Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 6 July 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Is falsification of history your expertice?

This should be enough: Read the talk pages. You can not claim ignorance in that case and that makes you on par with David Irving. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What? Are you talking to the article? Or?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Recently, he left a totally incoherent dropping about Assad and ISIS at my talk page. No one could tell WTF he was on about.---Mona- (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Under the egotistical assumtion this is towards me, no, Falsification is not my expetise, though history is, even spent a lot of money and the last 4 years working towards that fancy shelf stuffer i'll be getting next December. The talk pages are primarily a history of you lot, mostly Avenger and then Arisboch, making asses of yourselves over. and over. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to be more modest, Paravant. :-) I was not aiming at you. I meant Mona, but just forgot to add an @ in the heat of the moment. My totally incomprehensible contribution was deliberately so. I should have used Obama instead of Assad, but the piece was inspired by Mona. And her autobiography fully supports, what I have said about it. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You are simply making yourself look the fool. No one here is going to beleive I am akin to David Irving, with the exception of a few hardcore Zionists. Which means, almost nobody. Why do you do you say these bizarre things? At one point, it's my "ethics" that are your problem. Then it's my "falsification of history." But you are wholly unable to defend either assertion. You, Sorte, should follow your declaration of leaving all I-P issues strictly alone, because you lose your shit when you do not.---Mona- (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking and being are different things. And my shit is under strict control. I am not a Zionist let alone a hardcore one. But I do recognize dishonesty when I see it. It's true that it's more fun to edit where the Middle East is not, but your mindless fanaticism has to be answered. You are not in the possession of all truth, and just to remind you again, your autobiography is the story of a fanatic switching allegiances depending on whom she spoke to last. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe you. LOL. You are so, so much a Zionist. And I'm happy to let my user page speak for itself to reasonable people.---Mona- (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to believe what you want. You'll believe anything. But since you are a sad instance of this, nothing is served by continuing. As for your User Page it describes your being racist A, then racist B and then racist A again. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hooligans and criminals co-opting the movement

A recent incident that happened near where my folks live made me kinda think: we should have a section in here talking about how some people take advantage of BLM and other similar race movements/protests to commit crimes and feel self-superior (like the fire hose slasher during the B'more riots), and how others (usually detractors) smear the entire movement from these incidents. Not sure how it would fit, though. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It wouldnt fit because that would distract from the narrative and thus be racist. брэндэн (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter meetings run afoul of library's policy

“”NASHVILLE — Library officials have told Nashville's chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement that meetings restricting those who attend by race aren't allowed on public property.

—Black Lives Matter meetings run afoul of library's policy , USA Today

This is relevant to the subject of the article. Maybe every hashtag movement has it's bad apples?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 19:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been that way since the start, when they started chanting in that other library when kids were studying for tests. Anyone who says a movement with more than 3 people is entirely good or bad is pretty much ignorable due to sheer, unfiltered naivety.Keter (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the entire movement of fascism is/was bad... Pizzameister (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it isn't necessarily true from that point to say that everyone involved in Fascist governments or were citizens of Fascist dictatorships kicked puppies, or stole 40 cakes, or hated parents who are straight and still married, or knowingly and willingly participated in the systematic genocide of over six million Jewish, homosexual, Roma, and other quote-enquote "undesirable" people, et cetera. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Too bad for them if they didn't fight back. Silence is consent, acquiescence, and acceptance. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

^ I see you're busy propagandizing again... брэндэн (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

BLM = Frankfurt School

And other KIA gems: https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/48ocf8/blacklivesmatter_leaders_also_have_strong_ties_to/ Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So after the Jews, now the blacks are too stooges of the Frankfurt School cabal? Who's next, the gays?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 23:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I never knew this one obscure school of philosophy was so influential... Pizzameister (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wingnuts just love to use them as either some super-powerful bogeyman or as a dog-whistle for antisemitic conspiracy theories (the classic).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 17:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What's a dog whistle? Pizzameister (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

[EC] The tin foilers need a mastermind that can never be proven to actually have done anything. Otherwise they might actually identify and solve a real problem...then what will they do with their lives? Get out of the house? Hahahaha. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A "dog whistle" is that..--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 18:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Pizzameister (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Refusing to meet with the president

This happened. I think it might be worth mentioning. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Bronze or higher?

