Sangersteve wrote:Read an op/ed this morning about how all lives matter equals a racist statement. The author explained in detail how BLM is a movement that is necessary to stop cops from killing black people, and all lives matter is trying to take away the focus from BLM. So therefore it's racist.
Not once in the op/ed was it mentioned that 99.999% of all blacks killed by police was because of the "victim" was aggressive toward police or in the commission of a crime.
Never mentioned that the highest rate of homicide by percentage is black on black.
Didn't say anything about BLM not protesting about black on black murder.
Nope nothing about a 9 year old black girl being killed by a drive by shooter.
Forgot to mention that planned parenthood is the largest murderer of black people.
So do black lives matter to the BLM movement? It doesn't appear to.
What matters to BLM is that they continue to riot, loot, and burn, all based on a lie of hands up don't shoot and a I can't breathe fallacy.
So another George Soros funded moral outrage is nothing more than a movement by race baiters to divide us based on race.
I've read this post over and over. It is so wrong it defies belief. Had the same statements not began to come from police I might have left it alone totally. But, I thought about the old saw about all evil needs to triumph is for good people to remain silent (or inactive or whatever). So, I have to comment.
First, I don't agree with the op-ed totally but, I do pretty much totally disagree with you...mostly because you demonstrate NO understanding of your topic. Your first problem seems to be you have no idea of WHAT BLM is. Let me run over that for you. BLM is an essentially social media based "movement" focused on stopping institutional violence and discrimination against Black people and communities...that is it. They want cops to stop killing them first and justifying it later and for the State to hold officers who do kill blacks or do violence to black communities accountable. I'm not even sure they have a formal mission statement but anyone caring to understand the movement can reach this conclusion by researching the founders and reading their statements.
BLM only has a very minor brick and mortar presence. It does not consist of "organized" chapters or units as we know them. Most action on the local level has been entirely local in origin and objective. Essentially, anyone can claim to represent BLM. The high profile cases like Sanders were totally local. So, to say that "they" have some agenda beyond that stated is just nonsense...there is no "they". They are non-violent and peaceful from all I can see.
But what is important is their objective. They are specifically focused on institutional violence and discrimination against the black population and black communities. This seems to be what bothers folks like you the most. Their name doesn't effectively reflect their objective so you can intentionally misunderstand and dismiss it. You can claim their NAME means something it doesn't. So, given the ACTUALLY purpose of the movement, most of your complaints amount to nonsense regarding black on black violence and such. It is like complaining because the Komen Foundation doesn't care about prostate cancer...silly and indefensible.
Now, some other points...like your first.
Not once in the op/ed was it mentioned that 99.999% of all blacks killed by police was because of the "victim" was aggressive toward police or in the commission of a crime.
That is probably because there is no proof of that. There isn't even a way to determine that figure. We do not know with any certainty how many civilians are killed annually by police because there is no requirement to report these killings and no clearing house for the data if it was submitted. All we have is partial reports and studies and statistically projections. As far as the circumstances of these killings I'm sure the vast majority were written up under the rules that best protected the officer. But, we cannot really know. What we do know is that the last year of abuses now casts the testimony of all involved officers in doubt. You are taking what you want to be true and pretending it is a fact. It isn't even a defensible opinion.
Next we have this distraction.
Forgot to mention that planned parenthood is the largest murderer of black people.
Even if it is true (and I do not accept your noise about Sanger as having any meaning or relevance today), SO WHAT. No one at PPA shot anyone then got off scot free while the victim was vilified. Can you just not stay on topic.
Then we have this bit of slander (and I mean that literally).
What matters to BLM is that they continue to riot, loot, and burn, all based on a lie of hands up don't shoot and a I can't breathe fallacy.
There is no evidence that BLM has been in any way responsible for violence at any event. You are failing to distinguish between protests and riots by lumping all blacks together as rioters and looters. That just isn't true. Brown didn't have his hands up...but he doesn't appear to have been doing anything meriting killing either. Can't breathe isn't a fallacy...it is a fact and the victim DIED. It is all based on years of systemic abuse by authorities ranging from simple harassment that we never face to death (which is 7 times more likely for them than us).
It is strange that Brown's death really brought this whole thing into focus. Brown had no record but he appears to have stolen some cigars and had an altercation with Wilson later. He is not the perfect case for the movement. Or, maybe he was. He should have been arrested and charged not killed. I don't know. But, it galvanized the BLM movement like nothing before had...it galvanized the black community. Personally, I feel the response to the protests had more to do with energizing the movement than Brown's death. The "Army of Occupation" approach was just pouring fuel on a burning fire. It not only outraged the people on the receiving end but many of those watching. I recalled scenes from Soviet occupied Eastern Europe as I watched that nightmare of totalitarianism. I can certainly see how it could have been the last straw for many people.
And finally, the reference to Soros is completely meaningless. It is people like you, SIR, who are excavating the racial divide in this country by your oh so clever misunderstandings and refusal to admit the truth about Blue on Black crime in this country.
Have a nice day, Sir.