Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
That would be a more meaningful strip if BLM itself wasn't essentially ignoring the burning-out-of-control-house of black on black crime while obsessing over the relatively small brush fire that is police shootings of blacks
You do realize that the expectations in a confrontation between an unarmed black man and a police officer should be held to a certain standard, because it is the police officers job, while two people of any color in a situation that leads to violence don't have that same standard, right?
Of course I do. But the strip in question raises a completely different issue (focusing fire fighting efforts where this is no fire, rather than where there is). It's fair to point out that by focusing the issue of "Black Lives Matter" almost exclusively on "blacks unfairly treated by cops" while ignoring the far far greater number of black lives lost to other causes, they're doing the exact same thing that strip accuses detractors of doing. This has nothing at all to do with any assessment of the relative treatment of blacks by cops. I'm just looking at the strip.
In one situation, one of the two people involved has a duty to protect and serve.
In the other, it's just two people.
Sure. Again though, by claiming a label of "Black Lives Matter", the organization makes it appear as though their motivation is based on, you know, Black Lives Mattering. Which, one would think, should involve some kind of assessment of what causes the most loss or harm to black lives, and focusing attention there.
If their group was called "Stop Racist Cops", then they'd at least be more honest about their objectives. But them, they'd have a harder time recruiting people, or gaining positive support in the media and by politicians, for the exact same associative labeling reason I argued earlier. We've seen them repeatedly use the label as a means to attack those who question their actions. So yeah, I think it's fair to point out that the label doesn't match those actions. Someone can disagree with the actions and agenda of the organization called "Black Lives Matter", without disagreeing with the statement "black lives matter". Because the agenda clearly isn't as simple as "black lives matter", right?
It's just so obvious.
It should be. But unfortunately, even in the context of the issue of police interactions with black people, we tend to see less examination of facts, and more recitation of slogans and chants, and angry proclamations that anyone who doesn't side with them doesn't agree that "black lives matter" and should be condemned as a racist hater. Which I find to be a pretty cowardly tactic. Sadly though, it's one that works well in our politically correct obsessed culture. Edited, Jul 15th 2016 7:26pm by gbaji