The debate "Black Lives Matter should be classified as hate group" was started by
August 29, 2016, 10:21 pm.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
north posted 10 arguments, NotoriousBishop posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 5 arguments, PsychDave posted 13 arguments to the disagreers part.
north, Bodaciouslady16, NotoriousBishop, blakelovesjesus, Isabel, BBQonions, neveralone and 8 visitors agree.
DjTrapp806, historybuff, PsychDave, Nemiroff and 11 visitors disagree.
Back to the actual topic of debate. Do you have any evidence that the Black Lives Matter movement is hateful? You have provided individuals as proof, however none of them were leaders in the movement. Can you show me anywhere in the Black Lives Matter website, which I provided a link to earlier, where they preach hate or encourage violence?
If you can't understand a father losing his composure after the his son is killed, your lack of empathy prevents debate on the subject.
I did not mention them to lighten the blame. That is why I criticized you for not understanding the point. I mentioned them because they are parallel events in history in which both violence and nonviolence were involved in a fight against social injustice. MLK was a voice for peace, but others around him were not. Similarly BLM is calling for peace while some individuals are calling for violence.
I was not "wriggling out of" anything. Magnitude is a measure of numbers or size. Frequency is a measure of occurrence vs time. More than 1400 protests is a measure of magnitude. How often they occur is the frequency. Do you understand now? I will try to limit my questioning your intelligence to instances like this where you demonstrate a distinct lack of thought in your arguments.
I understand he would lose his temper, but that he was stirring up unrest. Burning down a city is never the good way to react to it. No matter the situation.
I understand rhetoric--you mentioned stono and the revolution as parallels to lighten the blame of BLM. You react to being called on it by saying im an idiot. BLM was hands up dont shoot. Were they advocating beating up cops? Were they angry the officer defended himself?
There you go. Wiggling out of that one. You said,
"Of the over 1400 protests, how many were violent? One of us is ignoring magnitude, but it isn't me"
"Magnitude is not dependent upon quantity".
It was obvious you were referring to total occurences.
"Could you look up a definition of magnitude before embarrassing yourself further? That is exactly what it means"
Again reaffirming the notion that magnitude is the total occurrences.
"Frequency is quantitative (how much); magnitude is size (how big)"
Fine I misspoke, but the underlying message remains: quantity of occurrences (the 1400 you referred to) is not the determinant of magnitude.
Would you like to say Im an idiot, its fitting? I know you want to say it.
You are aware that there was violence in MLK's time too, right? He called for nonviolence, like BLM does. He fought to end racism against black people, like BLM is doing.
Do you actually have any release from BLM espousing hate, or just individuals. I gave you a link to their website, so feel free to comb through it.
Frequency and magnitude are both quantitative. Please learn the meaning of the words you use. Quantitative is something that can be measured as opposed to qualitative. Frequency is how often something happens. Magnitude is how large it is.
I didn't say it's OK. I said it is understandable.
So you can't understand why a father might lose his temper after his child was killed? Do you really lack empathy to that extent?
Im saying that the fight for equality was not burn this b**** down. It wasnt throw em in a pan fry em like bacon. MLK was a hero, not some thug trying to stir up a riot.
Youre doing it again. Its ok because he was angry; anger doesnt justify violence.
Wow you're arrogant. Frequency is quantitative (how much); magnitude is size (how big). There are frequent high magnitude earthquakes. That was a 7.1 magnitude eathquake.
Could you look up a definition of magnitude before embarrassing yourself further? That is exactly what it means.
I said that people could do evil and good both. It is not a difficult concept, why are you struggling with it? Is slavery a good thing? Slavery is bad, fighting to not be a slave is understandable. That doesn't make killing good, but it does provide context to what prompted the anger and violence.
When Micheal Brown's father says "burn this b**** down" it is showing the pain and anger of a father whose son has been killed. You do understand why that would make him angry, right?
You will remember BLM as being a violent movement. That is your right. History may very well notice that they were far more peaceful than violent and they fought to fix the racism and inequality. We won't know how they will be remembered until looking back.
At the time, the fight against segregation was seen similarly to your perception of BLM. Would you argue that they shouldn't have fought for equality?
