the 5, I'm just not messiah material.

 

I don't agree that the "entire existence of the movement is based on the idea that cops are at war with black people." I don't care what rhetoric is used by a group that claims to be the "leadership." Nobody I know is a "member" of BLM. I know participants. I don't know members. I don't see "leadership." I don't see organization, beyond twitter. I don't see membership. I just see people saying, black lives matter. And carrying that simple message, around. To places. Where they encounter people.

Some take that to mean a war on blacks. Some take it to just mean blacks are disproportionately killed by law enforcement.

Tell me which message came first: the war on blacks, or the disproportionate targeting. Were people talking about war on blacks when profiling was a big thing in the 1990s? No, but that's a disproportionate targeting.

But somehow, a statement gets made, by self described leaders, that may have come well after another message, and somehow, that message is what the movement is based on?

 

I think you are choosing to see only what you want the movement to be because so much of the rest is problematic.

 

Ok. But I think that by your standards, any organization, or movement, can be completely discredited by a small number saying and doing things the vast majority don't agree with.

 

I think you are inflating my standards, but ok.

I think by your standards any stance by any group can be excused as not really in keeping with the movement.

 

I think a majority is a pretty easy and demonstrateable delineator.

I don't think a minority is a good indicator.

Seems pretty clear to me. Also seems like some unfavorable things can be demonstrated, by a majority. But unfavorable things by a minority, would be, well, a minority.

 

The. The majority disowns them and condemns them in the harshest terms.

 

They did this, with the shooting. But the idea that the majority has a responsibility to disavow the crazies is still problematic to me. It reminds me of the widespread notion that Muslims need to loudly disavow terrorist actions to prove that they aren't all terrorists themselves.

 

I don't think so.

 

Thats an interesting point. On the one hand you have the "leaders" that get the majority of the press and tv time. When one of them condemns or dodges the idea that dead cops are a good thing or justice or violence towards cops is right, they are speaking for the group or the movement.

I dont think you have a good gauge for what the entire group thinks. And in part because it differs from person to person. You have a small number that actually get the media attention to promote an idea.

 

You make a good point, but the actions of the group, movement, whatever are indicative of that organization's true beliefs and goals. If only one or two are calling for violence toward a specific target, but no one is following their lead, then it would be a good guess that is not the wish of the group as a whole.

 

I could buy that as well. Im just curious how a minority of leaders speaks for the group if they publically say what they should. Even if others (followers per say) have a different opinion.

 

You are saying leaders speaking, if they are truly leaders, then I would say they have a strategy to confuse by misinformation. I am not calling my example leaders, more than likely just wannabes. Of course we are told BLM has no leaders.

 

Im using it from the idea that if one of them denounces violent acts towards LEOs publically its taken as the voice of BLM. Publically I think you are gonna hear that because you lose a lot of political leverage but Im not totally sold that a substantial amount of them see it as balancing the scales.

 

Not saying that can't be true, but the idea of "balancing the scales" or "starting a war" against a group that has a weapons advantage, a training advantage, and the full support of the federal government is one hell of a losing proposition. If it were all about fighting back, BLM likely wouldn't have as many supporters as they have, considering that most people don't want to die.

 

People are/have been very enthusiastic about going to war with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, whomever, despite not being enlisted.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438698/obama-releases-prisoners-guilty-gun-crimes

Commit a crime with one of those nasty guns, don't worry Obama might pardon you.