ALM V BLM

From a few years back.

 
The "About BLM" reads like pure politician speak; vague, non-commital to anything tangible, just a load of rousing, pleasant sounding platitudes.

One of the many buzzwords I hear black activists use is "organise". (Three Black Youth Activists on Organizing, Educating, and the Change They Hope to See) But what for? I see they can competantly organise in a 'movement' to point the finger, to make demands of others, and stomp around in militant outfits. Are they applying this organisation inwardly, with the "black community", and as the man Denzel said their own home?

One of the more curious of BLM's beliefs was the idea of challenging the family unit and replacing it with some kind of shared communal parenting of children within their communities. Presumably this was a response to the aforementioned issue of broken homes and absent fathers. But rather than recognise this issue as a problem it reads as though the traditional family unit is the problem, or at least is not necessary, as though collective parenting by extended family and "the village" is actually preferable.


To be charitable this could be an attempt to not shame seperated patents who tried their best, and be inclusive of same sex couples, but it does seem to think you can have your cake and eat it, and actively discourage traditional co-parenting of a consistently present farther and mother.

This is important because the values passed down from respected role models help shape the decisions made by children. It has been argued that children engage in crime and especially violent crime to gain status and recognition among their peers, and they do not share or respect the values of a class they don't recognise as being part of. Not only are they more likely to get in legal trouble at an early age but this will likely compromise their education and future socioeconomic prospects, "too cool for school" basically.


It's by no means a concern exclusive to ethnic minorities, far from it infact, it affects kids of all races. But I don't see how BLM's vision of raising their children this way will improve matters, and if it doesn't will they still blame systemic systems of structured oppression for locking up the children they failed to adequately parent?

If a specific community actively advocates a substandard method of parenting and family structure, should we really be surprised if the next generation of that community ends up disproportionately disadvantaged and on the wrong end of the policing and legal system?
 
Last edited:
One of the many buzzwords I hear black activists use is "organise".

One of the more curious of BLM's beliefs was the idea of challenging the family unit and replacing it with some kind of shared communal parenting of children within their communities.

To be charitable this could be an attempt to not shame seperated patents who tried their best, and be inclusive of same sex couples, but it does seem to think you can have your cake and eat it, and actively discourage traditional co-parenting of a consistently present farther and mother.

This is important because the values passed down from respected role models help shape the decisions made by children.

It has been argued that children engage in crime and especially violent crime to gain status and recognition among their peers, and they do not share or respect the values of a class they don't recognise as being part of.

Not only are they more likely to get in legal trouble at an early age but this will likely compromise their education and future socioeconomic prospects, "too cool for school" basically.

It's by no means a concern exclusive to ethnic minorities, far from it infact, it affects kids of all races.

If a specific community actively advocates a substandard method of parenting and family structure, should we really be surprised if the next generation of that community ends up disproportionately disadvantaged and on the wrong end of the policing and legal system?
If you're going to post something like this, I'm going to need some specific examples of proof and statistics because if not, it reads like its inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory and I'll remove it and potentially hand out a warning.
 
Members are allowed to discuss race through the prism of politics. There also are some members who only want to discuss race through the prism of politics. There is a distinction between the two propositions and they are not the same thing

And it may be coincidence but members who only want to discuss race through the prism of politics seem to create a higher number of reports about potentially aggravating posts, see above

I wonder how conscious or unconscious it was for the OP, a self confessed serving police officer, to create this topic in Politics rather than GC.

Disclaimer of interests, see my posts here that politics has a role but not the only role:

 
Perhaps it was prudence to start the thread here, as I'm sure Steven and Admiral will attest to the fact that similar threads have not fared well over in GC in recent times.

Whilst I've certainly not always agreed with what's been posted, I think the discussion has been good and mostly conducted in a constructive manner.

I think racism has become as much a political debate as a societal one now; and like linked above has entered into the conversation in many different areas that maybe even just a few years ago would never have been foreseen to the degree we have witnessed. I certainly didn't expect to see our footballers etc. taking a knee.

The George Floyd incident has felt like a generational Rodney King moment.
 
Perhaps it was prudence to start the thread here, as I'm sure Steven and Admiral will attest to the fact that similar threads have not fared well over in GC in recent times.

Whilst I've certainly not always agreed with what's been posted, I think the discussion has been good and mostly conducted in a constructive manner.

Agree and given how inflammatory the topic of race can be, its to all of our credit that the discussion has been largely civilised. I think its abundantly clear that regardless of disagreement we all here want equality & justice and despise racism.


If you're going to post something like this, I'm going to need some specific examples of proof and statistics because if not, it reads like its inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory and I'll remove it and potentially hand out a warning.

I think he's touching on a phenomenon that often crops up in discussions about black education and socio-economics. I've heard it several times.

This alludes to the 'too cool for school' issue:


I honestly don't believe @pratty was being inflammatory for the sake of it.
 
I honestly don't believe @pratty was being inflammatory for the sake of it.

Perhaps, but in his final paragraph he does seem to be suggesting that: a) the entire black population of the USA buys into the BLM philosophy in its entirety, and b) that therefore they reap what they sow.

Some are happy to suggest that white people of 2020 shouldn't have to pay for the sins of our fathers, and so I think that should also apply to other people / communities too.

I think this obsession with the family unit side of things is interesting too. I'd have to do more reading on the philosophy behind it to be honest, but I think people might be taking it a little too literally. What little reading I've done suggests that the 'attack' on the nuclear family is more in the historical, American sense - eg. Powerful (white) man and owner of the house, his wife and his children. Woman staying home to look after the children and cook and clean etc, rather than in the modern sense.
 
Perhaps, but in his final paragraph he does seem to be suggesting that: a) the entire black population of the USA buys into the BLM philosophy in its entirety, and b) that therefore they reap what they sow.