BLM is doing a horrible job if they want tl help black people.
Magnitude is not dependent upon quantity.
Also, "We're the slaves in the Stono rebellion a force for good or evil? They killed innocent people in the name of stopping a horrible injustice, so both." For context, you replied to
"So has BLM been an group of more good or evil?"
You tried to diminish the fact that they did horrible things, and I would say that that fact alone makes the Stono rebellion wrong. Killing innocent people doesnt prove equality, it creates hatred.
BLM has no jurisdiction to say some people aren't a part of it: its an idea of blacks being victims to police. It has no actual policy standings.
But BLM, in a candid, honest observation is doing something wrong. When Michael Brown's father is shouting "burn this b**** down" he is creating a strong impression of thr BLM movement. MLK will be remembered for peaceful protest, BLM will be remembered for an anti-police rhetoric.
I at no point said killing innocent people had good aspects. Either start learning comprehension or you will continue to look foolish as you misinterpret and mangle arguments and rebuttals. This is getting tiresome.
BLM has repeatedly called for peace. The fact that you ignore it is your failing, not theirs. They have repeatedly condemned violence. The fact that you ignore that us also your failing, not theirs.
I understand the distinction of will vs deed, but you seem to pick which deeds count based on what suits your very narrow opinion. Of the over 1400 protests, how many were violent? One of us is ignoring magnitude, but it isn't me. The fact that the media covers riots and not peaceful protests doesn't mean the peaceful protests aren't happening. Look into the subject rather than basing your opinion on the media. Media bases their stories on what is sensational, not what what best describes the movement.
No, you attempted to justify BLM by saying that killing innocent people in a slave revolt had good aspects. I believe that is wrong.
MLK called for peace, but BLM wants to fry em like bacon! The majority of their news coverage and large action is done in the context of lynching innocent cops, and lacking all evidence.
3--You fall into will vs. deed countless times. Is BLM trying to help blacks, yes. That Is a noble deed. But the overarching movement has created an anti-cop sentiment. It hasnt helped blacks in the slightest, but some may argue, is creating a racial divide.
I am not stupid: I am considering that There is a will vs deed.
MLK was remembered for having a dream; BLM is famous for wanting to kill cops. That is what i mean by magnitude.
RogueAmerican, you obviously are having trouble with reading comprehension still so I will try to simplify the arguments.
1) No, I did not say killing innocent people was a good thing. Killing innocent people was not a good thing but, when faced with severe social injustice, people get angry and lash out. What would become Americans did so against the British, slaves did so against slave owners and now black people are doing so against the police departments who are killing them in cold blood. Do you see that connection.
2) I am not saying they should declare war, I am comparing similar social situations in which violence was used. MLK should not have started shooting up places, he should have called for peace. Like, for example, BLM have done and continue to do.
3)You are fully exposing your bias when you say you don't care how many peaceful protests they have. You are saying that, even when confronted with proof that the group is mainly peaceful people, you are going to judge them based on the few violent incidents, which they condemn. If you are convinced that, no matter the proof, you will not change your mind, that is a flaw in you not a judgement of them.
I dont care how many good protests they have. Has the group furthered the black cause by lynching cops and protesting on social whims? Is the benefit greater than the positive in magnitude.
Are you suggesting that they should declare war? You cannot make a moral argument comparing war to movements. Should MLK have started shooting up places? Of course not. You cannot trivialize war and say that killing in war is the same as killing in cold blood.
You said that it was a good thing to kill the innocent: does the end justify the means and their action?
I just repeated your claim.... Either I erred in repeating your claim, and you erred aswell, or you erred by making that claim on the innocent.
here's a list of 1436 BLM protests. only a tiny fraction of them become riots.
that's how you see them. and some of them are doing that. most of them are protesting a significant problem and trying to get it into the main stream political discourse.
if you want to say the movement is just for riots you are going to have to provide evidence that the majority are violent. but most BLM protests, while heated, do not cause riots.
But BLM isn't exactly anything, for innocence or rights, they are just starting riots and violence
Let's try framing this slightly differently. The war of independence was a violent uprising that killed more innocent people and destroyed more property than BLM. Do you feel that it was a force for good, or evil?
