[666maslo666]

If the goal of your movement is specifically to address police racism and increased brutality against black people only, then focusing on black people is correct. And there is nothing wrong with such movement, certainly anti-black racism among the police does exist.

But police brutality also affects other races. If your goal is to address police brutality in general, then making it about race is very much counterproductive and doesnt make sense.

[Bobboau]

Obligatory

yeah, it really was.

and yeah, what he said.^

[Bobboau]

ok, Josh, I do get the joke, I see the humor. But you do see why that's complete strawman of what I said, right?
or is that actually how you see the situation?

[Grizzly]

ok, Josh, I do get the joke, I see the humor. But you do see why that's complete strawman of what I said, right?
or is that actually how you see the situation?

Not really. However, I do think that framing the black lives matter movement as race-exclusionary is in itself a strawman. The implication there would be that you're not allowed to complain when you're not black. But black lives matter does not focus on blacks because blacks, but because it's primarely black people that get slaughtered lately (12 year old kids and everything). So, the focus is currently on black people as that is where the most pressing concern is right now.

[Phantom Hoover]

maybe you should've said that first instead of a snarky comic that just invites hostility, then

[Bobboau]

right so it is, as the hashtag would suggest, focusing on black people exclusively?

that's obvious, right? I mean, I'm basically restating a small part of what you just said, right?


what is the problem here? that innocent people are being mowed down by the government for no reason? or that it's not happening to white people more?

[Grizzly]

what is the problem here? that innocent people are being mowed down by the government for no reason? or that it's not happening to white people more?

The former, and the inverse of the latter: That it is happening to black people more, which does suggest problems beyond police brutality.

maybe you should've said that first instead of a snarky comic that just invites hostility, then

I did not intend to invite hostility. Sorry!

[Bobboau]

That's just a different wording of the same thing.
So, you've got two things here. First, police feel like they have the right to just murder anyone they like combined with an ability to get away with it. Second they seem to like murdering black people more than white. I just think that focusing on the second issue takes an issue that should be a grave concern to everyone and makes it needlessly divisive. It's like you're handicapping yourself. In fact if I were a conspiracy theorist I'd probably think it was aliens. oh, also  that the aliens had somehow manipulated the situation like this so nothing actually gets solved for some nefarious purpose, because if I were trying to sabotage a movement that threatened to upset the authoritarian monopoly on power the police have, I'd probably try to distract everyone with something that would just end up splintering all resistance. I mean this is almost exactly what happened to Occupy Wallstreet, there was a good solid core issue, that got buried under all sorts of inane identity politics bull****, and the end result is no coalition was built, and nothing changed,

[Grizzly]

That's just a different wording of the same thing.
So, you've got two things here. First, police feel like they have the right to just murder anyone they like combined with an ability to get away with it. Second they seem to like murdering black people more than white. I just think that focusing on the second issue takes an issue that should be a grave concern to everyone and makes it needlessly divisive. It's like you're handicapping yourself. In fact if I were a conspiracy theorist I'd probably think it was aliens. oh, also  that the aliens had somehow manipulated the situation like this so nothing actually gets solved for some nefarious purpose, because if I were trying to sabotage a movement that threatened to upset the authoritarian monopoly on power the police have, I'd probably try to distract everyone with something that would just end up splintering all resistance. I mean this is almost exactly what happened to Occupy Wallstreet, there was a good solid core issue, that got buried under all sorts of inane identity politics bull****, and the end result is no coalition was built, and nothing changed,

I would disagree that they are a different wording for the same thing. "White people don't get shot enough" is really not a cause to rally around .

The police brutality seems to focus almost entirely around black people, indeed giving the impression that, say, the St. Loius police force genuinely feels that black lives do not matter. Putting the focus on the people who need help the most should not cause any division at all - the two issues are not mutually exclusive, and focusing on the racial issues that black people are the victims of the most will not lead to more people from other racial groups getting murdered, whilst disregarding the influence of racism means that an extremely significant problem of the police force (and, indeed, society in general, as this is a perfect example of institutionalized racism at play) will go unadressed. You can't make racism go away by pretending it does not exist.

And yet, somehow, simply saying that racism is a problem is considered a dividing issue  . This in itself is a big issue! It shouldn't be!

