you can't be arrested for associations.
it's not illegal to be a member of the bloods or crips, for example, even though they are literally and explicitly criminal organizations. you cannot make it illegal to be a member of blm. that's why what you're saying is so confusing to me.
your viewpoint on their criminal nature is informed solely by selection bias, though, so it ultimately doesn't matter. you can keep bringing up ferguson if you want. that happened, was awful, and is atypical.
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
What does it even mean to be a member of BLM? Are they registering users? Do they have a hierarchy? Is anyone who claims to be a member of BLM a member? This whole talk about making BLM a criminal organization seems pretty silly when BLM seems hardly an organization anyway, but rather a hashtag "movement" that people user for their own reasons. It's as much an organization as #MAGA is.
What does it even mean to be a member of BLM? Are they registering users? Do they have a hierarchy? Is anyone who claims to be a member of BLM a member?
This whole talk about making BLM a criminal organization seems pretty silly when BLM seems hardly an organization anyway, but rather a hashtag "movement" that people user for their own reasons. It's as much an organization as #MAGA is.
Yet, although [Cullors, Tometi, and Garza] are among the most identifiable names associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, none of them officially belong to a chapter of the organization. Elzie, in fact, takes issue with people referring to Garza, Cullors, and Tometi as founders. As she sees it, Ferguson is the cradle of the movement, and no chapter of the organization exists there or anywhere in the greater St. Louis area. That contentious distinction between the organization and the movement is part of the debate about what Black Lives Matter is and where it will go next.
Those chapters aren't really linked to a national hierarchy, though, despite you claiming that.
Cullors, Tometi, and Garza are not part of any local chapters
QuoteYet, although [Cullors, Tometi, and Garza] are among the most identifiable names associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, none of them officially belong to a chapter of the organization. Elzie, in fact, takes issue with people referring to Garza, Cullors, and Tometi as founders. As she sees it, Ferguson is the cradle of the movement, and no chapter of the organization exists there or anywhere in the greater St. Louis area. That contentious distinction between the organization and the movement is part of the debate about what Black Lives Matter is and where it will go next.
So of those six people you said were part of the nationwide structure, four of them are in no way affiliated with these local chapters.
And Shaun King is not affiliated with the Black Lives Matter organization either.
The fact that Bernie Sanders's rally was hijacked by BLM protestors is just further evidence that they are unorganized. No one told this Seattle chapter to do this. They just did it. Likewise, there is no BLM organization telling people to riot or commit violence.
I'm not sure how you're going to make this into some sort of criminal organization when the only semblance of organization is in local chapters with no oversight.
They certainly aren't organizing acts of violence
People are committing crimes. Whether or not they identify with a social justice warrior movement without structure shouldn't be a concern if the United States is to value the First Amendment.
I'm not suggesting that it should be illegal to be a member of BLM. I'm suggesting that BLM should be declared "literally a criminal organisation". It's a negligible distinction legally, but an important one from a social standpoint.
How would that help socially? It'd just end up triggering millions of BLM'ers all across the country, and be taken as proof that black lives don't matter to the government.
I mean essentially what you are proposing wouldn't do anything.
The US is not going to start arresting people for thoughtcrimes
BML is not organized crime
The closest thing you can point to that makes them a "criminal organization" is riots its members have been a part of but that BLM does not organize or endorse.
I don't think you've given any compelling reason why the response to BLM should be anything more than arresting and punishing violent criminals that are a part of it.
I asked you to illuminate me with your own selections. Your best response was that some of them vote.
I can't re-evaluate my viewpoints if I'm not being presented with new information, and searching by myself has so far only made me realise that I was giving them too much credit and that they're far worse than I originally suspected (you may have noticed my rhetoric becoming harsher throughout this conversation - that's why)
what more is required to be a peaceful activist?
that the overwhelming majority of blm activists choose to restrict themselves to these methods is the thing that you are failing to appropriately consider.
Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 12:34:29 PMI can't re-evaluate my viewpoints if I'm not being presented with new information [...]i'm all ears.[...]
