Black lives matter: heroes, victims, and answer to the BLM

[Town Heretic]

I'd suggest, as evidenced everywhere, we are stuck with it. Again, I said 'some.' A minimum? Much better. Anecdotal doesn't matter. You'd need to visit here and interview here. You said 30 black voices were white noise (didn't matter).

Right. Anecdotes are worthless without knowing the methodology that addresses sampling size, questions asked, the nature of the groups sampled, that sort of thing. I could flip a coin 30 times and report the results to you. It wouldn't tell you much though.

That guy was you. You simply cannot believe a BLM of statements, then dismiss a different 30.

Actually, I'm being consistent. You're trying to build an understanding on anecdote, like the guy from Kentucky, a single riot, a thing that happened at a school. I used the BLM declarations about what their aim is to give you and anyone reading an understanding of what their aims are as an organization.

To put it another way. You're like a guy who can tell me fifteen times we failed our Constitution and saying that's who Americans are and I'm the guy saying you have too small a sample and, by the way, here's what our Constitution actually tells you we're about. Not what that guy told you he wanted it to be about.

Let's cut to the chase: It really doesn't matter if Seattle area is doing better.

Mostly true, certainly to the larger argument, unless we're sidebarring on the odd notion that geography impacts inclination (instead of population and actual diversity within it).

All it really does is makes a hurdle, like the quote I gave from your article. What does it mean? It means simply that there is frustration because, correctly, we don't as a huge population, get it. Why? Because your experiences are far far away. Now, having said that, I've said and repeatedly that I understand at least a bit, because I lived in Detroit and I lived in Texas.

I think I asked when, how long, and where. Because those significantly impact the value of the experience, though both would be anecdotal and in need of larger support.

1) Yes, most of us see the problem of inequality.

I think polling indicates a great deal of white America doesn't really have their hands around that, but many do.

2) We've no idea how to 'fix' it, or if it all can be fixed. In Seattle/Tacoma, I think we do well YET racism hasn't or cannot be totally eradicated, just an attempt (that seems to be working) to do so in our pockets of community.

I think that's how it ultimately dies or is radically marginalized, street by street, so long as you have larger laws that make the war possible to win, like striking down Jim Crow.

3) "All Lives" is a response, not the black lives mattering but to the repercussions of lost lives and harsh interactions with 'whites.'

No, it isn't. It was coined in response to BLM as part of an effort to miss the point (drawing attention to historic inequities not present in other communities or not present to the extent of the problem among black populations) and dismiss the complaint in a soup of "Let's make sure everyone is equal," response. As a rebuttal. The fact remains that you don't have to tell me that white lives matter, or that blue lives matter, because that's a given within the dominant culture. It's reflected in the laws, their enforcement, and the response to injuries to them. Historically, and in the present, that's not the same reality for the black community, and to a lesser extent the Latino community, and to a much lesser extent, the Asian community.

We can do better in our communities and we can definitely do better in our churches. For 4 years, I attended a church in Portland called Newsong. It was half-white, half black and we truly enjoyed one another's company. The Pastor, a large black man, never let any of us out the door without a huge hug and I felt loved there. Anecdotal? Of course. I'm trying to get you to grasp what it looks like when I believe we are actually succeeding and doing it right. Maybe it isn't time for a glass half full. I recognize this too, but it has got to start somewhere.

I understand what progress looks like. The South is greatly changed from my youth and to the better by leaps and bounds where race is concerned. But there's a lot more that needs addressing and BLM is one of the voices sparking that conversation.

 

[ok doser]

meanwhile, the elephant in the room:

My bad - that was a graph of murder rates

 

[Lon]

Right. Anecdotes are worthless without knowing the methodology that addresses sampling size, questions asked, the nature of the groups sampled, that sort of thing. I could flip a coin 30 times and report the results to you. It wouldn't tell you much though.


Actually, I'm being consistent. You're trying to build an understanding on anecdote, like the guy from Kentucky, a single riot, a thing that happened at a school. I used the BLM declarations about what their aim is to give you and anyone reading an understanding of what their aims are as an organization.

ALL things are annecdotal. We can't prove much. Statistics without proper interpretation don't mean much. What started BLM, as I understand it, was a couple of incidents involving police where innocent and not-so-innocent lives were lost. ANOTHER optional response would have been a "Remove ALL Bad Cops" movement. Whatever we come up with, must be doable. There has to be a path toward a goal. The BLM 'demands' even you didn't think were great. For a moment, consider that you called thos bogus. For a moment, you too were saying "uhm, that part of my life matters, you aren't getting my house." For however long, you were a part of the 'all lives matter' response. I don't think you diminished, in any way, the value of a human life (regardless of color, but 'black' at the moment).

