Official Black Lives Matter Thread

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

A very large portion of Americans viewed civil rights protesters as a bunch of assholes blocking traffic or keeping people from eating at their favorite restaurant.

It's much easier to sympathize with the benefit of hindsight.

You're being stupid. The target of the civil disobedience of the 60s was the very segregation they were fighting. The target of the BLM protests - at least the ones we're discussing - are innocent people trying to travel / shop for the holidays. No amount of hindsight changes that. You don't need hindsight - you need some common sense.

I'm sure many white people who wanted to take the bus or eat at their favorite restaurant in the 60's felt they were innocent, too.

Many white people changed their minds when they saw the videos and images of what happened to those protesters in the 60s. Nothing is happening to these protesters. Do you really think anyone who wasn't previously on board with BLM is going to start supporting their cause because they shut down an airport for no apparent reason? If anything, that sort of protest is going to make people distance themselves from their cause.

[michigancat]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

A very large portion of Americans viewed civil rights protesters as a bunch of assholes blocking traffic or keeping people from eating at their favorite restaurant.

It's much easier to sympathize with the benefit of hindsight.

You're being stupid. The target of the civil disobedience of the 60s was the very segregation they were fighting. The target of the BLM protests - at least the ones we're discussing - are innocent people trying to travel / shop for the holidays. No amount of hindsight changes that. You don't need hindsight - you need some common sense.

I'm sure many white people who wanted to take the bus or eat at their favorite restaurant in the 60's felt they were innocent, too.

Many white people changed their minds when they saw the videos and images of what happened to those protesters in the 60s. Nothing is happening to these protesters. Do you really think anyone who wasn't previously on board with BLM is going to start supporting their cause because they shut down an airport for no apparent reason? If anything, that sort of protest is going to make people distance themselves from their cause.

Are you saying this form of protest is only effective if the protestors are beaten or abused? Because I think many folks inconvenienced will learn more about BLM, even if they think the protestors were assholes. They might not provide outright support and still think they're assholes, but there's a good chance someone will try to learn more.

What do you think would be a more effective way to get their message out there?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The fact that the people protesting have no idea what they are protesting against seems to be a rather large problem in the alleged campaign.

The purported problems are "society valuing a life less" which is a falsehood, "systemic prejudice" which is a flasehood, demographic differences renamed "inequality", and other intangible innocuous crap conjured by self interested people such as ne'erdowell academics and so-called agitators, who use these people for there own personal advancement and gain.

I don't understand why michigancat and the other dolt are insisting to acknowledge obvious distinctions between this and the civil rights sit inz, but it's really misguided and further damages ("marginalizes") the alleged campaign.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

A very large portion of Americans viewed civil rights protesters as a bunch of assholes blocking traffic or keeping people from eating at their favorite restaurant.

It's much easier to sympathize with the benefit of hindsight.

You're being stupid. The target of the civil disobedience of the 60s was the very segregation they were fighting. The target of the BLM protests - at least the ones we're discussing - are innocent people trying to travel / shop for the holidays. No amount of hindsight changes that. You don't need hindsight - you need some common sense.

I'm sure many white people who wanted to take the bus or eat at their favorite restaurant in the 60's felt they were innocent, too.

Many white people changed their minds when they saw the videos and images of what happened to those protesters in the 60s. Nothing is happening to these protesters. Do you really think anyone who wasn't previously on board with BLM is going to start supporting their cause because they shut down an airport for no apparent reason? If anything, that sort of protest is going to make people distance themselves from their cause.

Are you saying this form of protest is only effective if the protestors are beaten or abused? Because I think many folks inconvenienced will learn more about BLM, even if they think the protestors were assholes. They might not provide outright support and still think they're assholes, but there's a good chance someone will try to learn more.

What do you think would be a more effective way to get their message out there?

Good grief

[Asteriskhead]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

This. You guys can try to contort the definition of civil disobedience to equate being an bad person to disobeying segregation laws, but you just look really silly in doing so.

you're a proponent of the status quo. i wouldn't find it surprising if you equated every protest movement to behaving like an bad person. that's pretty much what a protest movement is

Again, what a completely ridiculous thing to say. I support many protests - if they are targeted at the problem, as opposed to innocent people. That's the point you and others fail to grasp.

innocence has nothing to do with it. this isn't a court of law. that is the point that you fail to grasp. society is constructed of an astronomical number of people from all walks of life, focused on any number of different things. if you want to effect social change, you have to get their attention. blocking a roadway is certainly a method to gain an audience, a method many other social movements have used in the past. i'll reiterate, i'm not saying that blocking a road is the best method by which to effect a desired social change. i am saying that it is a legitimate form of protest.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

A very large portion of Americans viewed civil rights protesters as a bunch of assholes blocking traffic or keeping people from eating at their favorite restaurant.

It's much easier to sympathize with the benefit of hindsight.

You're being stupid. The target of the civil disobedience of the 60s was the very segregation they were fighting. The target of the BLM protests - at least the ones we're discussing - are innocent people trying to travel / shop for the holidays. No amount of hindsight changes that. You don't need hindsight - you need some common sense.

I'm sure many white people who wanted to take the bus or eat at their favorite restaurant in the 60's felt they were innocent, too.

What was the airport doing that warranted it being shut down?

What was the highway between Selma and Montgomery doing wrong?

Nothing. Ok, now your turn! What was the airport doing that warranted it being shut down?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

This. You guys can try to contort the definition of civil disobedience to equate being an bad person to disobeying segregation laws, but you just look really silly in doing so.

you're a proponent of the status quo. i wouldn't find it surprising if you equated every protest movement to behaving like an bad person. that's pretty much what a protest movement is

Again, what a completely ridiculous thing to say. I support many protests - if they are targeted at the problem, as opposed to innocent people. That's the point you and others fail to grasp.

innocence has nothing to do with it. this isn't a court of law. that is the point that you fail to grasp. society is constructed of an astronomical number of people from all walks of life, focused on any number of different things. if you want to effect social change, you have to get their attention. blocking a roadway is certainly a method to gain an audience, a method many other social movements have used in the past. i'll reiterate, i'm not saying that blocking a road is the best method by which to effect a desired social change. i am saying that it is a legitimate form of protest.

I'm not going to argue over what is, or isn't, a "legitimate form of protest." The point I'm making is that these people are behaving have assholes when they do this sort of stuff, it's not targeted at any particular source or manifestation of the injustice they're fighting, and they're not winning anyone over as a result. Again, comparing this sort of crap to refusing to use a blacks only drinking fountain or ride at the back of a bus is just stoooopid.

[Asteriskhead]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

This. You guys can try to contort the definition of civil disobedience to equate being an bad person to disobeying segregation laws, but you just look really silly in doing so.

you're a proponent of the status quo. i wouldn't find it surprising if you equated every protest movement to behaving like an bad person. that's pretty much what a protest movement is

Again, what a completely ridiculous thing to say. I support many protests - if they are targeted at the problem, as opposed to innocent people. That's the point you and others fail to grasp.

innocence has nothing to do with it. this isn't a court of law. that is the point that you fail to grasp. society is constructed of an astronomical number of people from all walks of life, focused on any number of different things. if you want to effect social change, you have to get their attention. blocking a roadway is certainly a method to gain an audience, a method many other social movements have used in the past. i'll reiterate, i'm not saying that blocking a road is the best method by which to effect a desired social change. i am saying that it is a legitimate form of protest.

I'm not going to argue over what is, or isn't, a "legitimate form of protest." The point I'm making is that these people are behaving have assholes when they do this sort of stuff, it's not targeted at any particular source or manifestation of the injustice they're fighting, and they're not winning anyone over as a result. Again, comparing this sort of crap to refusing to use a blacks only drinking fountain or ride at the back of a bus is just stoooopid.

A protest is behaving like an bad person, man. What do you not grasp about that? If you want to change the way society operates, you're going to piss off people that like the way society currently operates. Step back for a minute and think about the concepts at work here, not whether or not you agree with the movement.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

A very large portion of Americans viewed civil rights protesters as a bunch of assholes blocking traffic or keeping people from eating at their favorite restaurant.

It's much easier to sympathize with the benefit of hindsight.

You're being stupid. The target of the civil disobedience of the 60s was the very segregation they were fighting. The target of the BLM protests - at least the ones we're discussing - are innocent people trying to travel / shop for the holidays. No amount of hindsight changes that. You don't need hindsight - you need some common sense.

I'm sure many white people who wanted to take the bus or eat at their favorite restaurant in the 60's felt they were innocent, too.