They are protesting to force police to stop killing them. Do you not understand why there would be some anger?
As to killing innocent people, did you do any research before replying? A quick Google search would have shown that the Stono rebellion was a slave revolt. They were angry with white people. Again, can you understand why there would be anger?
How does murdering innocent people stop injustice? Is that not compounding injustice with another, or are lives expendable mediums of political action.
I dont care what their pursuit is. They are not an organization/movement for bad or good. The Bolsheviks fought for better lives. However, is their yield beneficial; has BLM brought more good to outweigh lynching cops and rioting?
We're the slaves in the Stono rebellion a force for good or evil? They killed innocent people in the name of stopping a horrible injustice, so both.
Likewise BLM is trying to stop the killings of black youths by police. Do you think that is an evil goal? They are largely doing so with peaceful protests and social media. There have been riots and looting however, which is certainly evil. I would say the majority is a force for good, based on the leadership and ideals, but some extremists have latched onto it to justify violence.
So has BLM been an group of more good or evil?
No. There are hateful members, but most just want to stop the violence against black people.
I understand the undertone of the argument. I know what it aims to prove.
Do you agree it is a hateful movement?
Then you should be voting against this topic since you don't agree that they are a hate group.
I would say it is a vitriolic and hateful idea and movement, but not a group.
That would be a whole separate debate.
No, but it breeds more trouble than good.
If it is not an organized group then, by definition, it is not a hate group.
There is no organized black lives matter policy or organization. It is a group for the whims of racial anger.
You claim they are a hate group and have yet to prove it. What would you like me to cite?
BLM directly condemning violence
BLM again advocating nonviolence
BLM leader calling for am end to violence
Do you have an argument, or just more cherry picked individuals?
yet u who seem to argue, don't cite any sources pretty sketchy ????
You chose a few individuals who suited your argument and are using them to judge the entire group. You have yet to establish that they are representative of the movement. BLM has repeatedly condemned violence, so citing a few individuals as proof is flawed. That is why people keep pointing out that you need to demonstrate that it is a hate group rather than a group with a few hateful members.
So you mean to say that the establishment of Christianity is to firebomb clinics?
i chose instances that showed that BLM is a violent movement and does cause violence. i never claimed all rallies or protests were like that. plus your the one who should be linking to those instances not me. its your job to prove me wrong not for me to debate with myself. they are points that back up my claim that the rhetoric from BLM causes racial violence and thus should be labeled as a hate group. show me evidence to prove im wrong. also NRA link? gonna keep bringing it up til you show me one.
I'm sorry but Christianity most certainly does not have one agenda or doctrine. there have been dozens if not hundreds of Christian sects all believing and doing different things.
Christians have fire bombed clinics, lynched black people, engaged in slavery and genocide. if you want to get in a debate about who has committed more crimes, Christians or BLM supporters you are going to lose.
and your evidence is the very definition of anecdotal. you cherry picked a few violent examples and ignored everything else. did you examine every single peaceful protest to see if they were all violent?
Christianity has a set agenda and doctrine
BLM is a bunch of clowns instigating riots and a vitriolic atmoshpere.
also NRA link?
its not anecdotal evidence... do you know what that word means? yeah youre right but that group of christians is though... again you have yet to prove me wrong... cause none of my evidence was anecdotal
you are the only making a positive claim. you are saying the majority of BLM supporters are violent and that makes them a hate group. you have yet to provide anything more than anecdotal evidence. yes there are examples of violence in the movement. that doesn't mean the movement is violent.
there are violent, hateful Christians. that doesn't make Christianity a hate group.
still waiting on link then.
um i mean i've given evidence that that is true. so i have provided evidence while you have provided 0 evidence to prove other wise all you have said is that sometimes there are bad people and that you cant define a group by them. however i have shown some evidence to prove that it is not just a minority of members who believe and say these things i would like you to show some evidence proving that they are not a hate group. preferably a large portion of people instead of just one member.
I never said members of the NRA commited acts of violence at rallies. I said they commit acts of violence, which they certainly do. you are trying to describe an entire movement by the actions of a small group inside that movement.
if there is no central authority controling what BLM is then the only way you could possibly say they are a hate group would be to prove that the majority of its followers are violent and racist. since that isn't true that would be pretty difficult.
BLM is a movement with many parts and "leaders" asking to find an official release is like asking for you to find the racist in crowd of 20 mute people. its almost impossible because of how spread out it is and how many parts of it there are. besides i dont have to really. ive proven their rhetoric has made it to lots of people and is affecting society in a negative way. also i dont think any of the west boro baptist church members have ever killed 5 people in one night or anyone for that fact, but if i remember correctly a blm member did. they preach hate and blame their problems on the white people and thr government. if a groups rhetoric overall has caused many problems and their own members kill people who they see as the enemy because of the groups rhetoric i believe that group is a hate group. Also still waiting on the NRA clips ??.
granted I skimmed most of that, but you have yet to provide evidence that BLM the movement has ever advocated violence. you have provided links to individual members and groups inside the movement that are violent, but they are not the movement.
it's the same thing as saying islam is violent because a small percentage of its followers are. unless you can find evidence that the majority of BLM supporters are violent, or find official releases saying that BLM supports violence then you are quite simply wrong.
also just for fun yeah show me evidence of a NRA member attacking people at a NRA protest because the person doesnt like guns. i would love love love to see it. or a NRA leader telling the members to kill people. please i would love to this
i mean like go ahead..? idrc what you do to the republican party or the NRA like... not the topic of discussion also im a democrat so yeahhh. the definition of a hate group is "An organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society" many if not a majority of the" members of BLM are what i would call anti-cop. now im not a cop bootlicker i know that there are things wrong with the cops that need to be fixed. however killing cops, saying its good to kill cops, and ruining cops lives when they make a correct call do nothing to improve our police force. now I can also call into that a lot of their members are and i use this for a lack of a better word "anti-white" since you did nothing to adress my points and basically said "sometimes groups have bad people" (im just gonna say that blm members have killed every person ever. i dont need links or facts apparently i just need to say it and then bash republicans and the NRA and say sometimes people be bad and that solves the problem. thanks man never knew world peace was this easy.) im just gonna say to look at those links again for evidence of my claim cause you know. evidence is good. also yes you have members who decry the violence but you also have members who incourage it http://m.therightscoop.com/portland-black-lives-matter-leader-openly-advocates-for-murder-of-police-video/
do you want me to go find videos of Republicans saying shitty things about people. do you want cases of Republicans calling for violence against various groups? because I'm sure I can find them.
by your defininition a group would be a hate group if it has members who are violent or hateful. then the Republican party is definitely a hate group. the NRA would be a hate group, pretty much every group has extremist supporters. that doesn't mean the group is.
the BLM movement has called for peaceful protest. they denounce violence. they want black people to stop being victimized by the people who are supposed to protect them. they have alot if very angry supporters. but that doesn't make them a hate group.
also to add hate group doesnt mean kkk i just used them as an example. for instance the Westboro Baptist church is a hate group. not as deadly compared to kkk but still labeled as one as it should be.
well um because thats not "all" they do. and even when they do their chants and walks they are chanting hateful things like https://youtu.be/9xNxoeqf0Ws this. Also what they are advocating for which i semi kind of agree with at the base of their movement at least that i can tell is that cops be held responsible for killing innocent people. i agree with that however they seem to riot and attack people http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/23/akron-police-group-of-men-attack-strangers-while-shouting-black-lives-matter/ ( yes i know its briebart im too lazy to scroll down and it was the first to come up) over simply even the justified killing of a black person. (tbh im sorry but i cant remember which case this was i believe it was the one where the movement started where the lie of "hands up dont shoot" came from.) also people who are part of blm will say that white life has no value and we should kill ourselves because some of our society was built off slavery https://youtu.be/RC-Cqkq6zWc or at least I think that was the guys reasoning his uh "debating skills" are a little um wierd. while unlike the kkk they dont go and hunt down white people and kill them they will attack then at random when at a protest and spread harmful rhetoric. also they flat out call black on black crime a myth *cough* *cough* MTV
if you need any links i can provide them probably.
considering they are only advocating for the rights of black people I don't see how you can possibly compare them to the KKK.
Not as terror group but as a hate group like the KKK