To put it another way. You're like a guy who can tell me fifteen times we failed our Constitution and saying that's who Americans are and I'm the guy saying you have too small a sample and, by the way, here's what our Constitution actually tells you we're about. Not what that guy told you he wanted it to be about.

Because of 'interpretation?' That talk is always going to be on the table. I believe the separation clause is interpreted incorrectly in the court system.

"BLM" the movement has had a LOT of problems stumbling out of the starting gate. Why? Because nobody agrees what it is about. For some black teens, it was a college campus all to themselves or a brand new television set. For one mother, it was keeping her son from rioting violently. For another, it was a reaction appropriately. What started it? The boy with the plastic gun? The man with a remote? The young man in trouble with the law who ran when ordered to stop? A key element to all of these were bad and/or poorly trained police officers. In order for a movement upon that premise to work, it needed to be something specific to get a nation behind it. How am I to do anything about police in Alabama or Georgia? It is a local problem. It may stem from a greater problem, but I can't do anything about it down there.


Mostly true, certainly to the larger argument, unless we're sidebarring on the odd notion that geography impacts inclination (instead of population and actual diversity within it).


I think I asked when, how long, and where. Because those significantly impact the value of the experience, though both would be anecdotal and in need of larger support.


I think polling indicates a great deal of white America doesn't really have their hands around that, but many do.[/QUOTE]

I think that's how it ultimately dies or is radically marginalized, street by street, so long as you have larger laws that make the war possible to win, like striking down Jim Crow.

No. It just needs a leader and I nominated you. The black community has much more voting power, but if I have the floor for a nomination, you've got my vote. You are passionate about this. Even if you are wrong on any bit, the passionate move will take care of that. There needs more articulation BECAUSE, as your article stated: Even the intelligent caring community 'trying' to understand didn't get it and the blacks left frustrated. It is going to need time and patience and longsuffering *(or something really good in equivalence).

No, it isn't. It was coined in response to BLM as part of an effort to miss the point (drawing attention to historic inequities not present in other communities or not present to the extent of the problem among black populations) and dismiss the complaint in a soup of "Let's make sure everyone is equal," response. As a rebuttal. The fact remains that you don't have to tell me that white lives matter, or that blue lives matter, because that's a given within the dominant culture. It's reflected in the laws, their enforcement, and the response to injuries to them. Historically, and in the present, that's not the same reality for the black community, and to a lesser extent the Latino community, and to a much lesser extent, the Asian community.

Yep, BECAUSE whites were kicked out of school violently by blacks, had their television store busted up and robbed and were told to turn over the keys to their cars and houses. Keep trying, you simply "can't" make that go away. You really can't wave this away, nor can your marine friend. It cannot happen. We can't unlearn or unwitness. Life doesn't work that way. You can't broadstroke or whitewash and that what I genuinely believe the two of you have done. Now, let me give you the frustration: I realize we all may be missing something, but you are NOT helping nor is your marine friend, by simply marginalizing what one or another genuinely believes. Horribly wrong? :nono: They are telling you, the article is telling, straight up, what the problem was and 'why' "All lives Matter" was the response. It is/was more of a "Hey! Don't attack whites and lump us all together! We matter too! Don't trample us."

I realize neither of you believe this. Can I make you? :nono: You 'can' believe whatever you like. Does it have a place in reality? That's the larger condition and I believe you and your marine friend aren't correct especially when you, by saying this or that black demand or retribution is misguided or nonsense. In effect, you too are saying the same thing, that one guy's television and another guy's house and another student's college......"Matter." If the marine says the same, then there is qualification upon his quote. Certainly with you there is.

I understand what progress looks like. The South is greatly changed from my youth and to the better by leaps and bounds where race is concerned. But there's a lot more that needs addressing and BLM is one of the voices sparking that conversation.

Well, agreement there. Our conversation is rather about your marine's quote and whether it was in anywise appropriate or not. It was the disagreement that needed fleshed out and I appreciate ALL of your input here (and thank you). Your brother in Christ, -Lon

 

[ok doser]

black lives mattered to a very large degree to my great x5 grandfather and grandmother who were passionately active in the abolition movement in NYS back in the early 1800's

black lives mattered greatly to my great x4 grandfather and grandmother who were among those who welcomed Frederick Douglass to Rochester and helped him publish The North Star

black lives mattered greatly to my great x3 grandfather and grandmother who supported the struggle to end slavery, by raising a regiment in Buffalo and fighting for the union

black lives mattered greatly throughout my family over the years, up to my mother and father returning to Rochester and working to alleviate the racial problems that plagued and continue to plague the city, through volunteerism in education and health care, housing and jobs

what do black activists owe me and my family for the sacrifices made by our forebears?

 

[Town Heretic]

ALL things are annecdotal.

Well, no, but the point is that the anecdotal is only useful in illustrating a rule determined by objective, testable, repeatable process.

We can't prove much.

