Why can't communities decide on law enforcement or not?

Post Reply New Topic

The idea is fine,
The stupidity is tens of thousands protesting in a pandemic.

Okay, but what the exact kind of goals and methods and goals that you do not agree with the organization? And where did you hear about them from?

Please tell me that it wasn't something like you heard from Fox News that the BLM movement believe in using violence to force people into bowing and plan some sort of black supremacy goal.

Their own website. It used to be much more overt about their long term goals than it is now. I'm thinking it was around 2 years ago when I saw it, it might be archived somewhere. Past that you can see it in their actions. Right now, it's clear they want the police destroyed, they're not shy about telling you that. And it's obvious that they won't simply sit back if that happens, they'll want to run the show from there. They often don't protest peacefully, preferring direct action. Force, intimidation, gaslighting. You're with us or you're against us. I've come to my own conclusion, that black power is the ultimate goal. They might not necessarily think they are the superior race, but they want to be in charge of it all.

There are some within the BLM who really don’t like white people too much.

Some don’t mind them so much.

Some are actually white.

I have actually been hearing the proposals for defunding the American police and it is actually pretty fascinating. The idea is that most things that police are called out onto are things like mental health checks, and how the police are trained militarily makes them terrible for the job. So the idea is to have services that are not armed and twitchy like your police are to handle the majority of things that don't require the sort of things you kit your police out with.

It is crazy if you look at the statistics that police are one of the only industries that have kept up with GDP, and makes up ridiculous percentages of city budgets that could be used for services despite crime being the lowest it has ever been, and things probably could be help communities more.

I am sorry if this sounds like I am calling you a liar, but I don't that two years ago you looked on their website and it had something overtly evil and for black supremacy. Can you trust that you did not misinterpret what was written, or you were influenced a racist like Stefan Molyneux? I would like an actual reason rather than a half remembered vague feeling that you remember having.

And I really can't express it any clearer that I think it is insane to believe that they have some plot of them filling a power vacuum of police, they are a loosely structured organization/movement that mostly just stand behind guiding principles, and as the Wikipedia article puts it there has been confusion in the press in accepting comments from a particular person as representative of the whole thing. And it is the loose structure that can have mistake a few angry individuals as representative of the vast majority of those who practice non-violent protest, or even allow people to try and coopt their image just to discredit it. I think that you are following a conspiracy theory to think that they have some goal to control everything.

Social workers and EMTs are not trained for law enforcement work.

Hate to say it: there are criminals out there of all races who are criminals...because they want to be criminals.

We can’t just dismantle the police. We can reform the police, though.

The problem has been that reforming has not worked so well, to the core your police and its union have refused to let itself change.

Minneapolis itself tried to ban 'warrior training', the sort of thing that actually instills aggressive training into the police, so the police union offered it free to officers in defiance to the mayors orders.. You also arm your police with military equipment, which makes the police more likely to use excessive force. The police unions keep pushing for things that keeps making them more dangerous, and they are all pretty solid with things like blue code to not speak out.

The truth is that your police are actually not like what other countries have, and rather than pretty much trying to herd cats to make the police change, it would be easier to make something new that is like what other countries have.

I've seen a bit of that myself. Some selective reallocation of funds could be something worth looking at, especially with mental health. But BLM don't want that.

It's okay. I wouldn't be changing my mind if the situation was reversed either. It's frustrating, I've brought up the website before and wanted to do it again early on with this Floyd situation, but they've (in terms of furthering their goals) done a good job with their website changes. They've got some lip service for other minority groups there now, and that radical long term stuff is gone, they seem to be only talking about the present tense plans on the site now. And yes I did see it for myself, loading up their website. I don't know how you go about doing an archive search. There is one interesting new addition to the website which I don't think was there last time I looked:

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/



That makes me think this is another power play. With the influence of the parents removed, who will the primary influencers of the new generation be? The "village" heads, BLM.

There's a lot of that usual empty love and empathy talk. That typical vague lefty stuff. That insubstantial language, a lack of specifics that makes it hard to attack while not telling you anything. It used to be much more concrete and up front about what they want.



Yes, you're not qualifying your position anymore, so I can't attack it.

Speaking of the wikipedia article, it does have a good overview of the actions of BLM over the years. Make of that what you will.

Kind of looks like you are jumping at shadows, like your presume they are trying to make a power play instead bring back a sense of community, that can help support everyone without trying to force people into the nuclear family that can create more trouble.

You also seem convinced that BLM is believe that force is the rightful method, and then complain that it emphasises things like empathy. You also complaining about a lack of specific legislation in a part of what they believe. Do you think perhaps the section was meant to use more vague as a mission statement to have an open discussion for everyone to figure out what can be done rather than act as an authority telling people what to policies they have to follow?

They are not creating some army out of some plan to take over law enforcement, rather that many voices that follow empathy could speak for themselves. You seem to think that BLM is both too organized with a plan to take over, and too vague to be meaningfully criticized on a particular thing it is fighting for, other than love and empathy.



Take a look at this old political cartoon that came out around when Martin Luther King was doing his movement that is now in broad strokes considered very reasonable.



It is the exact kind of thing you see being used now for BLM protests, where they are being treated like they are dangerous thugs that are just causing damage without actually having a good point. I think that everyone can agree that he had a good point then, but also things were not actually fixed and we have go through this same song and dance of people thinking black people trying to have people listen to then us dangerous. And if the needed change actually comes, do you know how people are going to see those acting like BLM was some nefarious organization? The same as the type of person that made the bellow comic.

I'll have a proper look at your post later on Bradleigh, as I have to go for the moment. This has been driving me crazy trying to find what I remember. I will in fairness say I found an early archive of BLM and they still had stuff about minorities and "black villages" there, so that's not a recent addition as I thought. It had the yellow and black colour scheme I remember, but I couldn't find what I was looking for. I found this though, which should go some way to proving what I've been saying about BLM wanting power and having a much wider scope to their plans:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bl ... da-n620966

Annoyingly, that link in there to the full list of demands is dead. I wonder if that is what I remember?

The only thing I could find it that article that could sound relevant was: 6. Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society.

Oh no, they want representation.
You realize it also says "independent black political power", not saying that it wants BLM political power. BLM aims to represent all black people, but not all black people are a representation of BLM or some fight of taking over society.

The article is actually pretty cool in how addresses things like black people part of LGBTQ, and wanting the retroactive decriminalization of non violent crimes like drug offenses and sex work, laws that overwhelmingly punish the poor.

I was thinking more about the BLM and supporting the struggle of the black population (which I do). The issue at hand the complicates things are the riots and the violence rather than the protests. I read last night that they estimate the damage in Minneapolis to be a half a billion dollars with over 1,000 buildings damaged and a good number of them destroyed beyond repair. I think the half a billion dollars was Minneapolis alone rather than across the country. I could be wrong on that. I've read some quote to the effect of: "Riots are the voice of the voiceless". Many people are condoning the destruction and it may continue for who knows how long. It's complicated because it's impossible to tell how many of the rioters are BLM and how many are opportunist criminals who may not even really support BLM but are using this lawless opportunity to destroy for the sake of destruction. I also understand that there have to be many BLM that are peaceful, but they're not being heard; the attention is being given to the rioters.

Using autistics as an example. It would be problematic in a number of ways if autistics as a whole were unified in wanting change for themselves but were divided into a peaceful group and a fractious group with the fractious group having the voice, rioting, destroying, beating and even in a few cases killing people, etc and then the peaceful and the fractious group were both asking NTs to show solidarity for autistics. I don't see that happening because of the violence. I think that's what's going on in that many people are taking a symbolic knee of support, but other people aren't because the people who aren't are taking issue with the fractiousness and are against it. By taking a knee, are people in some way then condoning the violence and destruction? I think they are in a way. And rather than every single person who isn't "taking a knee" being racist, I would argue that most are probably against the violence and the destruction in the hundreds of millions of dollars as a means for change.

When one has grown accustomed to believing in their alleged superiority over others, being declared their equal feels like an insult.  Some people reject the idea that they are equal under the law to someone of another gender-identity, nationality, race, religion, sex, or political ideology.  For example, the very idea that a "conservative" is no better than a "liberal" is enough to send some people into conniptions.

^ I agree with this. Equally, the very idea that a "liberal" is no better than a "conservative" is enough to send some people into conniptions.

I won't discount the possibility you could be right that this point is benign. It's the language used. Why disrupt the nuclear family? Why paint the nuclear family as a negative? Why not simply offer up your alternative? If done right, it could potentially help the black community with the very high % of black children raised in single parent households. But if they're already looking at the nuclear family as a negative, I'm not hopeful of that.

I don't think BLM think force is the right method, but I do think they see it as a legitimate tool to getting what they want and will use it. The difference between those cartoons about King and BLM is King went out of his way to try and make his movement peaceful. I don't see that from BLM. I think it's deliberately vague so they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean at the time and not be able to be restrained by it. Being vague also let's you cast a wider net for allies. Now that you mention about "an open discussion for everyone to figure out what can be done rather than act as an authority telling people what to policies they have to follow?" though, at least in my experience, I'll give you that while BLM don't seem to ever call for peaceful protests, they also seem to in general give the people who do things under their banner plenty of autonomy to do it the way they want to. There isn't much oversight from the top as far as I can tell. Maybe that's part of why they've enjoyed the success they have, with this, they aren't suffering from the radical left's tendency to eat each other. I think they'd do even better if they didn't relegate non-minorities to ally status.

It was the plan I had a problem with, not the level of organisation in BLM. Even if I didn't like the plan, I could respect them on some level for laying it out there. I can't say the same for this vagueness.

There you go!  One person's ideology is no better than any other person's ideology.  People on this website frequently voice the complaint that their posts have been removed; but the reason they get in trouble has nothing to do with their opinions being "conservative" or "liberal" -- it's their bad manners.  What I have observed is that such people really do not seem to know how to discuss ideas, but only how to find other people's "buttons" and then push those "buttons" at every opportunity.  Others just seem to want to politicize and polarize every discussion so as to prevent any consensus being made -- another reason why communities cannot decide on law-enforcement policies.