What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[Moxie]

It’s a good point. America seems to be inundated with homegrown terrorists, who are not only being encouraged by the main parties, and party leaders, but who act as militia proxies for them. The January 6th insurgents, Antifa (who Joe Biden, in an extraordinary deflection, dismissed as “an idea”), the BLM rioters, whose “mostly peaceful protests” served a political purpose. This is scary, will only get worse, and must feel like a ticking time bomb that can explode at any time…

You have to be careful when labeling things "terrorism." The BLM movement does not have a violent agenda, and, yes, most of those protests were peaceful. I'm not clear why you think they weren't. Opportunistic looting and violence can happen, and not be part of a movement's intention. Protest in many ways can turn violent and be angry and outraged, without reaching the definition of terrorism. When Stewart Rhodes was recently convicted of sedition for Jan. 6th, the jury didn't believe it was a protest that turned violent, that it wasn't a planned event, designed to overthrow the election. The Oath Keepers had been talking up violence on social media, they came armed, and with political intent. The Weather Underground was a left-wing terrorist group in the Vietnam era. The attack on Oklahoma City was just a couple of guys, but the idea was not to hit a nursery school, but disrupt and attack the government. That's terrorism. But, say, as an example, the sacking of Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict was spontaneous public outrage. It was violent, but not "terrorism."

 

[Kieran]

You have to be careful when labeling things "terrorism." The BLM movement does not have a violent agenda, and, yes, most of those protests were peaceful. I'm not clear why you think they weren't. Opportunistic looting and violence can happen, and not be part of a movement's intention. Protest in many ways can turn violent and be angry and outraged, without reaching the definition of terrorism. When Stewart Rhodes was recently convicted of sedition for Jan. 6th, the jury didn't believe it was a protest that turned violent, that it wasn't a planned event, designed to overthrow the election. The Oath Keepers had been talking up violence on social media, they came armed, and with political intent. The Weather Underground was a left-wing terrorist group in the Vietnam era. The attack on Oklahoma City was just a couple of guys, but the idea was not to hit a nursery school, but disrupt and attack the government. That's terrorism. But, say, as an example, the sacking of Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict was spontaneous public outrage. It was violent, but not "terrorism."

You forget that I grew up in a country where terrorism was a part of life. Largely funded by Americans, by the way. “Irish Americans”, people who had Irish ancestry in their blood, but whose knowledge of Ireland was different to mine. Whose knowledge, I would say, was backward, sentimental and dangerous. We had people in Ireland who didn’t think the IRA were terrorists. They’d call them “the lads”, or “the boys.” You wouldn’t catch the eye of any of these “lads” if you were out, or you’d find yourself in a world of trouble. They were Freedom Fighters, Republicans, heroes, romantic figures to many. To me, they were violent criminals, opportunists, destroyers, gangsters, bullies. Whatever cause they thought they had, they’d long forgotten. When they murdered Garda Gerry McCabe in Limerick while robbing money from a post office van, there were mealy mouthed condemnations from the usual political sources (the type of people who might call the IRA an idea), but your average southern Irish apologists didn’t dismiss this atrocity by saying, “ah the lads went too far this time, but it’s bound to happen when the cause is just.”

I’m happy with any definition of terrorist that states that it’s a person or group that use and encourage violence to make a political statement, or gain. BLM are a radical organisation. The BLM riots caused multiple deaths and billions in damage. To the victims of this “mostly peaceful” protest, they might define it more the way I do, than the way you do. When people shrug and say, “that’s got nothing to do with the organisation, that’s just looters, the protests themselves were peaceful”, they’re the same people who were politically benefiting from the riots, and in favour of the protests continuing.

I actually was agreeing with you, by the way, but in a non tribal way. You have enough militia proxies to go around, all with fabulously colourful names. Antifa are supposed “anti-fascists” who behave like fascists. I suppose in a country where anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist, they have plenty of business. The January 6th insurgents revealed a pathological hatred of their country, instead of the opposite. Your real problem in America (I would humbly suggest, looking in from afar, but having witnessed excessive tribalism firsthand) is the politicians who have a great will to dismantle these volatile groups - but only the groups that are from the other tribe. We always need to move past political tribalism and condemn the groups which are doing violence on behalf of goals we believe in. We suffered this in Ireland on a huge scale, and recently in Northern Ireland I discovered, you still have to watch what you say. People are still grieving, still recovering from this, and the divisions are still there. Tribalism is the real source of the terrorist - it’s always a giveaway when people don’t really love their country, they only love the part of the country that agrees with them. They can justify any violence on behalf of their goals, once they demonise “the other” sufficiently, and in the cause of what they think is the greater good…

 

[Moxie]

You forget that I grew up in a country where terrorism was a part of life.

