The debate "Do you think the BLM protests really carry any meaning considering the damage they've caused" was started by
June 22, 2020, 1:45 am.
By the way, LastRadiation is disagreeing with this statement.
57 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 34 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 13 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument, Gallika posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
LastRadiation posted 11 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, TheExistentialist, hmm_ok, SUPERPIGGU, gcneault, britishwolf, Screeezy, dump_trump, Gallika, sbwinner and 47 visitors agree.
LastRadiation, AerichJ, bosco, Hi42069 and 30 visitors disagree.
how can they be a power hungry group when they are completely decentralized with many independent local groups?
Blm is power hungry group, nothing they say has any meaning
i have heard many good answers to why and what, your outcome seems quite illogical. perhaps you were asking a fellow observer just like yourself rather than an actual protester. eitherway asking a random person is the definition of an anecdote. did you try to get any actual information on why and what online? there are many sources if you cared to look.
how many peaceful protests have they had already? are you imagining they just jumped straight to rioting?
there are many problems in the USA but none are getting solved by BLM. BLM as an idea is good but as an organization it is horrible. they have turned into a mob rather fast and have adapted all their ways of thinking to mob like aswell. when I singled some people out and away from the protests and asked them why they said " black lives matter" that's literally all they said without a proper point or anything. then when I asked them what they were doing a surprisingly large amount said something along the lines of 'umm to be totally honest I dont know what that is and what we are doing." this is the peaceful ones I am talking about. let's be honest the rioters and looters arent here for blm they are just jumping on the bandwagon of a hijacked protest.
most of my response to this ended up in the other thread. mostly pointing out how finland is practically (93%) finish, 99% western european, and ~100% european. and how dysfunctional they are when they try to work with all of Europe as the united states have been doing for 200 years.
the United states is comparable to the EU... therefore a particular European state is merely comparable to individual American states, who enjoy much less internal disagreement.
most of you're grievances are things the American left agrees with, however much like more conservative parts of Europe, American conservatives do not. its certainly a large and complex system with many pros and many cons.
Yed Russians are suppressed. But Russia will improve hopefully. ;)
Oh don't misunderstand me, I think the USA is a great country that is integral to the progress of humanity - there's a reason we're talking about the USA and not my country. There are amazing things to be proud of; Hollywood and your effect on global culture, Silicon Valley and your contribution to technology, your top universities, your military industrial complex, your military power and your effect on global stability, your global aid, and the business opportunities made available by the size of your domestic market. I would probably be proud if I lived there too. It's a great country, and I imagine we receive bias news of how horrible it is to live there. But the news I have seen still makes me glad I don't live there.
Gun violence and crime statistics
Lack of nuance in politics leaving it divisive
Medical debt and bankruptcy
Gender gaps and ignorance of that problem
Outdated telecommunications infrastructure and no business incentive to update it so there's poor internet
High incarceration rate, largest prison population, no culture of rehabilitation
Often brutal and exploitative foreign policy
Non preferential voting system
55% voter turnout
69/100 political corruption index
Rated by EIU as flawed democracy
Gun pervasiveness causes the average citizen to be a risk to a police officer
Gov debt threatening inflation or a larger interest bill
Dependence on tips for a living wage in the service industry
Ignorance of global warming
Probably more I couldn't think of off the top of my head.
And I'm from Finland, we're not perfect, we're not as relevant globally, but we're much happier here on average.
haha best of luck. i only wish your people would feel the confidence to stand up for their rights without fearing brutal suppression in your country as the people do in mine. im actually quite proud of America here. i would expect no less from some non American presidents.
the police actually retreated and gave up a precinct to a mob with zero guns! viva USA!
Russia is certainly not good. ;) But we are improving.
if the biggest reason to be ashamed to be american is a singular recent presidency, then that leaves a lot to be proud of.
alittle unfair unless you share your country for comparison :)
No, I'm not an American. I've never been to America and I never want to be, that was the point of my message.
bro, I'm not an American in an actual sense. I'm from Far East Russia. And to be honest, calling yourself non American while bearing its citizenship is an insult to your own nation. you know, just saying.
More and more people are happy to admit they're not American ever since Trump took the presidency. It feels like a badge of honour. I'm happy to say I wear that badge proudly.
