Do You Support BLM? Netflix and Twitter Execs Do.

The Happenings:

Deray McKesson is the leader of the activist group "Black Lives Matter". He's running for Mayor of my hometown Baltimore, MD. His platform reflects the mission of his activist group BLM.

Although Reed Hastings (CEO of Netflix) and Omid Kordestani (Twitter Exec) donated a trivial sum of $6000 each, it's support non-the-less for such a controversial movement.

Whether or not these individuals or the companies they represent actually support McKesson or BLM is irrelevant. They obviously want you to think they do.

What exactly is the mission of the BLM Movement?:

Quoted directly from the BLM website:

"When we say Black Lives Matter, we are broadening the conversation around state violence to include all of the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state. We are talking about the ways in which Black lives are deprived of our basic human rights and dignity."

"#BlackLivesMatter is working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. We affirm our contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression. We have put our sweat equity and love for Black people into creating a political project–taking the hashtag off of social media and into the streets. The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation."

According to them, "black lives matter" specifies the injustices as follows:

1. How Black poverty and genocide is state violence
2. How 2.8 million Black people are locked in cages in this country is state violence.
3. How Black women bearing the burden of a relentless assault on our children and our families is state violence.
4. How Black queer and trans folks bear a unique burden from a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes us and profits off of us, and that is state violence.
5. How 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows.
6. How Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war.
7. How Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze us into boxes of normality defined by white supremacy, and that is state violence.

I disagree because I'm not a Racist:

1. The use of the term genocide is a bit extreme in this scenario. Genocide suggests an intentional homicide of a group of individuals solely because of their ethnicity or beliefs. The burden of proving genocide is on the claimant in this case and if this were true, attributing it to "State Violence" is a bit redundant. But Poverty is only a form of "State Violence" if you're black?
2. America has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world. This is a legitimate problem. Non-violent crimes carrying mandatory minimum sentences and the privatization of the prison system is a huge problem here. Again, the fallacy here is that incarceration is only State Violence if you are black.
3. This notion is self-insisting. Obviously what is bad for the Black Community does not exclude females. Why is this listed separately as if it is mutually exclusive of the previous arguments?
4. This is clearly a direct notion provided by McKesson himself as a gay black man. Can anyone even provide any sort of legitimate context to this? Even if context is provided , it's only State Violence if you are black. I think we see the trend now.
5. If you're in the US and you're undocumented you're legally defined as an "illegal immigrant". You're obviously going to "relegate to the shadows" if you're doing something illegal.
6. Now we're extending the cause to include non-state allegations by referring to something that isn't a domestic issue. Would it not be more wise to solve the domestic problems before advocating international policies? These clauses that bear little relevance to previously alleged "State Violence" is where the objectives lose value. You can't fix Africa with a broken America, can you?
7. This is purely subjective. If someone want's to provide a context, please do.

The recurring theme is that socioeconomic issues that plague all ethnic groups are essentially being redefined in as "State Violence" only when they occur to a member of the black community. That is Racist.

The Facts:

1. From 2009 - 2012, there were 59,259 total homicides with about 19,000 being the killing of black males.

2. Of these 19,000 black male killings, 89.6% were committed by another black male. Only 2.5% were the result of police force.

3. From 2009 - 2012: While about 57.9% of individuals killed in legal self-defense were black males, 73.1% were killed by other black males.

From 2009 - 2012: Black males constituted only 6% of the total US population, yet comprised 33.8% of all murder victims, 89.6 of which were at the hands of another black male. Of the legal justified killings of black males, 73.1% were done by black citizens. Only 2.5% of black Americans killed were the result of police force, whether armed or unarmed.

The biggest threat to a black man is another black man. Does black lives matter really care about black lives? Do any of their objectives attempt to address the underlying issue of black on black violence and its social repercussions? Is any legislation going to change what is clearly a cultural issue?

Source

I do not support them at all. Anyone who is well informed and who can think rationally wouldn't. BLM is hateful and decisive. It is well funded and massive. Unfortunately, I don't see them going away anytime soon. They will get bigger until they do something that will piss off SJWs and the regressive left. And that is just a matter of time.