I do not forget that.

 

[Federberg]

You have to be careful when labeling things "terrorism." The BLM movement does not have a violent agenda, and, yes, most of those protests were peaceful. I'm not clear why you think they weren't. Opportunistic looting and violence can happen, and not be part of a movement's intention. Protest in many ways can turn violent and be angry and outraged, without reaching the definition of terrorism. When Stewart Rhodes was recently convicted of sedition for Jan. 6th, the jury didn't believe it was a protest that turned violent, that it wasn't a planned event, designed to overthrow the election. The Oath Keepers had been talking up violence on social media, they came armed, and with political intent. The Weather Underground was a left-wing terrorist group in the Vietnam era. The attack on Oklahoma City was just a couple of guys, but the idea was not to hit a nursery school, but disrupt and attack the government. That's terrorism. But, say, as an example, the sacking of Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict was spontaneous public outrage. It was violent, but not "terrorism."

I think that's a fair distinction. It's hard to say that BLM of itself is a terrorist organisation, I don't actually believe it is. I think it's a discredited organisation from what we've seen from their internal finances. While their ultimate aim is laudable I've always felt that the way they target their protest reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about how successful movements work. The classic comparison is the gay rights movement. The problem for BLM is that it's not clear to me they understand the politics undergirding their objective. Either that or they are knowing participants for financial gain. You can't seriously create a protest against the institutions that are meant to protect you and expect success without a revolution. And it's the revolution part that makes some believe they are anarchists or even terrorists. If they were smart they would have been advocating for better trained and educated law enforcement. Succeed with that and the likelihood is that the racism would be substantially reduced, if not eliminated at the institutional level. It's difficult to diagnose the issue as racism in any case, as it seems that even black police are as prone towards violent responses in minority areas as the white ones. The fact that the premise of BLM is that the police force is racist is not going to win hearts and minds - even though the insitutional response function of law enforcement might appear to be. Certainly not while the majority of the population doesn't see them as a threat. But.. if you can successfully campaign for better training, education and community focus even those who are relatively disposed to be supportive of law enforcement would be hard pressed to oppose it. No society wants to accept that they are institutionally racist even if they are. But as I suggested the leaders of BLM likely know this, so one has to ask why did they frame their campaign the way they did. Did they actually want to achieve something or was it just a grift?

 

[Moxie]

I think that's a fair distinction. It's hard to say that BLM of itself is a terrorist organisation, I don't actually believe it is. I think it's a discredited organisation from what we've seen from their internal finances. While their ultimate aim is laudable I've always felt that the way they target their protest reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about how successful movements work. The classic comparison is the gay rights movement.

I'm curious for you to elaborate on the comparison of the gay rights movement compared to BLM. Not being combative, just honestly curious.

The problem for BLM is that it's not clear to me they understand the politics undergirding their objective. Either that or they are knowing participants for financial gain. You can't seriously create a protest against the institutions that are meant to protect you and expect success without a revolution. And it's the revolution part that makes some believe they are anarchists or even terrorists. If they were smart they would have been advocating for better trained and educated law enforcement. Succeed with that and the likelihood is that the racism would be substantially reduced, if not eliminated at the institutional level.

I'm not sure I agree with any of this. As to understanding the politics undergirding their objective, I do agree that it was a movement that sprang up rather quickly and ran a bit away with the original organizers. I don't think those that started it were prepared for it to become a behemoth in no time flat, so I do not believe it was started for anyone's financial gain. But I DO believe you can work within the system for systemic change.

It's difficult to diagnose the issue as racism in any case, as it seems that even black police are as prone towards violent responses in minority areas as the white ones. The fact that the premise of BLM is that the police force is racist is not going to win hearts and minds - even though the insitutional response function of law enforcement might appear to be. Certainly not while the majority of the population doesn't see them as a threat. But.. if you can successfully campaign for better training, education and community focus even those who are relatively disposed to be supportive of law enforcement would be hard pressed to oppose it. No society wants to accept that they are institutionally racist even if they are. But as I suggested the leaders of BLM likely know this, so one has to ask why did they frame their campaign the way they did. Did they actually want to achieve something or was it just a grift?