I agree. finally I wanted to say I am not American. ;) I just watched a lot of facebook videos of buisness's getting destroyed and felt bad for you Americans. That's it.
so we mostly agree.
their outrage is justified, and expecting them to remain peaceful is unreasonable. but their choice of targets should still have limitations.
it is impossible to control a whole mass of people, but for every individual pointlessly attacking a civilian, you see others in these crowds actively protecting a police officer who got seperated from his unit and found himself alone in the crowd of protestors.
you cant judge them based on their handful of bad apples. thats the defense used by the police, it should apply to all sides equally.
okay firstly, I think
1) Please dont rob stores or destroy them, etc owned by common people
reason: What have they done to you?
2) I think they can can burn police cars, destroy police stations, block highways if necessary if they want their message to be conveyed in a aggressive manner.
PS- Just don't rob stores or destroy properties of the common hard working man. If you want violent protests and disrupt law and order, then block highways, burn police cars ,etc.
personally, seeing as peaceful protests have been ignored, i would continue disrupting order until adequate changes are made. I would stay away from small businesses and civilians, but it is difficult to control an angry mob.
I've asked you this question 5 times now. why are you trying yet another dodge by deflecting back to me? you are the one criticizing their actions, not me. so if you don't like their actions, what would YOU do instead?
He's asking you because you seem to think there's a peaceful alternative when history says otherwise
I would reply after you answer me. My question is ' What do you think the protesters should do? according to you?'
im asking you what you would do in their situation. im not sure how else to phrase this.
you say me, what should they do? Act like arsonists and destroy properties or what?
If anything damage shows they're serious about wanting change. It makes them less likeable, but it doesn't take away from their message.
their goals are basic human rights to not be killed by state authorities unjustly. a much more worthy cause than our founder's taxation without representation which began with the destruction of property (tea party) and ended with outright war. and these colonists were not routinely being murdered by British authorities.
your response, again, was a list of things they shouldnt do. what should they do?
Whatever possible but certainly not going around burning shops of hard working people like what's happening.
what should they do? my a** . just because they couldn't achieve their goals doesn't give them the right to vandalize properties of common people. I hope you get it.
the correct way to judge the morality of an action is not how you would react to that action, but what you would do if you were in their shoes.
what would you do if you were in their shoes?
certainly not! but that doesn't change the fact that their peaceful protests are ignored. you seem to refuse to take their perspective. what should they do? continue peaceful protests that accomplish nothing forever as people continue to be killed unjustly?
i certainly hope the violence ends, but if i were them, i would not stop until change is achieved. the goal is change, not violence.
would you like, if they torch down your house too? or if your buisness?
Why would I justify it? The fact that looting, vandalism, etc.... Is occuring doesn't mean that the causes and demands made by BLM and their allies are any less valid or legitimate.
These kinds of acts are simply always part of any social Justice movement as such movements are almost necessarily rooted in anger and resentment and in a vacuum of recourse. However, just because they are present doesn't make the movement less valid than if they weren't present.
they are pissed.
how do you justify continued peaceful protests when they have zero effect?
Still, how do you justify the fact that some of these people destroy the buisness's and properties of hard working people?
This seems a bit absurd. Just because there are "violent" elements of a movement, cause, or regime change coalition; especially a decentralized one like BLM doesn't mean that they don't have a legitimate meaning, grievance, or concern that is being addressed. History shows us that almost all political protests/movements had or have some violent aspects; so to say that just because violence is present, means that there is no meaning in the message is to dismiss all protest movements in a sense.
The Stonewall Inn riots of 1969 were much more violent than the BLM protests and yet they were the ignition point for LGBTQ+ rights organizations and movements.
The Rodney King riots of 1992 were a response to police brutality and although there was looting, violence, etc... the message was still legitimate and brought about LAPD reforms and were largely responsible for the expansion of consent decrees with PD departments nationwide.
The 1999 WTO protests (Battle of Seattle) was a violent protest against globalization and free trade. These issues are still with us today. People are still protesting the same issues as they were then, so to say that there was no meaning in the WTO protests is just nonsense.
Going back even further, you'd have to say that the Boston Tea Party was a "violent" protest and yet it had considerable meaning.
Subhas Chandra Bose and Bose–Rash Behari were both violent leaders of the Indian independence movement. Their views and goals weren't meaningless just because they used violence and Gandhi didn't. In fact, it was these violent arms of the independence movement that led the British to consider Gandhi as the "reasonable" leader and thus gave him the power to negotiate India's independence in a lot of ways.
yes, why wouldnt they?