This is my implosion theory. The fact that they advocate segregation and exclude anyone who isn't black from their agenda makes them a wrecking ball in the leftist paradigm.

They are a modern Black Panther movement. Spreading hate through equality-talk.

All Lives Matter.

If you can understand the significance of this scene, Then you might be able to grasp the significance of BLM

Meh

I think people overestimate BLM.

@Nuck81: no kidding. People forget just how short ago it was pretty much illegal to be black in America. If I were black, my parents would have stories of being sprayed with hoses. My would grandma would have stories of her friends getting lynched while the cops watched. I'd grow up knowing how people, alive and close people, were treated in the not-so-distant years.

Sometimes I wonder why they don't all hate us.

The fight for Civil Rights is not history. Not yet. The laws might have changed, but society and culture still has not. Another generation or two need to die off before we can go "OK, now can we all be cool?" and the SJWs and racists and perpetuators of stereotypes and racism will be gone

I dont mess with groups to begin with. If one has to label themselves by their identity within a movement, they lose me. People get into groups, then clash with opposing groups, then the groups spend their time insulting and degrading each other, solving nothing.

You are thinking things will progress along a logical line. Irrational hatred and fear does not move in a straight line. I highly doubt much will have changed in the next 30 years. I have met plenty of racist psychos that are not old people in my life. Stupidity, especially in a nation with a high disdain for intelligence, will continue to flourish.

yeah but they won't get a free pass like they do now. They're just the last vestiges of a dying generation of people that lived with legal racism; "Go, son, and remember: be racist" in short. Dad or Mom is racist, generally the kid can be too. Their numbers will be so small it won't matter.

What I am saying is every 80+ year old I've met is pretty damn racist....every 50+ year old generally seems indifferent, but also sometimes racist....and rarely do I encounter a legitimately racist millennial or whatever gen was before us (X?). Not saying they dont exist, but things are getting so, so, so much better, especially compared to a few short decades ago.

You can consult history or you can look at our current reality. People that were "sprayed with hoses" and experienced segregation first-hand aren't the core BLM advocates. In fact, most older black folks are disgusted with the lack of accountability and self-destructive behavior of young black Americans.

To "overestimate" BLM requires a context in which McKesson is not only running for mayor of Baltimore, he's being given hundreds of thousands of dollars in support.You can support him if you'd like

His Platform:

1. He wants to advocate for an end to the state's cash-bail system, require racial impact analyses of all new city laws before signing them, and reform the state-run rent court to prevent families from being unfairly evicted.
2. Mckesson wants to welcome immigrants, advocate for a return of the East-West Red Line light-rail train and develop an overarching plan for parks and green spaces. He was to target lead poisoning in children by hiring more inspectors and providing home testing kits, and expand opportunities for artists to move to Baltimore.
3. He calls for expanding full-day pre-K to enroll all low-income 3- and 4-year-olds, demanding the city school system release all of its internal audits and advocating for changes to state funding formulas so that tax deals for developers don't affect school funding.
4. He also wants to “radically transform” Baltimore's community college, create a fund for occupational-skills training and fully incorporate arts education into all schools.
5. He wants to establish a minimum wage of $15-per-hour in Baltimore
6. He wants to“dramatically expand” the city's YouthWorks program and toughen City Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young's local hiring initiative, requiring more companies to hire locally at greater rates.
7. He also wants to establish a public bank, develop community land trusts for affordable housing, and “aggressively eliminate housing discrimination and segregation.”
8. He wants a banning on arrest and citation quotas, ending civil asset forfeiture and ending choke-holds and “rough rides” by police. He also wants to redistribute a portion of the police budget to the community, bolster the Civilian Review Board and require a majority of Baltimore officers to be recruited from, and live in, the neighborhoods with the most police activity.