Yes, both white and black police fall into the category of "over-policing," and the issue is complicated, but can you really say that there isn't a race-bias in general, w/regards to policing in the US and black and brown people, especially men? I can't. I also think you're wrong that BLM hasn't changed some hearts and minds, and opened eyes to the issue of people of color getting killed by cops for no reason other than pre-conceived notions leading to pre-assumption of guilt. I think there has been a lot of re-thinking of things for a lot of people since George Floyd, and others, in short succession. There is a lot more change in police tactics, and the efforts to use mental health professionals rather than cops for certain types of calls. I have said before and I agree that the "Defund the Police" slogan was a misstep, born of anger. But a certain understanding that the cops can't handle all types of situations is one thing that is changing, in the wake of all of this cascade of tragedies, and because of the BLM movement.

As you say, no society wants to accept that there is institutional racism within, even though there is. However, the calling it out does move minds and hearts. Sure, it makes some on the hard-right get more intractable. A lot of people wanted to believe we were post-racist after we elected Obama. Plenty of people wanted to believe we were after the Civil Rights movement. Doesn't make it true. And the backlash that was the Trump presidency has unveiled the dark underbelly of it. At some point, we come to terms with our deeply racist, violent past and present, or we never resolve it. BLM was created to shine a light on some of this. I think it has done some good. Many or most charities come up against complaints, including the Red Cross and many others. There's always going to be an opportunist, because where there is a lot of money, there will always be some conman wanting to skim some off. But I don't believe that the movement was started to be, or intends to be, a grift.

 

[Kieran]

Honest question: since black men in America commit a disproportionately large amount of violent crime compared to other demographics, is it racism if the police approach them differently? When I was younger going to London, it wasn’t unusual and nor did we consider it bigotry if the border police stopped us on the way in and searched our bags. Statistically we were more likely to be terrorists than any other demographic in Europe.

In terms of shootings by police in America, white people were killed more by police every year for the last six years, despite committing proportionately far fewer violent crimes.

FBI Stats 2019

Office of Juvenile Justice add Delinquency Prevention 2020 (previous years in drop down)

Statistics on police shootings

12% of the American population is committing more than 50% of murders and manslaughters - so if you were a cop, wouldn’t you be more alert, anxious, aware, prepared etc, if you were approaching a car with a young black man in it, than you would be if you were approaching a car with any other demographic in it?

I’m not saying that the police aren’t racist, but the statistics show that actually they’re not killing black people more than they do white people. The defund the police movement was cynical, opportunistic and actually idiotic. It was radical and bound to destabilise. Who would want to be a cop in America? Give the boys in blue more pay over there. With the ease of access to guns in America, these poor sods don’t know what’s going to happen when they approach a car with a broken tail light. In Europe, it’s an almost 1000% certainty there isn’t a gun in the glove box..

 

[Federberg]

I'm curious for you to elaborate on the comparison of the gay rights movement compared to BLM. Not being combative, just honestly curious.

When gay rights advocates campaigned for equality, they framed their position in a way the average voter could empathise with. They merely asked to be treated the same. The framing wasn't about victimhood, but about trying to make everyone see them as ordinary people. I'm finding it hard to express myself here. There was a brilliant piece I read years ago that described this. The point was, they weren't asking anyone to treat them differently, rather the way the framed their argument, it helped people imagine society treating non-gays in the same way, and people found it unacceptable. I'll see if I can find it. It was years ago. The case I'm making for BLM, is that they have to do the same. The solution is to find a way to show society at large how a better trained police force would benefit all of society.

Yes, both white and black police fall into the category of "over-policing," and the issue is complicated, but can you really say that there isn't a race-bias in general, w/regards to policing in the US and black and brown people, especially men? I can't. I also think you're wrong that BLM hasn't changed some hearts and minds, and opened eyes to the issue of people of color getting killed by cops for no reason other than pre-conceived notions leading to pre-assumption of guilt.