We really can.

Statistics without proper interpretation don't mean much.

Now you're getting closer to my objection. Anecdotes and/or rankings without any sense of methodology and peer review are indistinguishable from propaganda.

What started BLM, as I understand it, was a couple of incidents involving police where innocent and not-so-innocent lives were lost.

There's always a point where someone just says, "Enough," but any movement begins with that in a lot of places by a lot of people sick of a thing. Then those people start finding one another and making their case.

ANOTHER optional response would have been a "Remove ALL Bad Cops" movement. Whatever we come up with, must be doable.

It's better to have an affirmational rallying cry, I think. It's not just about black men being more likely to be shot by the police than others.

There has to be a path toward a goal. The BLM 'demands' even you didn't think were great.

Actually, you won't find that list of demands on the main site. It's a guy in Kentucky.

For a moment, consider that you called thos bogus. For a moment, you too were saying "uhm, that part of my life matters, you aren't getting my house." For however long, you were a part of the 'all lives matter' response. I don't think you diminished, in any way, the value of a human life (regardless of color, but 'black' at the moment).

That wasn't the movement. It was a guy and some nodding yes inside of it. I posted the aim of the movement. No divestment of white property made it in.

Because of 'interpretation?' That talk is always going to be on the table. I believe the separation clause is interpreted incorrectly in the court system.

In what way?

"BLM" the movement has had a LOT of problems stumbling out of the starting gate. Why? Because nobody agrees what it is about.

They don't seem at all confused if you visit the main site or take a look at what I set out as their guiding principles from it.

For some black teens, it was a college campus all to themselves

Or maybe that was just a momentary, angry response to exclusion and fear. What it wasn't was an aim of the movement.

or a brand new television set.

When people steal it's not about a movement anymore than it was when it happened during some of those riots I noted during the Civil Rights Movement. Criminals may use a thing for their own purpose, but that's another animal.

What started it? The boy with the plastic gun? The man with a remote? The young man in trouble with the law who ran when ordered to stop? A key element to all of these were bad and/or poorly trained police officers. In order for a movement upon that premise to work, it needed to be something specific to get a nation behind it. How am I to do anything about police in Alabama or Georgia? It is a local problem. It may stem from a greater problem, but I can't do anything about it down there.

It's a national problem expressed locally. It's an institutionalized inequity that finds illustration in the particular. People only vote locally too, but that doesn't make voting a local issue.

No. It just needs a leader and I nominated you.

The last thing BLM needs is a white guy telling them how to go about things. They need partners in the white community who will listen and assist them, as any smaller group needs when addressing a power structure largely comprised of the dominant group.

Yep, BECAUSE whites were kicked out of school violently by blacks, had their television store busted up and robbed and were told to turn over the keys to their cars and houses. Keep trying, you simply "can't" make that go away.

I don't need to. I only need to point out what it isn't, as was the case with the riots during the Civil Rights Movement I noted.

You really can't wave this away, nor can your marine friend. It cannot happen. We can't unlearn or unwitness. Life doesn't work that way. You can't broadstroke or whitewash and that what I genuinely believe the two of you have done.

No idea why you believe any of that. It appears to be connected to the odd notion that if you can find people behaving badly enough or speaking stupidly enough, even if they're a sliver of a larger movement, that's the lens we should view the many by.

Now, let me give you the frustration: I realize we all may be missing something, but you are NOT helping nor is your marine friend, by simply marginalizing what one or another genuinely believes.

I am if they're rational and their approach isn't. If they aren't nothing I say will matter anyway and I'm not really speaking to them then, but to those with ears.

Horribly wrong? They are telling you, the article is telling, straight up, what the problem was and 'why' "All lives Matter" was the response.

The article that tried to pass off one guy's bad ideas as emblematic of a movement that doesn't feature them? Look, either you take my rebuttal point for point and tell me what's wrong in it or you keep saying it isn't so and I point to the argument that it is.

It is/was more of a "Hey! Don't attack whites and lump us all together! We matter too! Don't trample us."

They can't trample you. They don't have the numbers if they wanted to, and they don't want to.

I realize neither of you believe this. Can I make you? You 'can' believe whatever you like. Does it have a place in reality? That's the larger condition and I believe you and your marine friend aren't correct especially when you, by saying this or that black demand or retribution is misguided or nonsense.

Well, I think the demand was and is nonsense. What it isn't is a call from the movement. You can find a conservative that sounds like a racist. Does that frame conservatism? Of course not.

Well, agreement there. Our conversation is rather about your marine's quote and whether it was in anywise appropriate or not. It was the disagreement that needed fleshed out and I appreciate ALL of your input here (and thank you). Your brother in Christ, -Lon

Appreciated. I have to oppose some of your approach here strongly and hold your feet to the fire on points, but I appreciate your consideration. :cheers: