And Lausten, (re: your "no data" statement) do you ever have an opinion or perspective on anything, that you express, without waiting for a series of rigorous and replicated scientific studies to support it? If not, we will be waiting a long time for your perspectives and opinions. And if the day does come, I expect that the BLM movement will have come and gone, and will be a footnote in history, by then. If we always demand more data and more studies before we say or do anything, about anything, then we will never say or do anything, except wait for more data and studies.How can I have an opinion without data? Obviously it would be an uninformed opinion. It should also be obvious that BLM has been active for a year and has a ton of data showing if is a movement with integrity and results. When I said "no data", I meant no data supporting it AND data countering it. Oh, and I just saw this. Really people, two days, you couldn't wait two days when immediately there were questions about these two.] Like the article says, BLM is a "loosely organized" group. If you didn't know that, then you didn't know much about BLM and should not have been expressing an opinion on it.
And Lausten, (re: your "no data" statement) do you ever have an opinion or perspective on anything, that you express, without waiting for a series of rigorous and replicated scientific studies to support it? If not, we will be waiting a long time for your perspectives and opinions. And if the day does come, I expect that the BLM movement will have come and gone, and will be a footnote in history, by then. If we always demand more data and more studies before we say or do anything, about anything, then we will never say or do anything, except wait for more data and studies.How can I have an opinion without data? Obviously it would be an uninformed opinion. It should also be obvious that BLM has been active for a year and has a ton of data showing if is a movement with integrity and results. When I said "no data", I meant no data supporting it AND data countering it. Oh, and I just saw this. Really people, two days, you couldn't wait two days when immediately there were questions about these two.] Like the article says, BLM is a "loosely organized" group. If you didn't know that, then you didn't know much about BLM and should not have been expressing an opinion on it. OK, again thanks for the link. Here's another "data" point. I saw Alicia Garza, who was presented as co-founder of BLM, being interviewed and asked specifically about the 2 girls and the Bernie incident. Her response was something to the effect that power is never relinquished without demand. She spoke about the bravery of young people in the movement and their willingness to be put themselves forward. While I do not disagree with this, she made no hint of an apology or that one was due, for this particular incident. The BLM is an evolving movement. If everyone fails to discuss it until it fizzles out, or until it gets properly organized, it is likely to fade from the public consciousness all too soon. Should you have waited to express your inference/opinion: that I should not express an opinion because I don't know enough? I don't think so. I think your opinion is worth presenting now, not two days rom now. But back to my opinion. The BLM movement should get more organized, if being "loosely organized" leads to attacks (that not only look ridiculous) but may alienate their best allies (progressives) and which interferes with the Presidential campaign of the one man who would most likely do the most for their cause, were he elected. I am not critical of them because I want them to fail. I am critical of them because I want them to succeed.
I am not critical of them because I want them to fail. I am critical of them because I want them to succeed.I appreciate that. I'm not going to go back and trace exactly what you said when. My comments were made to the thread as a whole and I'll stick with them. There is not general "wait two days" rule. The action of the two women was unusual, it happened on a weekend when even well organized groups might not be around to answer the phone, and there were questions about them almost immediately. That adds up to a reason to be cautious in judgment.
I’ve been watching the BLM reps who have been interviewed on news shows. They are consistently unapologetic about going after Bernie the way they did in that event. They believe that it is an effective strategy to go after targets whose views are already closer to their own, but not all the way there. Maybe so. But I still think that it is potentially self defeating if you wind up making your best potential allies look bad, while letting your real opponents skate.
I've been watching the BLM reps who have been interviewed on news shows. They are consistently unapologetic about going after Bernie the way they did in that event. They believe that it is an effective strategy to go after targets whose views are already closer to their own, but not all the way there. Maybe so. But I still think that it is potentially self defeating if you wind up making your best potential allies look bad, while letting your real opponents skate.Short of an all black crowd, Bernie's crowds are probably as close as you'd come to 100% sympathy/agreement with the Black Lives Matter cause. And these idiots ended up making THAT audience mad at them and yelling at them. If that ain't stupid I don't know what is. And worse yet, an african american commentator on MSNBC drew the conclusion that the white crowd yelling at them was an indication of the CROWD's racism. Seriously? It never occurred to this pundit that maybe the disrupters were being disrespectful. Now THAT'S racist...whitey had to be showing their racism, not their anger at disrespect.
I've been watching the BLM reps who have been interviewed on news shows. They are consistently unapologetic about going after Bernie the way they did in that event. They believe that it is an effective strategy to go after targets whose views are already closer to their own, but not all the way there. Maybe so. But I still think that it is potentially self defeating if you wind up making your best potential allies look bad, while letting your real opponents skate.Short of an all black crowd, Bernie's crowds are probably as close as you'd come to 100% sympathy/agreement with the Black Lives Matter cause. And these idiots ended up making THAT audience mad at them and yelling at them. If that ain't stupid I don't know what is. And worse yet, an african american commentator on MSNBC drew the conclusion that the white crowd yelling at them was an indication of the CROWD's racism. Seriously? It never occurred to this pundit that maybe the disrupters were being disrespectful. Now THAT'S racist...whitey had to be showing their racism, not their anger at disrespect. Your reaction here, is my initial reaction, also. But from the BLM movement's perspective, they did the right thing, attacking Bernie. From interviews I have seen of BLM spokespersons, they appear to believe that they must demand that more be voiced in the presentation of their issues. And I can see their point. Also we see the effect: that Bernie immediately hired a BLM person to add to his campaign. Still, I share your concern about them projecting a reverse racism in this process, which will not be easily accepted by their non-black allies or potential non-black allies. And such would likely serve to further entrench and even motivate their opponents. So I still think it was a mistake for the BLM people to be so publicly disrespectful of Bernie and to accuse the crowd of being racist for responding negatively when they did so. If it had been white people storming the stage and pushing Bernie aside, to have their say, and to force Bernie to talk about, let's say AGW, I think that the crowd would have reacted just as vehemently.
I've been watching the BLM reps who have been interviewed on news shows. They are consistently unapologetic about going after Bernie the way they did in that event. They believe that it is an effective strategy to go after targets whose views are already closer to their own, but not all the way there. Maybe so. But I still think that it is potentially self defeating if you wind up making your best potential allies look bad, while letting your real opponents skate.Short of an all black crowd, Bernie's crowds are probably as close as you'd come to 100% sympathy/agreement with the Black Lives Matter cause. And these idiots ended up making THAT audience mad at them and yelling at them. If that ain't stupid I don't know what is. And worse yet, an african american commentator on MSNBC drew the conclusion that the white crowd yelling at them was an indication of the CROWD's racism. Seriously? It never occurred to this pundit that maybe the disrupters were being disrespectful. Now THAT'S racist...whitey had to be showing their racism, not their anger at disrespect. Your reaction here, is my initial reaction, also. But from the BLM movement's perspective, they did the right thing, attacking Bernie. From interviews I have seen of BLM spokespersons, they appear to believe that they must demand that more be voiced in the presentation of their issues. And I can see their point. Also we see the effect: that Bernie immediately hired a BLM person to add to his campaign. Still, I share your concern about them projecting a reverse racism in this process, which will not be easily accepted by their non-black allies or potential non-black allies. And such would likely serve to further entrench and even motivate their opponents. So I still think it was a mistake for the BLM people to be so publicly disrespectful of Bernie and to accuse the crowd of being racist for responding negatively when they did so. If it had been white people storming the stage and pushing Bernie aside, to have their say, and to force Bernie to talk about, let's say AGW, I think that the crowd would have reacted just as vehemently.Unfortunately, Bernie hiring an african american will be perceived as "giving in to demands" which in turn creates resentment that wasn't otherwise there.
I've been watching the BLM reps who have been interviewed on news shows. They are consistently unapologetic about going after Bernie the way they did in that event. They believe that it is an effective strategy to go after targets whose views are already closer to their own, but not all the way there. Maybe so. But I still think that it is potentially self defeating if you wind up making your best potential allies look bad, while letting your real opponents skate.Short of an all black crowd, Bernie's crowds are probably as close as you'd come to 100% sympathy/agreement with the Black Lives Matter cause. And these idiots ended up making THAT audience mad at them and yelling at them. If that ain't stupid I don't know what is. And worse yet, an african american commentator on MSNBC drew the conclusion that the white crowd yelling at them was an indication of the CROWD's racism. Seriously? It never occurred to this pundit that maybe the disrupters were being disrespectful. Now THAT'S racist...whitey had to be showing their racism, not their anger at disrespect. Your reaction here, is my initial reaction, also. But from the BLM movement's perspective, they did the right thing, attacking Bernie. From interviews I have seen of BLM spokespersons, they appear to believe that they must demand that more be voiced in the presentation of their issues. And I can see their point. Also we see the effect: that Bernie immediately hired a BLM person to add to his campaign. Still, I share your concern about them projecting a reverse racism in this process, which will not be easily accepted by their non-black allies or potential non-black allies. And such would likely serve to further entrench and even motivate their opponents. So I still think it was a mistake for the BLM people to be so publicly disrespectful of Bernie and to accuse the crowd of being racist for responding negatively when they did so. If it had been white people storming the stage and pushing Bernie aside, to have their say, and to force Bernie to talk about, let's say AGW, I think that the crowd would have reacted just as vehemently.Unfortunately, Bernie hiring an african american will be perceived as "giving in to demands" which in turn creates resentment that wasn't otherwise there. Bernie will be perceived as weak by Trump and those of his ilk. But not so much by thinking Americans. Unless you measure a man's strength by whether he can throw a stronger punch, or lift the heaviest weights, Bernie Sanders is not weak. He has demonstrated a strength of character in an almost singled minded, consistent, and persistent dedication to his beliefs and ideals for decades.
I've been watching the BLM reps who have been interviewed on news shows. They are consistently unapologetic about going after Bernie the way they did in that event. They believe that it is an effective strategy to go after targets whose views are already closer to their own, but not all the way there. Maybe so. But I still think that it is potentially self defeating if you wind up making your best potential allies look bad, while letting your real opponents skate.Short of an all black crowd, Bernie's crowds are probably as close as you'd come to 100% sympathy/agreement with the Black Lives Matter cause. And these idiots ended up making THAT audience mad at them and yelling at them. If that ain't stupid I don't know what is. And worse yet, an african american commentator on MSNBC drew the conclusion that the white crowd yelling at them was an indication of the CROWD's racism. Seriously? It never occurred to this pundit that maybe the disrupters were being disrespectful. Now THAT'S racist...whitey had to be showing their racism, not their anger at disrespect. Your reaction here, is my initial reaction, also. But from the BLM movement's perspective, they did the right thing, attacking Bernie. From interviews I have seen of BLM spokespersons, they appear to believe that they must demand that more be voiced in the presentation of their issues. And I can see their point. Also we see the effect: that Bernie immediately hired a BLM person to add to his campaign. Still, I share your concern about them projecting a reverse racism in this process, which will not be easily accepted by their non-black allies or potential non-black allies. And such would likely serve to further entrench and even motivate their opponents. So I still think it was a mistake for the BLM people to be so publicly disrespectful of Bernie and to accuse the crowd of being racist for responding negatively when they did so. If it had been white people storming the stage and pushing Bernie aside, to have their say, and to force Bernie to talk about, let's say AGW, I think that the crowd would have reacted just as vehemently.Unfortunately, Bernie hiring an african american will be perceived as "giving in to demands" which in turn creates resentment that wasn't otherwise there. Bernie will be perceived as weak by Trump and those of his ilk. But not so much by thinking Americans. Unless you measure a man's strength by whether he can throw a stronger punch, or lift the heaviest weights, Bernie Sanders is not weak. He has demonstrated a strength of character in an almost singled minded, consistent, and persistent dedication to his beliefs and ideals for decades. Then in the long run, Bernie could be stronger for it.
I've been watching the BLM reps who have been interviewed on news shows. They are consistently unapologetic about going after Bernie the way they did in that event. They believe that it is an effective strategy to go after targets whose views are already closer to their own, but not all the way there. Maybe so. But I still think that it is potentially self defeating if you wind up making your best potential allies look bad, while letting your real opponents skate.Short of an all black crowd, Bernie's crowds are probably as close as you'd come to 100% sympathy/agreement with the Black Lives Matter cause. And these idiots ended up making THAT audience mad at them and yelling at them. If that ain't stupid I don't know what is. And worse yet, an african american commentator on MSNBC drew the conclusion that the white crowd yelling at them was an indication of the CROWD's racism. Seriously? It never occurred to this pundit that maybe the disrupters were being disrespectful. Now THAT'S racist...whitey had to be showing their racism, not their anger at disrespect. Your reaction here, is my initial reaction, also. But from the BLM movement's perspective, they did the right thing, attacking Bernie. From interviews I have seen of BLM spokespersons, they appear to believe that they must demand that more be voiced in the presentation of their issues. And I can see their point. Also we see the effect: that Bernie immediately hired a BLM person to add to his campaign. Still, I share your concern about them projecting a reverse racism in this process, which will not be easily accepted by their non-black allies or potential non-black allies. And such would likely serve to further entrench and even motivate their opponents. So I still think it was a mistake for the BLM people to be so publicly disrespectful of Bernie and to accuse the crowd of being racist for responding negatively when they did so. If it had been white people storming the stage and pushing Bernie aside, to have their say, and to force Bernie to talk about, let's say AGW, I think that the crowd would have reacted just as vehemently.Unfortunately, Bernie hiring an african american will be perceived as "giving in to demands" which in turn creates resentment that wasn't otherwise there. Bernie will be perceived as weak by Trump and those of his ilk. But not so much by thinking Americans. Unless you measure a man's strength by whether he can throw a stronger punch, or lift the heaviest weights, Bernie Sanders is not weak. He has demonstrated a strength of character in an almost singled minded, consistent, and persistent dedication to his beliefs and ideals for decades. Then in the long run, Bernie could be stronger for it. One would hope so. It sort of depends on the ratio of thinking vs. non-thinking Americans and the ratio of Americans who are willing to admit and confront the existence and effects of institutionalized racism vs. those who aren't.
Then in the long run, Bernie could be stronger for it.One would hope so. It sort of depends on the ratio of thinking vs. non-thinking Americans and the ratio of Americans who are willing to admit and confront the existence and effects of institutionalized racism vs. those who aren't. This is quite true.
I thought it would be of interest to see what I and a few others had to say about “Black Live Matter” five years ago.
This was in a time when most U.S. Americans did not care for the movement.
Looks like I was pro-Black Lives Matter, but was highly critical of them for going after Bernie.
In retrospect, I was probably right. Bernie, the ultimate progressive candidate, would have most likely made the most progressive changes that would have served justice for all. If BLM had supported him instead of trying to get cheap media attention at his expense, maybe we would have a different world today with Bernie as our POTUS. Maybe most of the deaths by cops would not have even happened.
But that’s water under the bridge, except that it was the black vote that again defeated Bernie in the current Dem Primary.
That’s water under the bridge, also, at this point.
And now societies the world over are beginning to understand that “Black Lives (do) Matter”.
5 years ago, Mriana responded to my defense of Bernie:
Then in the long run, Bernie could be stronger for it.And I said "One would hope so. It sort of depends on the ratio of thinking vs. non-thinking Americans and the ratio of Americans who are willing to admit and confront the existence and effects of institutionalized racism vs. those who aren’t."
Well, now we know that the ratio was in the favor of the non-thinking Americans. Until now. Too late for Bernie to be POTUS, but maybe in time to get rid of our current Pro-Racist DOTUS.
I absolutely agree black lives matter and that there’s systemic racism. (I also admit I don’t know the full statistics regarding race and crime, for example what about Asians, Latinos, Irish (in the early 20th century), etc.) But I wonder if the BLM movement and the reactions as far as removing all things racist from America is going too far. More broadly, if every building, statue, etc. in the US was removed if the subject held beliefs or took actions related to anything we currently disagree with, I think we’d end up with nothing more than Build A, Interstate 123, and probably not a single statue. Then again maybe that IS the way it should be, like sports teams named after animals instead of ethnic groups. (Although what if 100 years from now we find out that animals have feelings and react to human portrayals negatively. Will we condemn our early 21st century selves for naming sports teams after animals?)