Many white people changed their minds when they saw the videos and images of what happened to those protesters in the 60s. Nothing is happening to these protesters. Do you really think anyone who wasn't previously on board with BLM is going to start supporting their cause because they shut down an airport for no apparent reason? If anything, that sort of protest is going to make people distance themselves from their cause.

Are you saying this form of protest is only effective if the protestors are beaten or abused? Because I think many folks inconvenienced will learn more about BLM, even if they think the protestors were assholes. They might not provide outright support and still think they're assholes, but there's a good chance someone will try to learn more.

What do you think would be a more effective way to get their message out there?

It's certainly much more effective when the protesters can be seen as victims.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It's worth noting that michigancat and the other dolt have lost this argument so badly that they are now attempting to reframe it into a discussion as to whether the airport protest was indeed a protest.

Nevermind that nobody knows the actual objective of the alleged campaign, and that the overwhelming majority of the public (i.e., society) sees it's paricipants as a bunch of entitled adolescent shits without brains or a better thing to do.

[Trim]

If a position of BLM is that the rest of America is routinely made aware of black people having bad things (death) happen to them at the hands of government, police, racists, etc., and that a lot of the rest of America's reaction is "meh" or "damn, that sucks, but I've got some errands to run, I'm sure it'll work itself out," then inconveniencing the rest of America would be a correctly targeted protest.

[Asteriskhead]

It's worth noting that michigancat and the other dolt have lost this argument so badly that they are now attempting to reframe it into a discussion as to whether the airport protest was indeed a protest.

Nevermind that nobody knows the actual objective of the alleged campaign, and that the overwhelming majority of the public (i.e., society) sees it's paricipants as a bunch of entitled adolescent shits without brains or a better thing to do.

what qualifies as a protest is what was most certainly being discussed when I entered this debate, if i am who you are referring to as "the other dolt," but thank you for your constructive input.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It's worth noting that michigancat and the other dolt have lost this argument so badly that they are now attempting to reframe it into a discussion as to whether the airport protest was indeed a protest.

Nevermind that nobody knows the actual objective of the alleged campaign, and that the overwhelming majority of the public (i.e., society) sees it's paricipants as a bunch of entitled adolescent shits without brains or a better thing to do.

what qualifies as a protest is what was most certainly being discussed when I entered this debate, if i am who you are referring to as "the other dolt," but thank you for your constructive input.

You are, as further evidenced by the remainder of your post. Nobody is, or ever was, arguing that the protest was a protest, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

[Asteriskhead]

It's worth noting that michigancat and the other dolt have lost this argument so badly that they are now attempting to reframe it into a discussion as to whether the airport protest was indeed a protest.

Nevermind that nobody knows the actual objective of the alleged campaign, and that the overwhelming majority of the public (i.e., society) sees it's paricipants as a bunch of entitled adolescent shits without brains or a better thing to do.

what qualifies as a protest is what was most certainly being discussed when I entered this debate, if i am who you are referring to as "the other dolt," but thank you for your constructive input.

You are, as further evidenced by the remainder of your post. Nobody is, or ever was, arguing that the protest was a protest, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

If you say so.

[star seed 7]

Is fsd being an bad person itt a protest?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

A protest is behaving like an bad person, man. What do you not grasp about that? If you want to change the way society operates, you're going to piss off people that like the way society currently operates. Step back for a minute and think about the concepts at work here, not whether or not you agree with the movement.

The part I don't grasp is your contention that protests require you to behave like an bad person. They don't, and they certainly don't require that you be an bad person towards people who are not associated with your grievance.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The anti government people really missed the mark protesting at government facilities and electing congressman to reduce the size of government.  They should have just blocked the highways and egged the cars. Much more effective.

[MakeItRain]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

Completely disregarding the sit-ins. The first Selma-to-Montgomery march on a major highway, in historical retrospect was the seminal moment in the 60's civil rights movement.

[MakeItRain]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

A very large portion of Americans viewed civil rights protesters as a bunch of assholes blocking traffic or keeping people from eating at their favorite restaurant.

It's much easier to sympathize with the benefit of hindsight.

You're being stupid. The target of the civil disobedience of the 60s was the very segregation they were fighting. The target of the BLM protests - at least the ones we're discussing - are innocent people trying to travel / shop for the holidays. No amount of hindsight changes that. You don't need hindsight - you need some common sense.