I can't re-evaluate my viewpoints if I'm not being presented with new information [...]
ferguson was bad, but you certainly don't have to be a member of blm to live in ferguson.
the bernie interruption wasn't violent. that's civil disobedience. i disagree with it, but i don't think it's a good example of how blm is systemically violent or criminal.
i have no trouble spotting you that there are at least three people associated with blm who are shitty, stupid people with racist points of view. i dunno who those particular three you mentioned are, but i bet i could find three similarly distasteful individuals in literally any organization you care to name.
this is sort of my whole point right from the start: merely listing a handful of examples of shitty things/people and then pointing to their superficial connections as evidence of anything is basically the definition of a hasty generalization.
i also don't get how "asking for disproportionate amounts of compassion and outrageously light sentences for the perpetrators" is an endorsement of violence.
criminal defense attorneys, for example, are paid to do exactly that. that doesn't mean criminal defense attorneys endorse the crimes of their clients. that's nonsense.
at the very least it's a far, far cry from the proto-terrorist violent criminal race-riot-factory you make them out to be.
"Activism" has its etymological roots in the word "active". Actually doing something would be a good start. Consult this Wikipedia article for guidance.Now, peaceful demonstrations are a good example of activism. "Uhhh some of them vote tho" is not.
But, as usual, it's not about individual numbers, it's about impact.
Quote from: garygreen on January 13, 2017, 05:57:27 PMQuote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 12:34:29 PMI can't re-evaluate my viewpoints if I'm not being presented with new information [...]i'm all ears.[...]I can only assume that this is another one of your "misunderstandings", and not a deliberate attempt at misdirection. I asked you for information and your response is "I'm all ears". Like, what?
But let's see, off the top of my head: Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Oakland [e: ooh, almost forgot Milwaukee]. That's only major acts of violence and looting, I'm deliberately leaving explicit verbal calls for violence out to make the list somewhat bearable.
Are they in charge or are they random members? 'Cause, y'know, that's what makes or breaks this argument.
Really? They are requesting that the violence of one group, and one group in particular, is to be taken less seriously than equivalent crimes perpetrated by other groups. Do you really not see how that's dangerous, or at the very least unfair?
peaceably demonstrating is doing something.
voting is also doing something. not voting is not doing something. plenty of folks choose not to exercise their right to vote. recall that my argument here is simply that the overwhelming majority of blm members choose nonviolent means to achieve their political objectives. "but voting is too pedestrian" doesn't respond to what i'm saying. it's nonviolent, and it's an action to support a political objective. criteria met.
i don't dispute that a small number of individuals can have a large impact on things, but that doesn't speak to my argument. that a small number of people can do tremendous violence doesn't have anything to do with whether or not their political affiliations cause the violence they do.
and, most importantly, you don't have to be a member of blm to live in those cities.
my argument from the beginning has been that all you're doing is listing some bad things that happened, identifying a single, loosely common factor, and then asserting that one caused the other.
ask me on friday/zing
i definitely disagree that people who do violence should be given lighter sentences because of race. i even probably agree that it's dangerous, but i don't think it's the same as saying that you endorse the act of the perpetrator. to me that's like saying forgiveness is an endorsement of the act one forgives; that's a conflation of two different things. sympathy/empathy/forgiveness aren't endorsement.
again, there are probably a bunch of dummies out there doing both, but i'm just not interested in being so myopic toward the worst exemplars of an ideology, especially when i know that there are a bunch of other common factors, like poverty, lack of education, feeling disenfranchised, etc. that i already know for sure do cause violence.
if the black folks in bel air ever start burning cars, torturing their white neighbors, and planting flaming blm flags on their lawns, then i'll be more persuaded.
You take a very absolutist approach to "correlation does not imply causation", and I can't fault you for that. I just disagree that in case of a particularly strong correlation we can't infer at least some causality. The leaders of the movement actively organise events, and those events frequently turn violent, with said leaders being directly involved in the violence. It's really hard for me to just shrug that off.