Sexual harassment’s wrong. Okay every building, street, etc. labeled JFK or MLK need to come down. Both were womanizers in positions of power. MLK was a serial adulterer and supposedly beat his wife. If the BLM movement is truth based, not itself racist, then MLK will have to go just like the rest, not for being a racist of course, but for being a misogynist - FLM - female lives matter. Right? Or should we be more intelligent about these matters and realize no one is an angel. Some on balance do good, some very good, for example…MLK. I read his words, and I couldn’t agree more. I read that he was a womanizer and adulterer. Should I say okay then his words and actions had no value? I don’t think so. And obviously there’s a matter of degree here. If a priest abuses kids, but also helps the needy, well okay how do you assess him? Not saying it’s easy and in the case of children, maybe even one instance is all it takes. But I AM thinking we shouldn’t treat the issue like it’s being treated currently.
Thoughts?
You agree that All Black Lives Matter. That’s a good start.
As to your point re: statues coming down,
I think it is great whenever it is a statue that was put up in the early 20th century as a re-emergence of and as symbols of white southern pride for the part played by the Confederacy in the failed attempt to maintain slavery.
Sure, any movement can go too far, if based solely on unrestrained emotion. For instance, the movement that got all of those statues put up, in the first place, in the early 20th century.
Thoughts?Thoughts? I think you are one hell of a thinker. You are all over the place and nowhere. I want to think like you.
How about this? Good people can do bad things. This doesn’t make them less good.
BLM is racist by definition. One group is singled out as preferred. Same as NAACP. If I replace “Black” and “Colored” with any other group will I be called racist? I heard one protester say that all lives cannot matter until black lives matter. In other words, black lives mattering must come first. That is as racist as one can get.
This black racism will accomplish nothing but strengthening the opinion of white people that black people hate white people.
It looks to me that what they want is for me to think about black people differently. For starters, they don’t know what I think, they make assumptions and generalizations putting me in a pigeon hole like they apparently feel they have been put in. Go ahead, hate me if you want to, but don’t think I will respond positively to being hated.
To be totally honest, I really don’t give a rip about 99% of the people in the world. If you are not part of my immediate environment, I see no need to recognize your existence or to interact with you in any way. If we pick an individual at random from somewhere in the world, what does he or she have to do with my life or your life? The truth is, probably not much. Why would I want to know your name or for you to know my name? Any concern I might have for you, even as a Christian, is mostly abstract. I believe in live and let live. Don’t bother me and I won’t bother you.
If you think protesting, rioting, burning, looting and racist slogans will induce me to seek contact and/or conversation with you, you are totally wrong. In fact, it will do exactly the opposite. I will help, and have helped, individuals who are trying to help themselves. I see no one promoting BLM trying to help himself. I see no goal that might be accomplished. I see nothing for me to help with. And defunding law enforcement? Get real.
I heard one protester say that all lives cannot matter until black lives matter. In other words, black lives mattering must come first. That is as racist as one can get.No. It means that black lives are included in the adjective "all".
That is a really dumb statement that you made. You want it to mean, as you say, it means “black lives mattering must come first.”
Black lives matter. If not, then it is not possible for “all” lives to matter, because you cannot have “all” lives without including black lives. “All” includes “all”, in case you are still having trouble understanding.
Iow, what that protestor said was not racist at all. It was just a statement of logic. (But I guess you would not know about that.)
However, your converting that statement into something racist and then blaming the racism on that protestor… well you might say “That is as racist as one can get.”
I believe in live and let live. Don’t bother me and I won’t bother you.The problem is that if you are black, you are going to be subject to disparities. And sometimes that is going to, in our society, mean that you will be unjustly discriminated against. This becomes particularly critical when it results in unnecessary deaths. (So it is not, as you say, "live and let live".)
If you want to do something for justice, try to get Moscow Mitch to get the Senate to approve the House Bill for police reforms.
you will be unjustly discriminated againstEvery person on the planet discriminates every day in a variety of ways. Unjust discrimination is "unjust" only because it is defined by law as unjust.
I don’t need a reason to not associate or converse with anyone. Requiring me to have a reason would be unjust.
What I heard the protester say meant to me exactly what he said. He left no doubt that black live matter must be the top priority.