Is it? Is it not? Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

References, formatting and general content are all in place, if you'd ask me. Worthy of bronze.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Bronze rating has been added.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I support. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is there an all too long totally besides the point section on Boycott Divestment Sanctions

This article is important and altogether to short despite it's importance topic. Why is there an entire section about something which neither the media nor average Joes associate the movement with? Should we also have a section on whether the leaders prefer coke or Pepsi? Or who they root for in sports? Again: Why does the section on something so utterly unrelated take up such a large part of the article? 149.210.131.21 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Because of Mona, Glenn Greenwalds pillow fluffer. And it can't be removed because the people that agree with you have lost willpower over dealing with her and 3 users here which for some reason support her. StickySock (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources (I cannot make refs because my computer is broken)

You wanted sources, here you have them: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/16/donald-trump-just-threatened-more-violence-only-this-time-its-directed-at-the-gop/ http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/trump-fans-threaten-gun-violence-against-protesters-ahead-of-pittsburgh-visit/ Do you need more? 62.212.73.246 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you were to take your full addition, maybe pass over it once more (because it's not gramatically perfect right now), and add in those sources where they're supposed to be. You were able to come up with that text on the page, you were able to come up with this here on this talkpage. It's fully reasonable for me to ask you to wrap this addition together yourself. And even then, I'm not commenting on the content of it. Other editors will be doing that. What I'm doing here is giving you the tools to not have your addition be reverted due to technical reasons, e.g. unsourced and grammatically a little odd in places. Please take care of this. Use ref tags, like so: <ref>your source goes here</ref> . Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Criminal lives matter?

In nearly all instances, BLM protests against the killing of criminals. Very rarely are there cases of innocent law-abiding African-Americans being killed by the police.Schizophrenic (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes even a criminal has a right to live. What's wrong with you? Do you really think the penalty for robbery, smuggling cigarettes or whatever should be death? WHAT. THE. FUCK. IS. WRONG. WITH. YOU? 62.212.73.246 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, criminal lives matter. This is a basic tenet of human rights. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Criminals might have the right to live, my point was more why all the fuss? What's the point in wasting time protesting if they get killed? Michael Brown for example robbed a store and violently assaulted the store manager before he was shot. Why are people losing sleep over dead criminals like this? Schizophrenic (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Because when the police take the place of the judge, jury, and executioner, you no longer have a justice system. I don't understand what's so hard to understand. CorruptUser (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Loads of white people have been arrested, stopped by police, even convicted of crimes, without suggestion their lives have no value. From George W Bush to Paul McCartney, Hugh Grant to Bill Gates, do they all deserve to die? Annquin (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

white criminals are killed all the time. There are no protests. Why though for black criminals? The BLM has little to do with justice, its a political and ideological movement.Schizophrenic (talk)

Because white people being killed by cops are much rarer? Because most white people aren't hassled by the cops every other month even when they aren't doing anything wrong? Because when white people are killed by cops, the justice system isn't as likely to take the side of the cops? Because white people on average receive shorter sentences for the same crimes as black people? CorruptUser (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, more whites are killed by police than blacks every year in the US; just look up the stats on google as far as they go back. BLM is based on lies; its an ideological movement. Rather odd "rational"wiki supports it... And what evidence is there African-Americans are hassled by cops more than any other ethnic group in US? None. This is just victim mentality. Schizophrenic (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There are also a lot more white people than black people; black people are still 2.5 times more likely to be killed by the police. Now please remove your head from your ass already. CorruptUser (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Well if you are going to complain about the lack of protests when white people are killed by cops, why not start a protest yourself. Also, the officer stopped Brown for jaywalking and not because he had prior knowledge about a robbery.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 04:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"black people are still 2.5 times more likely to be killed by the police" Read point 1 in this article. These facts destroy your claims of racism.Schizophrenic (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

And what is the ratio of white people to black people? CorruptUser (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Well besides that point about blacks getting killed more than whites not being wrong, the article you cite claims that blacks are chargedwith certain crimes more than whites which are an attempt to justify the disproportionate rate of killings in general. You have essentially justified racial profiling an entire community on the assumption that a certain ethnic group is more likely to commit a crime; besides this logic leading towards collective punishments you don't take into account that there is a racial gap in arrests between whites and blacks who commit the same crime and that these poor, usually black, communities are being used to generate money for local governments.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 05:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"You have essentially justified racial profiling an entire community on the assumption that a certain ethnic group is more likely to commit a crime" - it isn't racial profiling since they're the majority of each city where the crimes take place. This is like idiots in London who moan that cops are stopping and searching blacks more than whites because of racism, when there are very few whites in these crime-infested inner London boroughs. If there are more blacks, then of course they're going to get stopped more.Schizophrenic (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I think it should be necessary, seeing how everyone on the internet has been spewing nonsense about BLM being about identity politics or some crap. As of the time indicated when I sign this, I'm debating a bunch of assholes who have openly compared them to certain groups you are familiar with. TheMyon (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Do your own research!