I'm not sure I said that BLM hasn't changed some hearts and minds. I would say that they have been effective in some ways and damaging in other ways. What I mean is that it's inaccurate to say that it's the movement that's brought attention to police malfeasance. I think that video film of police violence has been the most effective measure. BLM has been effective at keeping this as a discussion point, but they have also provoked a backlash with many people seeing them as 'terrorists' or anarchists, I don't think that's been helpful. If I was to pinpoint the thing about their advocacy I have a problem with it's the fact that they have framed the issue as racism first and foremost. But I think that's a misdiagnosis. It's awful awful training. In the UK only the most elite members of the police force are allowed to be armed. De-escalation training is a huge part of what the police here are about. That's not to say they're perfect, they're not. And there is still evidence of racism here despite all that. The point is that in the US, police are taught how to use guns first, and there's virtually no consideration for how to manage interactions with the community. In fact the concept of community policing at the State level seems to be almost non-existent. It seems that a significant part of the funding of the police at the local level is dependent on predatory practices, whether traffic violations, jay walking etc. All to extort money from the local community. This not only keeps the local community poor, but sets up a natural antagonism with the police. And it fosters a criminal industrial complex. I don't have the data to back this up, but I really wouldn't be shocked if the predatory practices are almost as bad in poor white neighbourhoods as in black ones. The point being it's impoverishing poor communities to keep law enforcement well financed. It's utterly wrong headed. But anyway going back to my main response, I would credit BLM less with changing hearts and minds than social media postings of police malfeasance.

I hope I've been able to clarify that I'm not saying that racism isn't a factor, it is. Definitely at the individual level, and there's no way it hasn't infected the institutional level as well. But the most important things that need to be done aren't about this. Police in America are very poorly trained, and over-used. As you've pointed out, mental health is an issue that the police are not equipped to handle. Either they should be trained for this, or others need to take care of it. It all comes down to better training at the end of the day. And I do have a great deal of time for the idea of re-imagining law enforcement in America. The origins of most local law enforcement were militia that were definitely racist and designed to uphold white supremacy. You can't get past your past if you don't acknowledge it. Look I'm just being a realist here, I don't think that's likely to happen. So let's focus on the best ways to make things better. Just calling institutions racist without offering real solutions isn't the way to go about it in my humble opinion

 

[britbox]

You forget that I grew up in a country where terrorism was a part of life. Largely funded by Americans, by the way. “Irish Americans”, people who had Irish ancestry in their blood, but whose knowledge of Ireland was different to mine. Whose knowledge, I would say, was backward, sentimental and dangerous. We had people in Ireland who didn’t think the IRA were terrorists. They’d call them “the lads”, or “the boys.” You wouldn’t catch the eye of any of these “lads” if you were out, or you’d find yourself in a world of trouble. They were Freedom Fighters, Republicans, heroes, romantic figures to many. To me, they were violent criminals, opportunists, destroyers, gangsters, bullies. Whatever cause they thought they had, they’d long forgotten. When they murdered Garda Gerry McCabe in Limerick while robbing money from a post office van, there were mealy mouthed condemnations from the usual political sources (the type of people who might call the IRA an idea), but your average southern Irish apologists didn’t dismiss this atrocity by saying, “ah the lads went too far this time, but it’s bound to happen when the cause is just.”

I’m happy with any definition of terrorist that states that it’s a person or group that use and encourage violence to make a political statement, or gain. BLM are a radical organisation. The BLM riots caused multiple deaths and billions in damage. To the victims of this “mostly peaceful” protest, they might define it more the way I do, than the way you do. When people shrug and say, “that’s got nothing to do with the organisation, that’s just looters, the protests themselves were peaceful”, they’re the same people who were politically benefiting from the riots, and in favour of the protests continuing.

I actually was agreeing with you, by the way, but in a non tribal way. You have enough militia proxies to go around, all with fabulously colourful names. Antifa are supposed “anti-fascists” who behave like fascists. I suppose in a country where anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist, they have plenty of business. The January 6th insurgents revealed a pathological hatred of their country, instead of the opposite. Your real problem in America (I would humbly suggest, looking in from afar, but having witnessed excessive tribalism firsthand) is the politicians who have a great will to dismantle these volatile groups - but only the groups that are from the other tribe. We always need to move past political tribalism and condemn the groups which are doing violence on behalf of goals we believe in. We suffered this in Ireland on a huge scale, and recently in Northern Ireland I discovered, you still have to watch what you say. People are still grieving, still recovering from this, and the divisions are still there. Tribalism is the real source of the terrorist - it’s always a giveaway when people don’t really love their country, they only love the part of the country that agrees with them. They can justify any violence on behalf of their goals, once they demonise “the other” sufficiently, and in the cause of what they think is the greater good…

With respect mate, you didn't really live under terrorism... we did (on the mainland and more so those in Northern Ireland). The Republic of Ireland was largely untouched after 1974. We remember Warrington, Manchester in the North West, but the real carnage was really in NI.