While his policies seem quite noble, generous, and utopian there are obvious holes:

1. Cash bail is set to prevent flight risk fugitives. You now create a scenario in which more individuals are denied bail. Racial impact analyses sounds great, but it's impossible to apply neutrality to such a concept. By making eviction a less viable threat, paying rent loses incentive. Who's expected to pick up that tab?
2. This all costs alot of money, and does nothing in terms of generating revenue. Artists don't generate revenue. Manufacturing does.
3. Now people can work by granting them child-care in the form of PreK. Where are folks going to work if you push business out of the community not giving tax deals to developers?
4. Again, this costs money and creates skilled individuals, but it doesn't create skilled jobs.
5. This is another move to push businesses out of Baltimore. This will not create jobs.
6. This compounds the lack of incentive for anyone to want to do business in Baltimore.
7. More subsidies, less income.
8. This is critical. When you ban "citation quotas", "asset acquirement", you've essentially cut most police funding. There's not much left to "redistribute". Not only does crime increase, NO ONE is going to invest in a private business in Baltimore knowing that it isn't protected. By requiring a "majority of Baltimore police to live in neighborhoods with the most crime" you're begging for corruption.

Not only do these policies cost a metric ****-ton to be realized, you essentially run every business, land, and property owner out of town. When people's investments aren't protected by law enforcement, they're not going to do business in the city. He makes Bernie Sanders look like a financial wizard. Detroit coming to a city near me.

It's a dick move to call someone's racist with no supporting evidence. It's a bully tactic and cannot be a substitute for a valid argument.

You can't see the fallacies in SJW's because you are one.

You use the Alinsky bully tactic to throw racism at someone without any factual information.

Your generalizations, anecdotal non-fact, and stereotyping regarding demographic-based racists are so blatantly offensive and are accusations that require no response. If you wish to debate then do so, but as a millennial, racial tensions are widely perceived to be at an unprecedented high since the Civil Rights Movement.

I don't see how you blatantly offending people by calling them racist, requiring that they defend themselves to avoid your self-righteous conjecture and character judgment does anything but contribute to this racial disparity.

And news flash: BLM is a Racist organization. There, you know racist millennials.

What's 'Black Lives Matter'?

This guy will lose, while has a massive army of crazies that will fund his campaign, I feel that the BLM, SJW's, and radical Feminist will be too busy protesting against the white cis privileged and forget to vote the next day

@Johnny-n-Roger: lol I'm saying the racism shit in the US is better than it's been but still needs improvement, and you're lambasting me? Interesting...I wonder what your agenda is.

And I did not say there are no racist millennials, only that there are fewer and the ones that are racist don't seem entirely convinced of it. I mean I just spent last weekend with my white trash friend from Fresno and we went out drinking with his friend Jose, and those two get along great.

I just don't think the racism is as deep-rooted with the younger people.

My father was black and while he did experience racism he never got sprayed with a hose and my grandparents didn't have stories of their friends being lynched. Not all black people suffered these things and they didn't happen everywhere. Stop painting history with such a broad brush.

Because not all black people are racist twats who live in the past? Because not all white people are racists who did anything to justify the hate? YOU are the problem and sicken me.

Society and culture hasn't? Are you high or just really young? Maybe you should look at how much society hand the culture has changed over the past 60 years before you make such silly statements. And hate needs to end NOW, not when enough people die in 40 years.

I tend to not support any groups because it seems that the true purpose always get lost when a group gets big. Some will always take advantage of the situation when it's suite their needs and some will act irrationally if they fall on deaf ears. Blm has some great goals, but it will never be translated or applied well.

This is just the opinion of a black guy living in Canada. I will never say racism doesn't exist here, but it's nowhere near as bad than in the US.

Does he ever explain how any of this is state violence? Some of this is caused by themselves and can be fixed by themselves. Not everything is the white mans fault.

Terry Patcher said it well.

“The intelligence of that creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it.”

So the more people there are the smarter the crowd is? Not sure about that.

@TheWalkingGhost: Wow, my math is failing.

But no, http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/01/24/iq-drops-when-youre-in-a-group/34036.html

Guess i was using the quote the wrong way, so he's wrong.

