So because some people show up who are of unknown affiliation (in some cases white nationalists), you want to argue that BLM is not about fighting police brutality? You are also undercutting your own argument - if you are critical of BLM for not fighting against black on black crimes, then you have to define what BLM is because apparently the organization which were the founders of the movement don't mean much to you. This is like asking why the civil rights movement didn't fight for gay rights and latino rights at the same time? Or why weren't they more considered with black on black issues and only segregation? Or if someone showed up to a civil rights march and committed violence that means the whole movement is also about violence. Do you see the fallacy in your logic?
Their very name is Black Lives Matter. They kick up a super storm if a cop or white person kills a black person. Either all black lives matter to this organisation, or none at all.
It is disingenuous of BLM to be so mightily concerned for only certain black deaths. I bet the parents of all these little black kids killed over the last couple weeks would agree.
So the name of an organization defines its mission? That's the first I ever heard of that. Honestly, it sounds like to me you are forcing your views upon a third party that you disagree with as a means to judge and dismiss that effort.
Is it disingenuous of Breast Cancer Awareness to be so mightily conerned only about breast cancer while not talking about lung cancer and heart disease? I bet the parents of the little black kids killed over the last couple of weeks are probably far more aware of the other groups from the community that are focused on and addressing the violence in their community since that is their stated mission, unlike BLM which has a different stated mission. The idea that if a group formed to battle a particular woe isn't legitimate because they don't address the other woes is laughable.
All black lives matter, and they are going to use their resources to focus on one aspect of those lives because there are already dozens of other organizations from the community dealing with the violence issue within that community. Yes, they do kick up a storm when a cop kills a black person because that cop rarely ends up going to jail for that death.
I actually see the fallacy in your method of argument. I did not mention black on black crime. Period. I don't know why you set up false arguments if your intent is to have an honest discussion. I understand if your response was really directed to multiple posts including my own. Was it? My concern is that BLM (the organization) appears to be using BLM (the movement or idea) to foster other goals. I don't see how vandalism, looting or violence serves the interest of BLM, the movement. If the response is that sometimes you need such conduct to draw attention to the cause, my personal view is that it is more likely to entrench or provide ammunition for those who would be against the cause. And to be clear, I see zero connection between tearing down statues of abolitionists/Lincoln and protesting police brutality. I also see zero benefit to the movement in many of the demands supposedly made by BLM. We were at what seems to be a unique moment in time where just about everyone (and everyone sane) recognized that what happened to George Floyd was murder. Pure and simple. The officers were arrested and facing what I assume we would agree our appropriate charges. I understand why people would still protest the act itself and the acts that came before it. I don't understand why BLM (the organization) would act in such a way as to undermine the cause with a significant slice of the population that was already in agreement. If the response is that was other people and not BLM (the organization), I'm going to need some educating. Because so far all I have heard is that the actual founders of BLM have goals/beliefs that are antithetical of our country's stated beliefs to date. And I have yet to hear any of the individuals affiliated with the organization (what organization? The one taking in huge donations) speak out against the criminal acts of the non-peaceful protesters (no offense to those protesting peacefully).
Franchise: I respectfully disagree. Have they (whoever "they" is, which to me seems to be a pressing question) limited their conduct to things addressing or protesting that particular cause? I think one would be hard pressed to find a fair, sane person who is in favor of police brutality. I get that there have been a number of cases where people disagree about whether the conduct was police brutality -- some in good faith, some perhaps not, but I don't think anyone fair could watch the video of George Floyd's murder and conclude it was anything but murder or at a minimum, manslaughter. I think it was murder. So, I would agree with your statement 100% if all of the conduct attributed to BLM (the movement) was actually directed at police brutality. It simply has not been. That doesn't take away from the protest and the protesters who are actually focused on police brutality. In my view, it does mean that those taking advantage of the moment to engage in crime deserve prosecution and condemnation -- as opposed to looking away because of the original cause. And if it is a larger movement than one solely against police brutality, than other issues, including hypocrisy, come into play and your argument does not apply. (As an aside, I am not a huge fan of taking the actions of one or more individuals and applying it generally to an entire group whether it is a profession, a gender or a race. I know you are not. There are clearly bad cops. There are also clearly cops who appear to fail under pressure whether out of fear or lack of appropriate training. There are also plenty of very good LEO's who risk their lives to protect us and society. So, while I recognize that some use "defund" to mean "reallocate a portion of the budget to worthy causes", others are truly advocating for abolishing the police. I don't understand that position. At all.)
I am fine with disagreement. The focus of BLM is absolutely police brutality which occurs at a higher rate against African-Americans. That is what their focus is. Defund the police means to start over with a new law enforcement organization that is properly trained, doesn't have a ton of extraneous expectations placed on them, isn't militarized, and works to fairly execute their jobs. The very good LEOs are welcome and would be encouraged to be a part of that new law enforcement agency. That is true even amongst many of those that say they should abolish the police. Abolish them so a better agency able to execute their jobs of protecting and serving the community can be built. It isn't just about changing their budget though that would happen. The idea behind that is resources spent to better handle mental issues, family issues, etc. will reduce the number of violent criminals in the populace so that they don't even become a law enforcement issue. That would make officers safer and our communities a better place all the way around. It would also help reduce the black on black crime that people use as a reason to bash BLM. Furthermore, it would keep black fathers at home with their families which again would also help address the black on black crime that folks claim nobody from BLM cares about. There may be a tiny amount of folks who prefer anarchy zero law enforcement at all. That isn't part of the BLM mission. https://nowthisnews.com/videos/poli...ctivist-speaks-at-pro-trump-rally?jwsource=cl This video might help develop a better understanding.
Whenever you hear criticism of law enforcement think about the systemic structure that effect it rather than thinking it's an attack on all individual cops. Police unions are systemically overprotective of cops where it is difficult for them to be held accountable. There is too much conflicts of interests around the nation in many districts between the DA's office and the local law enforcement. There also is a systemic issue of the type of people attracted to the proffesion.
I see one in yours. For example, a scientist who is looking for a cure for cancer isn't singling out one type of cancer like lung cancer - he wants to cure them all.
Equivocation. Either the organization changes it's name to Only Politically Expedient Black Lives Matter or they look at the entire problem. That's if they actually care about black children being gunned down.
Apples and oranges. Breast cancer awareness is an education and program which also seeks to advance cancer research by raising money. They don't do the actual research and biology.
Once again, they should be looking at all, repeat all black lives. Especially children. That is, if they want to be seen as actually caring about black lives. You can equivocate about this all day but you will always be wrong.
You know how conservites like you claim that BLM is a Marxist organization? Ya, they advocate for more socialized programs such as universal healthcare and an extreme change in how we fund local k-12 schools. Guess what. They and I along with many others believe THAT is the solution to black on black crime. Economic solutions.