I'm sure many white people who wanted to take the bus or eat at their favorite restaurant in the 60's felt they were innocent, too.

What was the airport doing that warranted it being shut down?

Which conservative blog did you read that told you that the airport was shutdown, cause that didn't happen.

[Asteriskhead]

A protest is behaving like an bad person, man. What do you not grasp about that? If you want to change the way society operates, you're going to piss off people that like the way society currently operates. Step back for a minute and think about the concepts at work here, not whether or not you agree with the movement.

The part I don't grasp is your contention that protests require you to behave like an bad person. They don't, and they certainly don't require that you be an bad person towards people who are not associated with your grievance.

bad person-ish behavior is in the eye of the beholder.

[MakeItRain]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

A very large portion of Americans viewed civil rights protesters as a bunch of assholes blocking traffic or keeping people from eating at their favorite restaurant.

It's much easier to sympathize with the benefit of hindsight.

You're being stupid. The target of the civil disobedience of the 60s was the very segregation they were fighting. The target of the BLM protests - at least the ones we're discussing - are innocent people trying to travel / shop for the holidays. No amount of hindsight changes that. You don't need hindsight - you need some common sense.

I'm sure many white people who wanted to take the bus or eat at their favorite restaurant in the 60's felt they were innocent, too.

Many white people changed their minds when they saw the videos and images of what happened to those protesters in the 60s. Nothing is happening to these protesters. Do you really think anyone who wasn't previously on board with BLM is going to start supporting their cause because they shut down an airport for no apparent reason? If anything, that sort of protest is going to make people distance themselves from their cause.

Are you saying this form of protest is only effective if the protestors are beaten or abused? Because I think many folks inconvenienced will learn more about BLM, even if they think the protestors were assholes. They might not provide outright support and still think they're assholes, but there's a good chance someone will try to learn more.

What do you think would be a more effective way to get their message out there?

It's certainly much more effective when the protesters can be seen as victims.

What are you saying? Are you advocating that we get some protesters killed or get some police chief to sick some german shepards on some darkies? Your message seems to be mixed. You say that the protesters in the 60's did it the right way, but they did that by pushing civil disobedience further than it had ever been pushed before, but then out of the other side of your mouth you decried the protest at MSP which was successful in closing the security checkpoint at one terminal for 45 minutes

If your point is that BLM needs to have bolder protests that inconvenience much larger groups of people then, yes, I agree.

[MakeItRain]

If a position of BLM is that the rest of America is routinely made aware of black people having bad things (death) happen to them at the hands of government, police, racists, etc., and that a lot of the rest of America's reaction is "meh" or "damn, that sucks, but I've got some errands to run, I'm sure it'll work itself out," then inconveniencing the rest of America would be a correctly targeted protest.

I'm quoting this just in case RATM missed it the first time.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think a major difference between the recent BLM protests and older civil rights protests is that the older protests were directed at oppressors and these protests are not. The image portrayed by a group of people getting beaten, spit on, etc for having the nerve to expect to get served at a restaurant or ride in the front of a bus is far more effective than the image portrayed by a bunch of assholes blocking an airport so people who have absolutely nothing to do with them miss Christmas dinner.

Completely disregarding the sit-ins. The first Selma-to-Montgomery march on a major highway, in historical retrospect was the seminal moment in the 60's civil rights movement.

The Selma-to-Montgomery march ended at the Alabama State House. The protest was about voting rights and it was directed at at those responsible.

[DQ12]

the chicago protests haven't inconvenienced me one iota.  in fact, my only real exposure to them was when they marched down the street under my office a couple weeks ago.  everything that i've witnessed has been pretty organized and under control - police escorts, the works, really.

anyhow, i'm having a hard time pinpointing the points of view of those who are criticizing the BLM movement.  do you understand why they're upset, but you disagree with how they're going about voicing their anger?  or do you not even think they have a reason to be upset?  i think it's okay to be critical of their methods of protest so long as you understand why they're angry. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

do you understand why they're upset, but you disagree with how they're going about voicing their anger?

yes

You might not have been personally inconvenienced, but a lot of business owners were.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-black-friday-mag-mile-fallout-1201-biz-20151130-story.html

I would like to see changes in police training and how the justice system handles cops who murder people, but I don't see how worsening your local economy helps things. It's very difficult for me to read that article and support BLM.