He may have just meant small crowds. No big deal.

This is how people at or around my age (I'm 29) perform when details are presented, and it's absurd to me. Yes, there are huge, systemic problems that effect black people far out of proportion. Why do we conflate stuff so much, though?

The more groups like BLM actually acknowledge the root causes of problems, rather than just listing off examples of prejudice. I have yet to hear ANYTHING of an honest examination of overarching problems that lead to these injustices, much less anything proposing work towards any type of conclusion. Their initial goal, shine light on institutional discrimination is laudible, their execution deserves the ole F-.....

I support their opinions and welcome their criticism. If they want to call themselves Liberals or Dems or Progressives or anything else and align with our party, then so be it. We welcome yall with open arms. We must work together no matter what struggles we face or how hard they are to overcome even if we dont agree with one another.

I have to disagree with you It doesn't matter how many generations pass unless the black community quits taking hand outs from the government and establishes families with a mother and a father again. It was the Great Society Program of the 1960's that did the most damage to the black community. Until this changes they will be doomed generation after generation.

The BLM movement has got to be the biggest farce I've seen in many, many years.

Nothing could illustrate the old adage about the road to hell being paved with good intentions more than blm.

Baltimore, chicago, st. Louis and a host of other blm entrenched cities are in the grips of homicide epidemics that can be directly attributed to ignoring reality and going after one of the smallest problems the black community faces.

We highlight 6 murders a year and ignore 6, 000 others and it is inarguably for political reasons.

This has entered farce territory when on Halloween weeked last year clinton took a meeting with blm in chicago so she could hear from mike browns momma first hand what a tragedy it was that her little monster was killed while in the commission of a crime while at the very same time tyshawn lee and kaylin pryor were bleeding out a short distance away from the meeting.

Tyshawn was allegedly a straight A student and kaylin was a model that had just won a prestigious event that was to set her up as an international figure and role model for beauty and achievement for little girls all over chicago and the u.s.

People are fed up with listening to a blatantly false narrative that harms the black community.

BLM sucks, almost as much as people making BLM out to be the worst thing ever. I don't know how a well intentioned group could be so poorly led and then pick the WORST examples of people to turn into martyrs. Just look at Jamar Clark in Minneapolis. Pile of shit hit his girl friend to the point that paramedics had to come, then he interfered with them helping her. Then was found getting into a scuffle with the police and attempting to grab their fire arm. They've chosen not to charge the cops now (to no surprise) and hundreds protested it as a miscarriage of justice. They automatically assume that the people in these situations are the victim of a flawed justice system with out even examining anything about it.

With that being said the type of people that BLM helps pop out of the woodwork on the opposite side are just as scummy. Closet racists who insist that BLM can even be compared to white supremacist groups. So, as I actively dislike BLM it seems to have high lighted just how much racism still exists in society by simply existing.

Deray is not the leader of black lives matter. It's a leaderless movement at heart but the founders of the movement have set the tone.

No it's a racial suprremacy group. So it doesn't surprise me that the regressive left supports it. So when the founder tweeted that it's open season on white people, nobody cared.

We currently have a Rich White Man leading the GOP race by convincing Middle Class and Poor White Men, that their problems are because of Brown People from Mexico and Muslims.

Racism is dead in America....

Agreed with bold. Things aren't bad because of racial disparity in the past. Things are bad because of racial disparity now.

The fact that your father was black and never got sprayed by hoses is irrelevant. It did happen, but the fact is that it doesn't anymore. That's really all that matters. It was bad, we need to move on.

Germany doesn't have an organized Jewish social justice movement. Non-Jewish German citizens aren't considered micro-aggressors and anti-semites. They're not considered the beneficiaries of some illicit privilege or wealth.

