I mean, it kind of does. You said we shouldn't be supporting BLM UK unless we're raging socialists because they're campaigning to bring down capitalism. So, using that logic, we shouldn't support Martin Luther King either, as he was a socialist and anti-capitalist.
Protests following the killing of George Floyd
- Thread starter Abizzz
- Start date
So if I don't agree with what he says I should follow what he says on the basis
It was a workers sanitation strike, that's not a campaign to bring down capitalism itself.
The basic point is why should I or any person who believes our general western philosophy of capatilism (however problematic it can be) feel compelled to align one's self with a movement that openly states it wants to "bring it down" (I'm assuming with socialism, but with some calls for defunding the police departments maybe some form of anarchy?)
Where do they openly state it then?
Link?
Are you actually serious?
I don't think insinuating someone is a racist is technically the same thing as disagreeing with them, but if pretending it is makes you feel clever, well done I guess.
No you havnt used the same logic, did MLK specifically campaign to bring capitalism down?
This is completely different to holding a view of it.
It wasn't that obvious from your comment, to be fair.
Make with the evidence of BLM wanting to “bring capitalism down” or stfu already
Not that it would be a particularly bad thing anyway.
This is exactly the sort of thinking which justified American-supported coups in Central And South America, as well as in Africa and Asia, and the propping up of brutal dictators. After all, they were opponents of capitalism, and so any injustice was permitted. The Soviet Union did the exact same thing from the other side, but they were the "Evil Empire" and the US was the "leader of the free world".
You should go read more about MLK and his beliefs.
Hmm...
Maybe he's confused BLMUK with UKBLM or some other group?
Maybe he's confused BLMUK with UKBLM or some other group?
So, if you check the link I posted above, BLMUK states they are not affiliated with UKBLM and do not have a go fund me page.
To be fair that’s so easily confused with each other
"We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world "
You're wrong. Bring it to a thread where its relevant.
Yes, I alluded to that earlier.
We just call that a misfire.
I remember the chap beside me didn't clear his rounds properly and fired one round into an overhead buffer while we were checking arms at the range. My heart skipped a beat as the debris from the buffer rained down on us.
Yep, easy mistake, and explains why I couldn’t find any mention of it on website.
The easiest way to avoid this at the range is to shoot all your rounds at the target. When you are clearing the firearm keep your finger out of the trigger guard.
It’s hardly surprising that you’ve gone quiet in this thread after such a ridiculous statement. So I fixed it for you.
If you’re going to make such laughable posts please back them up, rather than just type a few rubbish posts and run as soon as you’re asked for sauce.
Breonna’s case is a bit more difficult, as my understanding is they technically had the correct address on the warrant. She had dated the target of the raid some time back, and after having a package delivered there year or so ago they obtained that address.
That in no way absolves those involved, but maybe we should be looking higher up here.
That in no way absolves those involved, but maybe we should be looking higher up here.
I see both sides. I follow @samswey because I'm a data guy and the idea of data driven policy excites me. So in the interim, given limited resources, the pragmatic thing to do is target policies that have the greatest reduction on police killings. However, the pushback from other activists is rooted in the idea that these methods maintain the current structure which is problematic to begin with. Plus what happens if 72% reduction is achieved.. is that good enough? Someone made a point that it wouldn't be acceptable if a government pledged to reduce terrorist attacks by 72%. But yeah it's an engaging conversation.
Honestly what swayed me is seeing some depts that have already implemented so many of those policies and aren't exactly good models of anything (Chicago, Baltimore). Which made me wonder if the rest of the (weak) correlation is due to outside factors.
Yeah it's not the most solid work, statistics wise. Kudos to him for trying! Best case scenario they are missing some factors that are key to the correlations. Worst case scenario... These policies aren't predictive at all!
I’ve seen the 8 can’t wait stuff get posted here and there, and it’s supposed to reduce police killings right? But does it differentiate between unlawful unjustified killings and justified ones? If not then it’s a short-sighted campaign.
I think the problem is in organization culture which is almost impossible to change (India's police faces the same problem). Only way may be to destroy and restart.
The deputy chief says it'll be "investigated internally" which is presumably code for "nothing will come of it"
The UK is definitely not a racist country, though. Vile.
Maybe you should take the time to pause and reflect on your correspondces with @Wolverine and @Sweet Square , who have been addressing your fundamental points, but don't seeem to be getting a response in kind. You either conveniently and completely 'miss it', or replied half-acknowledgingly without having actually conceded the point; like when @Wolverine highlighted all the net positive effects of current UK protests.
You can't then blame people who question your character or motives, because you look disingenuous at best - debating in bad faith at worst.
So you've confused one organisation that's adopted the slogan with the principle that black lives matter, that's brought thousands out on the streets around the world?
Maybe if you try saying it out loud to yourself as, "black lives matter" - rather than seeing the capital letters BLM and looking for loopholes that make it a bad thing - you'll find it easier to understand why people are backing the protests.
Probably a 'year zero' approach? A fella called Pol pot tried that in Cambodia, didn't end well!
Are you sure about that, isn't that why BLM are calling for a different slant on history, from the perspective of the slaves, not the masters. Sorry if I've misunderstood I thought present day history books are being accused of glorifying bad things (as you put it!)?
All History is written from a certain perspective, usually from the point of view of the victors not the vanquished, isn't this why there is now this argument that the story from both sides needs to be written to ensure a balance.
The problem with the 'blanking out' in history something you don't like, or society now finds unacceptable, is that this doesn't change what happened, and worse still it doesn't help to understand where modern day values and/or the pain comes from. 'An eye for an eye' leads to a world without sight and understanding and more than anything ensures past mistakes will be repeated.
Even that organisation doesn't want to "bring down capatalism" (putting that in quotes pissed me right off tbh). They want to dismantle institutional racism.