Some are happy to suggest that white people of 2020 shouldn't have to pay for the sins of our fathers, and so I think that should also apply to other people / communities too.

Agreed. But it's not so much about blaming people for their parents, but about looking for ways to explain trends and to break the cycle in future.

I think this obsession with the family unit side of things is interesting too. I'd have to do more reading on the philosophy behind it to be honest, but I think people might be taking it a little too literally. What little reading I've done suggests that the 'attack' on the nuclear family is more in the historical, American sense - eg. Powerful (white) man and owner of the house, his wife and his children. Woman staying home to look after the children and cook and clean etc, rather than in the modern sense.

I think a lot of that is grounded in the studies of Thomas Sowell when he noticed that pre-civil rights the black family was about 78% two-parent households, but that since almost inverted after the introduction of welfare programmes over the next 30+ years. Father absence is regularly cited as vastly increasing a child's prospects of dropping out of high school, living in poverty or ending up in jail. Thus, the dissolution of the black family structure directly feeds into that prison pipleline Krish talked about earlier.

That doesn't explain everything of course, in the same way that systemic racism doesn't either. Its a factor though that clearly requires further study.
 
Some further reading along those lines, loads more out there though



 
I wonder how conscious or unconscious it was for the OP, a self confessed serving police officer, to create this topic in Politics rather than GC.


There were already couple of threads running in GC about GF and BLM but both were closed so was a safer bet to open it in Politics to avoid censorship or thread closure.
 
There were already couple of threads running in GC about GF and BLM but both were closed so was a safer bet to open it in Politics to avoid censorship or thread closure.

Censorship? Care to explain?
 
Think i'd pledge to BLM in the same situation with my fingers crossed in one hand.

 
Perhaps, but in his final paragraph he does seem to be suggesting that: a) the entire black population of the USA buys into the BLM philosophy in its entirety, and b) that therefore they reap what they sow.

Some are happy to suggest that white people of 2020 shouldn't have to pay for the sins of our fathers, and so I think that should also apply to other people / communities too.

I didn't mention the black population of the US in my final paragraph, I made the point about the idea and made it generally since it could apply to anyone. And I said "If" therefore speaking hypothetically, about a possible outcome IF any group adopts a bad parenting idea. And I'm not sure what's wrong with suggesting an action can lead to another.

I'm also unclear what your second paragraph was in reference to. I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks children should pay for the sins of the parents, but their parents 'sins' may influence them to make bad decisions of their own that they do have to pay for.
 
Think i'd pledge to BLM in the same situation with my fingers crossed in one hand.



Yeah I saw that, as well as that woman being bullied into it by a mob at a coffee shop. As totalitarian as anything I've witnessed in the so-called free world.

A bit like Jimmy Kimmel being commanded to chant "Black Lives Matter" live at the Emmys. 'Taking the knee' has become bending the knee.

As mentioned above, demanding futile gestures and forcing people to worship a cult isn't enacting change.
 
Claiming your BLM is a free ticket to create wanton damage and destruction at the moment.
 
Eeh, what really annoys me, is the amount of research you have to do in order to get some sort of 'truth'. The media needs to be less emotive churning in all respects.
Yes, shooting in the back when holding the clothing is certainly wrong, as is kneeling on a person's neck for 8 minutes. Totally wrong.
 
I heard a lot of the facts today from the Breonna Taylor case today. A tragedy, no doubt, but the actual facts compared to what was (and still is) widely reported by the media is unreal.
 
I heard a lot of the facts today from the Breonna Taylor case today. A tragedy, no doubt, but the actual facts compared to what was (and still is) widely reported by the media is unreal.

Have you got a link please?
 
Not off hand, it was a conversation in work but I've googled and there are various reports confirming details.

Not saying it was an open and shut case, and there are some questions for the police to answer, and one has I believe been charged with reckless use of a weapon or something similar.

But the general story that I first heard was:
Innocent unarmed black woman, shot in the back whilst asleep in her bed. Essentially giving the impression that she was executed.

Facts though:
Innocent - quite possibly, and definitely until proven otherwise. But there was a warrant for a reason. She was suspected of allowing her house to be used by a drug dealer for delivery of packages. She may well have been innocent, no drugs etc were found but it certainly wasn't a random unwarranted assault.

Unarmed - she was, yes. But her boyfriend was armed and fired first. Now what is debatable is whether the boyfriend was within his rights to shoot. He says that the cops kicked in his door without warning. The police claim that they both knocked (even though it was a no-knock warrant so they weren't legally obliged to) and identified themselves. There is a witness who confirms that, but many other witnesses say they didn't hear this.

Shot whilst asleep in bed - flat out lie. She was asleep in bed, but when the cops burst in she joined her boyfriend in the hallway and once the bf opened fire, the cops fired back and she was hit in the crossfire.

So I'm not saying she got what she deserved, I'm not saying she was a scumbag or that she fired on the cops etc. Her death was a tragic accident. But it was not illegal and as is the common issue with these cases, even if it was there is nothing to suggest that racism was a factor.

Was the warrant issued because she was black? No, it was issued because of her alleged contacts with a known drug dealer.

Was she shot because she was black? No, she was shot because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, namely beside her boyfriend who was shooting at the cops (albeit because he claimed he didn't know they were cops).

There are many shocking incidents of police brutality. There are most likely cases of clear racism too. But the Taylor case, along with the recent Deon Kay death highlight that the media absolutely love to blatantly misrepresent the facts to whip up a racially charged frenzy.

Even with more clear and obvious cases of police brutality, namely the George Floyd killing, they stir the racial pot even though there is STILL zero indication that race played a part in Chauvin's behaviour.

Media malfeasance is contributing to both the racial division and the violence of the riots.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom