[maskedmelon]

Not to back track, but this was a pretty good post.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think the miscommunication comes from, if you are against the BLM movement you are against what they were upset about... what they are upset about are unarmed non-violent black people being assaulted and then shot by the police. (mean truthfully what they are upset about is what the yowlkedas are upset about, again whites and blacks, not different at all)

I think you are right about the miscommunication. I have yet to meet anyone who endorses the killing of innocent black people and I am inclined to believe that everyone who posts here regularly (except perhaps BigJ, though he is truly the god of enigma) would strongly oppose any killing of innocent black people.

I think the problem is that many people question how much it actually happens. And that doubt is reinforced when groups like BLM stand behind criminals like Michael Brown. BLM undermines it's own credibility when it does things like that. It further loses credibility when advocates loot and burn property. The vast majority of people wholeheartedly agree though that killing innocent black people is wronng just killing innocent white, yellow, red or brown people is wrong.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think many of the people who condemn the BLM movement do so becuse they hate the message, not the "riots" or whatever that happens during their protests. (riots and stuff that are and have been started by white instigators or the police themselves, not just really mad, teens what have no parental guidance jobs or money)

I am sure some people don't like the message, but they are a very small minority. Every person I've seen though who takes issue with BLM, does so for one of the two reasons I mentioned above (doubt that it is an issue or cannot take serious the arguments of groups that riot and support criminals alongside innocents).

As for who started the riots. Not really sure on that one, but in Ferguson Brown's step-dad openly called for them. But again, it really doesn't matter. All those who participated should be jailed and that includes any whites, yellows, reds, browns or blues.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lets be clear on one hand you have blacks who no mater what they say to the police, are resisting and being violent... you have protests by blacks, that no mater what they say or do, are riots...

there is a continued insistence that no matter what it is that's good that comes from a black group or person, it cannot outweigh the bad.

Again, Ives yet to encounter anyone who thinks like this. Violence is violence. Words are not violence. Threats of violence are treated next to violence under the law, but otherwise words are just words. The BLM protests that shut down the Ferguson highways weren't called riots, because there was nonproperty damage.

People weren't happy about it because of the tactic though. The protesters were just inconveniencing ordinary people on their way home from work. Yeah it got attention, but doing the same thing in another government space that did not disrupt the lives of ordinary people would have too.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

when the truth is whites in the exact same position, are given a huge benefit of the doubt.

I was goin to say I do t think this is the case. I've seen studies that shownofficers are less likely to fire on a black perp than a white perp. However, what you say to some degree is true. In part due to the disproportionate amount of crime committed by blacks. Sure there are reasons behind that such as what you listed above (lack of parental guidance, poverty, etc.), but unless people are willing to recognize that there is legitimacy to that problem and make moves to correct it, the rest is doomed to failure for all of us.