[GhylTarvoke]

The fact that victims of police brutality are disproportionately black is indeed a big issue. Racial profiling is not the only possible cause, but it may be the primary one.

[jr2]

Don't want this to derail the discussion, but police being almost by definition authoritarian assholes probably has something to do with American gun culture.

I would attribute that more to the position being ripe for abuse by bullies.  So, if that position allows bullies to assert themselves without fear of reprisal, they will seek to fill those positions.  You get the same thing with asshats joining the military and later soiling the image of American forces everywhere.  On the flip side, if things don't go so well for the bully and they end up being bullied themselves, they might seek to take out their frustrations in another manner (see: 'gun-free zone' shooting sprees).

It's just opportunistic assholes using what they see as an opportunity to do things their way.  The American policing method might have worked / still work if you have responsible, self-sacrificing individuals who genuinely care about the communities they serve, but if you get a good-ol' boy circle jerk going on in the local PD, it can easily turn into the nightmare that makes the headlines now.

So while not every officer / PD is bad, the policies of giving every LEO as much leeway as possible with as little accountability as possible just doesn't cut it. 

Bodycams and different engagement tactics might make the job harder for the honest officers who are just trying to do their job to the best of their ability, but they will understand the reasons why this must happen if they aren't brainwashed by the establishment who either doesn't want to bother with it or are actively abusing the system.

[Bobboau]

Josh, it's not saying racism that is divisive, it's saying only that black lives matter that is divisive. It literally divides people into two groups, and it even labels those two groups 'lives that matter' and 'lives that do not matter'. It should be pointed out that included in that second group are (non-black) women, Latinos, Asians, every poor person who is not also black, literally every person who is not black. If 90% of police brutality cases are of black people, then it's appropriate to spend 90% of the energy perusing those cases, so it's not like I'm saying we should be looking for the one white guy to promote as much as the 9 black guys. I don't think it's appropriate to take police brutality and turn it into racism, because now my life doesn't matter, so why should I care? I guess you don't need my inconsequential support. Think of it as a marketing/message problem, this is not an inclusive way of doing things. What is your objective? Is this the best way of achieving this objective? Could anything about it have been done better? It's probably too late to possibly change any of this, but it's good to learn from your mistakes so you can do better the next time/if you get another chance even if you have to stick with something suboptimal in order to try and get as much good out of it as you can because you're basically locked in to it due to momentum. I just look at this whole situation and I weep for what could have been, the missed golden opportunity, this could have been a amazing unifying movement but then it got turned around into... this. why?

[Scotty]

It's incredibly disingenuous to assume and interpret that because 'Black lives matter' that all other lives do not.  Come on, Bob.

[Bobboau]

you don't think that's how it comes off? I'm not saying it was intentional.

[jr2]

Assuming that indeed that's what the movement has turned into, it would be because the people at the top of the movement didn't steer it right.  Or a lot of people at the bottom hijacked it.  Or both.

[Grizzly]

you don't think that's how it comes off?

No.

[NGTM-1R]

you don't think that's how it comes off? I'm not saying it was intentional.

That's kinda nutty, Bob. The point of saying Black Lives Matter is that they are being undervalued in comparison to others, not that they should be the only ones with value.

I dunno, do you just assume whenever someone says that "x matters" they are automatically saying nothing else does? As a phrase it's usually deployed to indicate something is being undervalued.

[Bobboau]

Ok, but if I were to say 'white lives matter', how would that sound to you? How the **** is it that 'all lives matter' is considered racist?

[Scotty]

Ok, but if I were to say 'white lives matter', how would that sound to you? How the **** is it that 'all lives matter' is considered racist?

The problem is that it's in response, Bob.  It's condescending in the extreme when it's not being used to actively attack the other movement.  "All lives matter" isn't racist inherently, it's when it's used as a counter-point response to "Black lives matter".  There's a deeply implied "no, you're wrong" in there.

[NGTM-1R]

Ok, but if I were to say 'white lives matter', how would that sound to you?

Stupid. Unless you're dealing with the Nuwabian Nation of Moors or something then there's nobody who would challenge the statement or the practical application that white lives are valued by society in general and governmental agencies with police powers in particular.

How the **** is it that 'all lives matter' is considered racist?

Because while literally true it has been employed in a racist fashion; it presupposes that the burden falls equally, and it is used to critique those who are aware it does not and want it to.