I agree with the sentiments of most of the rest of the post. Again, I ask you all... who is promoting this divide and conquer methodology? Most people don't hate their neighbour instinctively... they are TOLD to hate their neighbour by the little black lie box telling you the "news".

It's sad when you hear people repeating verbatim what these news "grifters" hypnotize people with. All originates with the Tavistock Institute, The Frankfurt School, London School of Economics and a bunch of offshoots like Stanford and Yale. Brainwashing at it's finest.

Kind of interesting that some Americans appreciate the fact that they removed the rules for balanced news reporting, and then removed the rules to be able to use propaganda on the populace (the latter done under Obama)... and nobody ever asks why?

 

[Kieran]

With respect mate, you didn't really live under terrorism... we did (on the mainland and more so those in Northern Ireland). The Republic of Ireland was largely untouched after 1974. We remember Warrington, Manchester in the North West, but the real carnage was really in NI.

I agree with the sentiments of most of the rest of the post. Again, I ask you all... who is promoting this divide and conquer methodology? Most people don't hate their neighbour instinctively... they are TOLD to hate their neighbour by the little black lie box telling you the "news".

Kind of interesting that some Americans appreciate the fact that they removed the rules for balanced news reporting, and then removed the rules to be able to use propaganda on the populace (the latter done under Obama)... and nobody ever asks why?

I didn’t say I lived “under terrorism” (I don’t even know what that means), but that “I grew up in a country where terrorism was a way of life.” We lived with it as a daily reality of being Catholic Irish. We lived in an estate where it was well known that IRA members lived, we knew they could be strict in enforcing their morality on gangs, and we knew they’d hide out among us. We were definitely fortunate that we weren’t attacked by loyalist terrorists in Dublin after 1974, but this didn’t mean we lived in naive ignorance of the tension and potential of terrorism in our lives then. And the rhetoric of terrorists and their political mouthpieces. It affected us when we went north, even for harmless beer runs. And as I said, the IRA stranglehold on stupid Dublin dupes began to weaken once they killed one of our policemen during that post office raid in Limerick. The commonplace southern Ireland criminal activities were suddenly scrutinised with horror.

As for divide and conquer, I think the hatred is hereditary, for the most part, just like politics, religion and football club fanaticism tend to be hereditary - for the most part. Left unexamined, unquestioned and unexplored, these heirlooms become gleaming lights of ignorance. They simply become a tribal inheritance, and your mammy’s hatreds become your own, though you don’t see them as hatreds, and your daddy’s intolerances become yours too, though you only see the Other as being at fault. Their idealism becomes yours, their folk heroes become your saints.

It’s a fascinating circular activity. “Man bequeaths misery to man,” says the poem, but man and woman both can bequeath to children even worse things than misery. I agree though, that the media has taken a dive in these things and are more provocative than informative, and certainly not neutral in anything…

 

[britbox]

I didn’t say I lived “under terrorism” (I don’t even know what that means), but that “I grew up in a country where terrorism was a way of life.” We lived with it as a daily reality of being Catholic Irish. We lived in an estate where it was well known that IRA members lived, we knew they could be strict in enforcing their morality on gangs, and we knew they’d hide out among us. We were definitely fortunate that we weren’t attacked by loyalist terrorists in Dublin after 1974, but this didn’t mean we lived in naive ignorance of the tension and potential of terrorism in our lives then. And the rhetoric of terrorists and their political mouthpieces. It affected us when we went north, even for harmless beer runs. And as I said, the IRA stranglehold on stupid Dublin dupes began to weaken once they killed one of our policemen during that post office raid in Limerick. The commonplace southern Ireland criminal activities were suddenly scrutinised with horror.

As for divide and conquer, I think the hatred is hereditary, for the most part, just like politics, religion and football club fanaticism tend to be hereditary - for the most part. Left unexamined, unquestioned and unexplored, these heirlooms become gleaming lights of ignorance. They simply become a tribal inheritance, and your mammy’s hatreds become your own, though you don’t see them as hatreds, and your daddy’s intolerances become yours too, though you only see the Other as being at fault. Their idealism becomes yours, their folk heroes become your saints.

It’s a fascinating circular activity. “Man bequeaths misery to man,” says the poem, but man and woman both can bequeath to children even worse things than misery…

Fair enough - I got the wrong impression from the initial post... and while I mentioned some terrorist acts in the North West of England, I never felt under any threat either. You just shrugged your shoulders and got on with it. If we had social media back in the day, I'm sure we'd all have been "scarred for life".

Agree on the tribal inheritance sentiment... but also suggest that not all tribal inheritances are bad. (I know you didn't say this) but it's worth suggesting anyway. A good inheritance is a good inheritance.

 

[Kieran]

Fair enough - I got the wrong impression from the initial post... and while I mentioned some terrorist acts in the North West of England, I never felt under any threat either. You just shrugged your shoulders and got on with it. If we had social media back in the day, I'm sure we'd all have been "scarred for life".

I think this is part of things today. We have it too handy and there’s whole generation that’s been mollycoddled too much that every backfiring car becomes an existential threat. Our “safe space” back in the day consisted of being told to get on with it.

Agree on the tribal inheritance sentiment... but also suggest that not all tribal inheritances are bad. (I know you didn't say this) but it's worth suggesting anyway. A good inheritance is a good inheritance.

Yeah that’s true, and this includes the three I mentioned, religion, politics and football teams. When the first two are properly interrogated, they might hold up quite well and become a positive. It wouldn’t be proper to question your football allegiance though. There’s heresy, but that’s much worse than heresy!

 

[britbox]

I think this is part of things today. We have it too handy and there’s whole generation that’s been mollycoddled too much that every backfiring car becomes an existential threat. Our “safe space” back in the day consisted of being told to get on with it.

Yeah that’s true, and this includes the three I mentioned, religion, politics and football teams. When the first two are properly interrogated, they might hold up quite well and become a positive. It wouldn’t be proper to question your football allegiance though. There’s heresy, but that’s much worse than heresy!

Are you trying to break it gently to the forum that you support Leeds?

 

[Kieran]

Are you trying to break it gently to the forum that you support Leeds?

I do, but funny enough I didn’t inherit them from my parents - my dad was Liverpool and my mother was Arsenal. She was Arsenal because her older brother was, and my younger brother is Arsenal and his son is too. Nobody followed Liverpool but my older brother followed the great Leeds team in the seventies, mainly because John Giles played for them. He’s from Dublin, as you know. Robbed in the 1975 European cup final! Robbed in other finals too, and in league championship run ins. This is the family heirloom. I much prefer tennis, where you can’t inherit your players, but I never shrugged off Leeds…

 

[Moxie]

When gay rights advocates campaigned for equality, they framed their position in a way the average voter could empathise with. They merely asked to be treated the same. The framing wasn't about victimhood, but about trying to make everyone see them as ordinary people. I'm finding it hard to express myself here. There was a brilliant piece I read years ago that described this. The point was, they weren't asking anyone to treat them differently, rather the way the framed their argument, it helped people imagine society treating non-gays in the same way, and people found it unacceptable. I'll see if I can find it. It was years ago. The case I'm making for BLM, is that they have to do the same. The solution is to find a way to show society at large how a better trained police force would benefit all of society.

Overall, I thought your post above was great, and I'll try to make a good response. It would be interesting if you could find that piece you read. I will say this about the gay rights movement though, without pretending to be an expert: one thing that happened to the movement was AIDS. Plenty of people were rejected by their families, but many were finally embraced. Gay people were unintentionally outed by it, and many people finally realized that they did know (and love) gay people, already. And the health crisis created a great deal of sympathy. In this majority-white country, that can't happen in the same way in the BLM movement. Understanding the problem doesn't make you know more Black people. The empathy-leap is greater.

But also, we can't say that the Gay Rights Movement didn't start with violence. The Stonewall Riots were 1969. That was all about the cops raiding gay a bar. And was led in large part by transsexuals. Not exactly the shining faces of the movements. There was also ACT-UP, which, while far from a terrorist organization, DID truck in civil disobedience, big time. You can say they didn't trade in "victimhood," but I still don't agree that BLM is all about that either. But there is a certain amount of "victimhood" implicit in a group clamoring for equal rights. Mistreatment by cops comes into play in both movements, as well as lesser-legal standing, etc. Is it wrong to play the victim card when you are, actually, unfairly victimized? Both movements still have grievances in that way.

I'm not sure I said that BLM hasn't changed some hearts and minds. I would say that they have been effective in some ways and damaging in other ways. What I mean is that it's inaccurate to say that it's the movement that's brought attention to police malfeasance. I think that video film of police violence has been the most effective measure. BLM has been effective at keeping this as a discussion point, but they have also provoked a backlash with many people seeing them as 'terrorists' or anarchists, I don't think that's been helpful. If I was to pinpoint the thing about their advocacy I have a problem with it's the fact that they have framed the issue as racism first and foremost. But I think that's a misdiagnosis. It's awful awful training. In the UK only the most elite members of the police force are allowed to be armed. De-escalation training is a huge part of what the police here are about. That's not to say they're perfect, they're not. And there is still evidence of racism here despite all that. The point is that in the US, police are taught how to use guns first, and there's virtually no consideration for how to manage interactions with the community. In fact the concept of community policing at the State level seems to be almost non-existent. It seems that a significant part of the funding of the police at the local level is dependent on predatory practices, whether traffic violations, jay walking etc. All to extort money from the local community. This not only keeps the local community poor, but sets up a natural antagonism with the police. And it fosters a criminal industrial complex. I don't have the data to back this up, but I really wouldn't be shocked if the predatory practices are almost as bad in poor white neighbourhoods as in black ones. The point being it's impoverishing poor communities to keep law enforcement well financed. It's utterly wrong headed. But anyway going back to my main response, I would credit BLM less with changing hearts and minds than social media postings of police malfeasance.

So much in here is brilliant, and I can't figure out where to divide it up. I think you make too much of it being about the police, though you make such great points about the problems with policing in the US in general, and in poor/minority communities, in particular. And I agree that it's not this moment that brought to light police malfeasance...I mentioned Rodney King, and that was about there being a video, so you're right. BLM was just saying "enough." Now that everyone walks around with a video camera in their pockets, the videos started coming at a stunning clip. But I don't see how their issues ISN'T about racism, first and foremost. By that I don't mean only police violence. If it's not about racism, then what IS it about? I get that "racism" throws a wide net, especially if we talk about institutional racism, and it can dilute the argument, or open it so wide as to be unmanageable. But, as you state in the below part that I will quote, we have to face our past, and it is also our present.

Your point about predatory practices, and the nickel-and-diming of poor people, black and white, is very astute. It does foster the criminal industrial complex, and in both communities, I would say. One thing that the US has made a huge and successful effort at, over our couple of centuries, is separating whites and blacks to keep poor people from joining together against the System. Keep the white poor thinking they're better than blacks, and you'll keep them from unifying grievances.

And as to the BLM movement being seen as anarchist and violent, this can be very much blamed on rightwing media. When there were a few incidents of looting and violence, FOX kept showing the same footage month after month, making their viewers believe that it was an on-going problem. I firmly believe they blew it out of proportion. If that feels anarchist to some that we need to revisit the history our kids are being taught, I'm sorry, but we do. Ask the Native people in the US, who have be biggest grievance of all, on that one.

I hope I've been able to clarify that I'm not saying that racism isn't a factor, it is. Definitely at the individual level, and there's no way it hasn't infected the institutional level as well. But the most important things that need to be done aren't about this. Police in America are very poorly trained, and over-used. As you've pointed out, mental health is an issue that the police are not equipped to handle. Either they should be trained for this, or others need to take care of it. It all comes down to better training at the end of the day.

There have been changes made on this. There is a new call number for mental health crises, so you don't call 911, which gets you the police. Not sure if it's national, yet. And I do think at least some city forces are getting better training, but surely that has a long way to go.

And I do have a great deal of time for the idea of re-imagining law enforcement in America. The origins of most local law enforcement were militia that were definitely racist and designed to uphold white supremacy. You can't get past your past if you don't acknowledge it. Look I'm just being a realist here, I don't think that's likely to happen. So let's focus on the best ways to make things better. Just calling institutions racist without offering real solutions isn't the way to go about it in my humble opinion

Your point about law enforcement just being an initial arm of militia and being "racist and designed to uphold white supremacy" is exactly right. The problem is baked in. Also completely right that if we don't face our past we can't change it. I know you're trying to be practical, but you can't get to the real issues without being idealistic that you can, too. People are not "just calling institutions racist without offering real solutions." There are solutions being offered. They are being rejected by certain types of politicians, who are trying to institutionalize their rejection into law. In education, for example, there is the great freak-out about "critical race theory," which no one seems to actually understand, but has been distilled down into a serum which fears that their snowflake white children are going to be made to feel bad about themselves. So much for your prescription that we must face our past, huh? As to voting, and elections, even the Supreme Court has neutered the Voting Rights Act. And the effort to keep once-convicted felons from voting. These are specific areas of complaint as to institutionalized racism on offer, and some of us are fighting for them. You can't really say there are no specifics.

 

[Kieran]

And as to the BLM movement being seen as anarchist and violent, this can be very much blamed on rightwing media. When there were a few incidents of looting and violence, FOX kept showing the same footage month after month, making their viewers believe that it was an on-going problem. I firmly believe they blew it out of proportion.

So all the people killed, and billions of dollars of damage, and you blame the right wing media? Do you ever blame the perpetrators for anything? “That was just some people did something?” Maybe if they were white, you’d blame them, is that it? You infantilise black people and you remove their agency when you blame others for the bad things they do. Playing that game of parroting left wing talking talking points and blaming the right wing for reporting the stuff you don’t like just isn’t credible as an analysis of things. What about people who lost family to the rioters, how would you approach them? The people whose property was destroyed? “It wasn’t violence, let’s not blow it out of proportion?”

It was violence, it was prolonged and sustained violence, and the Democratic Party was happy to see it because it furthered their political goals…

 

[Moxie]

So all the people killed, and billions of dollars of damage, and you blame the right wing media? Do you ever blame the perpetrators for anything? “That was just some people did something?” Maybe if they were white, you’d blame them, is that it? You infantilise black people and you remove their agency when you blame others for the bad things they do. Playing that game of parroting left wing talking talking points and blaming the right wing for reporting the stuff you don’t like just isn’t credible as an analysis of things. What about people who lost family to the rioters, how would you approach them? The people whose property was destroyed? “It wasn’t violence, let’s not blow it out of proportion?”

It was violence, it was prolonged and sustained violence, and the Democratic Party was happy to see it because it furthered their political goals…

By every account except that of the right-wing media, the majority of those protests were peaceful. That was what I saw here in NYC. There was outrage and anger, for sure, and looting, which is opportunistic, not part of a movement.

 

[Kieran]

By every account except that of the right-wing media, the majority of those protests were peaceful. That was what I saw here in NYC. There was outrage and anger, for sure, and looting, which is opportunistic, not part of a movement.

Perhaps the “right-wing media” were correct? Do you think your country - or any country - can ever solve its problems caused by tribal divisions, if everyone is as rigid and prejudicial about their so-called opponents, as you are? Don’t you understand that there is no difference between your right- and left-wings, in their mentalities? They’re both just belligerent, one-eyed antagonists. Claiming that the left-wing media is somehow more honest or reliable is laughable.

Is NBC right wing?

Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago.

The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody.

“I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats,” Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. “That makes sure that person has clothes.”

 

[Moxie]

Perhaps the “right-wing media” were correct? Do you think your country - or any country - can ever solve its problems caused by tribal divisions, if everyone is as rigid and prejudicial about their so-called opponents, as you are? Don’t you understand that there is no difference between your right- and left-wings, in their mentalities? They’re both just belligerent, one-eyed antagonists. Claiming that the left-wing media is somehow more honest or reliable is laughable.

Is NBC right wing?

All I'm saying is that you're attributing a lot of behavior to a nascent movement.

 

[Kieran]

All I'm saying is that you're attributing a lot of behavior to a nascent movement.

That’s not all you’re saying. “All you’re saying” is that you attribute absolutely no blame or responsibility for wrongdoing to anybody or any cause the radical left promote. You’re mute to their failings. Whatever they’re selling, you’re bought and sold, and all this without a single question, or qualm. You defend murder, destruction to property, rioting, looting, abuse of young children. The only time you see something wrong is when a right wing person questions it. Then they’re the bad people, the ones with an “agenda”.

Going back on topic, 129 police officers have died in the line of duty between January and June this year, down from 188 last year. 33 killed by guns, an increase of 18% on the same period last year. Some killed by vehicular homicide, heart attacks while working, other reasons.

Overall that’s only ten fewer police died in the line of duty in six months than there were black people killed by police in the whole of this year so far, and in 2021 more police officers died in the line of duty in six months than black people were killed by police across the whole year.

The rate of police being violently killed on duty is significantly higher, given how proportionately fewer police there are. There are only about 700,000 cops in America. This is something that Americans should be more aware of. Who is really most in danger of being violently killed in interactions between the police and the public in America? The law enforcement officers, or the demographic that commits about 50% of violent crime?

Do Americans never realise how brave and unappreciated their police officers are, or is that just a right-wing thing?

 

[Federberg]

Pope warns 'omens of even greater destruction and desolation'

At a Mass at the Vatican, the Pope, 85, said on Sunday that he has a dire vision for the world with 'omens of even greater destruction and desolation'.

www.dailymail.co.uk