This is why I really dislike SJWs. (here come the bullets)

• They destroy social bridges and put up barriers in the name of protection from an invisible threat who's existence is entirely subjective.
• Establishing "safe-zones" is not socially progressive, it's socially impairing.
• By allowing such social divisions within society, they open a door for a tyrannical regime to benevolently present itself and undermine society's rights without having to take blame.
• This is historically how all totalitarian regimes come to power. They take advantage of a broken society by convincing them that they have the power to fix them.

Black Lives Matter is not a Civil Rights movement, it's a Segregationist movement. It is a case-in-point example of how regressive Social Justice paradigm actually is.

eeeeexactly. People think racism ends when they have the same "rights", but don't realize that there's still so much that greatly disfavors minorities that needs to be fixed.

You're oversimplifying to support a poorly supported argument.

If you think that illegal immigration is "just" or "fair", then argue that point with the millions of people that have filed the paperwork to come into this country legally and have not yet been approved. Immigrants that wish to come to America and are waiting in line are essentially being cut in front of by illegal immigrants. If that's fair or just by any definition, please provide additional context.

Syrian refugees don't have any paperwork. Crossing the Mexican border illegally requires no paperwork either. It's not that they're a "threat", it's that their citizenship requires us to undermine laws that were put in place for a reason.

There's accountability that comes with being documented citizen of America that does not apply to undocumented citizens. You can't simply document someone by "taking their word for it". If its that simple, then allow me to "undocument" and "redocument" myself after I accumulate a massive amount of debt and liquidate my non-taxable retirement savings.

I support their cause but their tactics are self defeating.

Talking to Nuck about racial issues is like talking to a wet carrot.

The correlation between men raised by a single parent and their inherent susceptibilty to both violent and non-violent crime transcends race.

BLM isn't the worst thing ever. It epitomizes the philosophy of Social Justice, and illustrates the regressive nature of the paradigm in exemplary fashion. However, I'm not required to make that argument....

.....because here's your fallacy; people that make BLM out to we the worst thing ever do not exist without BLM. This topic would not exist. Comparisons to white supremacist groups would not exist.

This circular logic, if applied to a legal context, has the victim of a crime having more moral accountability for the crime committed simply for existing, thereby allowing an otherwise law abiding citizen to become a criminal. Shame on them.

Please provide a context in which BLM "highlights" racism aside from the blatant fact that they advocate racism by providing objectives for social standards that apply only to people with black skin with complete disregard to any other ethnic group.

Who said anything about fairness?

The leading GOP candidate is talking about building a wall, and deporting 11 million individuals.

Not only would doing so cost billions, it would decimate the American Agriculture Industry, which for the last 40 years has been carried on the backs of illegal workers who will do hard manual labor for under Min Wage.

This is also an Industry that is heavily supported by the GOP and receives around $20 Billion a year in Tax Payer Subsidies.

But again, the leading GOP candidates entire campaign is based on an "Us Against Them" Strategy. That's why he has almost unanimous support from poorly educated, low earning, white males, and is despised by most other demographics.

Two leftist tactics at once.

1. You have framed my character by projecting the political stances of another on to me. You expect me to feel forced to defend these stances.
2. You have moved the goal post by turning this into a policy debate. This allows you to avoid having to form a response to my previous arguments.

By taking the stance that you're indifferent to what is fair or just, you essentially have no incentive to even continue to engage me and the rest of your post becomes a hypocritical rant.

Your original argument was regarding immigration and how the support of more stringent immigration laws was evidence of "white people blaming brown" racism, etc.

I outlined several problems associated with illegal immigration and how it cannot be justified. I never advocated any policies nor did I endorse a political party. I'm not concerned with GOP politics, and that was never the purpose of this thread.

It is relevant, as the guy I replied to tried to make it universal with all blacks. When he said that it became relevant as that isn't true, never try to make something that happened to the minority into something that happened to everybody. It only causes more problems.

I meant it wasn't necessary for the sake of presenting your stance that you to provide that example.

Whenever unreasonable points are argued with reason, the unreasonable points are granted validity and are thereby considered reasonable.

Four tactics of someone that is out of their element at once.

1. Projection of your mistake onto me. You mentioned Fairness first. Which is why I said "Who said anything about Fairness"

2. Strawman You made this an argument about me and my "leftist tactics" in order to avoid debate. You cried foul because you missed the shot.

3. Not following the conversation. My original argument involved a clip from a late 60's movie. You obviously didn't understand the significance.

4. Immediately changing the subject. I never said anything about illegal immigration. This thread WAS about Racism and BLM. I pointed out that Racism in America goes much further than White Vs Black using the leading GOP candidate as an example. You somehow turned that into a poorly constructed rant of Fairness and immigration laws.

Keep Trying......

No, you've essentially submitted to defending yourself in desperate fashion. Now I get to ask you the questions.

1. I stated that illegal immigration was unfair and unjust. You're obviously not asking me what I said. You are rhetorically questioning my moral stance regarding fairness and justice by demeaning the importance of these principles. If your lack of clarification lead me to assume incorrectly, can you please clarify what sentiment you were expressing in regards to my post and the concept of "fairness"?

2. I cried leftist tactics to point out that leftist's lack of substantiated information often leads to these tactics. You have yet to prove me wrong. As I mentioned previously, I never advocated a great wall of Texas, therefor I am not required to defend it. Does someone's stance on illegal immigration make them racist? If so, how and why?

3. You posted a clip of 1960's movie. This predates the BLM movement. This isn't an argument. Can you establish a stance in regards to the context of this thread that doesn't involve unsubstantiated accusations of white supremacy to establish a moral high ground?

4. "We currently have a Rich White Man leading the GOP race by convincing Middle Class and Poor White Men, that their problems are because of Brown People from Mexico and Muslims." This was your subject. It has no basis on fact. I was forced to frame it to "immigration", since that is the republican stance to which you're referring. If you're not referring to immigration, can you please provide other policies that reflect this narrative that you generalize and project onto a political party and extend to include the entire group of individuals that support it?

Chances are that you'll migrate to another playing field since you no longer like the rules of this game.

So you copied and pasted something, to create a topic you weren't intellectually prepared for.

When you encountered a statement you didn't have a canned response too, you threw a strawman to save face, while trying to deflect your inability to follow the discussion on someone else.

Pretty typical for intellectual wannabe's.

You're getting annihilated, which is why you're attacking him, instead of his argument.

Shining White Knight to the rescue.

Are you a Black Person?

Personal attacks and a biased recollection of events do not constitute a stance or an argument. Please present the "statement" that I did not have a canned response to.

It's not that I'm "unable" to follow your discussion, I simply chose not to because you had not properly addressed my previous argument and still refuse to do so.

The problem is that when the entirety of your argument is subjective and based on assumed realities, you're going to change the subject to something you're more comfortable discussing. Do you expect me to feel obligated to consent and conveniently ignore your lack of prior argument? If so, why does the same standard not apply to you consenting to engage my argument without changing topics?

And it's easy to say and exculpate ones self. I do not disagree, but I don't advocate something needing to be "fixed" without having even a theoretical solution in mind.

How do you really determine how and what these advantages/disadvantages are in regards to ethnicity? There are also socioeconomic factors to take into consideration, choices people make while knowing the consequences, and cultural issues that stem from single-parent upbringing.

Also, you would have to develop some hierarchy of which ethnic groups are more disadvantaged. There are so many variables and regulatory factors that it isn't even practical.

If you're going to pass legislation that racially favors minorities in terms of job placement, income tax rates, property tax rates, loan interest rates, etc, you're essentially creating a system that is economically disadvantageous whites. Is there not distinct concern at that point that whites would over time claim that their economic conditions are unfavorable and need to be "fixed".

The bottom line is that you really can't solve cultural problems without creating new ones. You can't legislate your way to a prejudice-free society. It takes time, and there are a lot of struggling white individuals and families that really don't care to be told of their "illicit white privilege". By continuously pressing issues of racial disparity and thinking that you're going to improve current conditions is the same logic that leaves politicians who oppose the 2nd amendment wondering why AR-15 sales skyrocket every time they speak on the issue.