There seems to be a bug (please delete this line if the links are fixed)

http://forward.com/opinion/326278/why-campus-blacklivesmatter-protests-are-bad-for-the-jews/

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/09/02/22792847/anti-semitic-remarks-at-a-black-lives-matter-event-appear-to-go-unchallenged

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262164/marriage-black-lives-matter-jew-hatred-john-perazzo

I would call you people cucksuckers, but you seem to dislike this friendly word. 62.212.73.246 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Calls for us to do our own research, combined with "cuck". Nuff said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This was just a social experiment. Seriously though, I am a proud cucksucker. And you can be too. A cucksucker is one who knows that all people calling you cuck are suckers! Let's reclaim this word! 62.212.73.246 (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How about let's not! Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How about we have an article on that suggestion already! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to have some statistical evidence to verify the BLM core message...namely that black lives generally seem to matter less to police officers than white lives. Can anyone provide a few links?ImmaculateDeception (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent BoN contributions

Two BoNs have been trying to insert these contributions to the BLM article. They paint BLM as rabidly anti-Semitic even though most of the sources appear to be right-wing outlets with baseless opinions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 23:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not (I cannot speak for the other user) trying to paint BLM as "rabidly anti-Semitic". That is something Mona Holland did. I just wanted the section on BLM's stance on the 2016 race to remain. Maybe the Antisemitism part should be removed if it cannot be supported by sources. Though I think there may well be Antisemitism in BLM. Have a good day, sir. 107.170.215.131 (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A quick glance at your contributions and your mentioning of a user who doesn't edit here anymore makes me doubt that you are being sincere. The 2016 prez section still exists but you are reinserting claims that BLM has been anti-Semitic towards Sanders.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 23:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can prove that this statement is wrong you can remove it. I am not married to it. But please provide some sort of source for it. Thanks. Death to Antisemitism! 107.170.215.131 (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not how claims work. You need to be the one to provide evidence that this happened, not demand other people provide evidence to disprove what you claimed. Nergali (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I like this new idea for running a wiki. Instead of the claims in the article having sources, there could be a list of sources for all the claims not made, to explain why they're not there. There could even be a recent inactivity page that lists all the articles that have never been edited and don't exist. 94.7.174.20 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Alton Sterling - convicted paedophile, violent gang member

http://archive.is/G1RFs

BLM's new "saint", Alton Sterling, is a convicted paedophile and registered sex offender, also a violent gang member.

Paedophile lives matter? Schizophrenic (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Waa Waa paedo! Waa Waa!

Fuck off. PBfreespace (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The point is that whether or not the guy deserves to die, the police shouldn't be the ones doing the killing. Is that so hard to understand? CorruptUser (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

And why is it hard to understand paedophile lives don't matter? Most people want them dead.Schizophrenic (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

People who care about human rights & the rule of law don't. But this is beside the point: Sterling's prior conviction on a sex offence had nothing to do with his shooting by police nor with the BLM reaction to it. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why does this Schizophrenic guy want people to be shot in the street by cops? First he states people accused of being criminals - as in not yet prosecuted, so they may be innocent, though that's not the point - should be killed, and now he wants the same thing for people accused of committing sex crimes. Does he just not understand how our judicial system works, or does he just really want people he dislikes to be killed? Nergali (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nergali You are missing the point, he was a convicted criminal meaning that he has already been punished. Therefore, time served, case closed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 23:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It would make no difference if he was convicted or not, since it had nothing to do with his killing. You can't just shoot a guy & then post-rationalise it based on something that had nothing to do with the incident. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I was referencing his other section on this page, where he talks about people convicted of being criminals should be killed because apparently to him their lives don't matter. Weaseloid is right in that it shouldn't matter if they're convicted or not though, cops shouldn't being killing people in the streets when it is clearly an unnecessary use of force/violence. Nergali (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That was what I was trying to say. The OP believes someone who has served their time should die in an unrelated incident.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) 00:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OP just hates pedophiles, to the point of wanting them killed (!). Crazy. Why would you hate a group of people like that? Just some inborn psychological disgust I guess. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Carnal Knowledge of a Juvenile" refers to having relations with someone over 13 but below 18, which would put it squarely out of the range of pedophilia (which refers to minors under the age of 12). He was convicted of this when he was the age of 20(which would likely mean the incident occurred when he was 19). In all likelihood he had consenting relations with a girl 3-4 years his junior...over fifteen years ago. If you had a 19 year old daughter who had sex with a 15 year old boy,would you shoot her dead? 209.179.73.59 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Say it isn't so

Surely this must be bait? Or is that tweet in any way actually connected to BLM? If so, I'm at loss for words. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

*cough* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You have a number of people in BLM demanding degrees in Social Justice. Because apparently Liberal Arts is too marketable a degree. That is, they want to spend their whole lives learning to be angry and get a degree in professional protesting. After a certain point, you learn that there are people who attend every protest they can, not because they are angry, but because it's basically like a social club for them. StickySock (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So, does this in any way answer the question about the veracity of the tweet? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dunno if it's real, but it is in line with what a number BLM members do. In Albany a group of black women started a fight on a bus (it was 1 am; everyone was drunk), and claimed they were jumped by 20 white guys. BLM staged a bunch of protests, but then the bus released videos of the whole thing, showing that no it was the women. BLM still held another rally for them after.

Like I said, these are professional protestors that care less about the issue and more about being able to protest. We could reduce crime and inequality by 90% and they'd still be out in the streets protesting. StickySock (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the bus thing? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

On phone. Google "Albany bus incident". StickySock (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh, crazy stuff... Why would they decide to do this? They look normal and nice, maybe even successful! Likely they called it in just to cover up their own assault, rather than for any far-reaching political goal, it would seem... Still though. Not cool. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

They were almost certainly drunk; they remembered it wrong? IIRC, no one cared and there was no investigation until the women claimed there was a hate crime, so it wasn't to cover up their assault. Be sure to view the actual videos on YouTube.StickySock (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

BLM activists beating up white people

http://theamericanmirror.com/video-milwaukee-agitators-shout-black-power-attack-white-drivers/

Do you have a more credible source? I looked at the front page of that one and... Arawn Emrys (talk)

They are just ignoring it because it doesn't fit within their agenda.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Anything else you want to add, or are you done? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed

After I asked for sources that prove the claim that when it comes to the police, black lives don't always matter while white lives generally do, my edits were reverted by Reverend Black Percy. I was referred to the Obama quote at the beginning, but also he says simply that the data is supposed to show that black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents. I would like to know which data Obama meant.--Adorno (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It would be nice to have an statistics citation for this besides just taking a presidents word for it.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The 2nd result in Google resulting from use of the highly vetted keywords "police black". Yes, read the whole thing before commenting — not just the headline. Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What's up with the weird Palestine section?

Who put that there and how is that relevant? I'm a Zionist and this is the first time I hear of this. I think it's much more relevant how they affected the 2016 election or whether they are really as "thuggish" as Trump claims. ^{— Unsigned, by: Zionist Goy / talk / contribs}

Any objections to removing it? Zionist Goy (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As nobody raised any objections, I removed the section. If you disagree with that move, this talk page is the place to do so. Zionist Goy (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Long story short. A nutjob a year or two back showed up and created all sorts of drama in the I-P sections, and inserted her screeds everywhere. Most people tried to avoid it, because the drama was too much. If you are doing anything involving I-P, well, just be warned; it's not going to end well. CorruptUser (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. I believe it was added by an editor, who is no longer around (fingers crossed), who found a way to inject the Palestinian conflict into nearly every article, regardless of how on-mission or relevant. Petey Plane (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the section is gone now and at any rate it took up way too much of the article. If someone comes along and argues to put something to that effect back in, they can be my guest. Zionist Goy (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Arguments over the addition to this section occurred over a year or two ago, we aren't going to have those same arguments again even if you think the editor who put it there was a "nutjob".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You are the only one who disagrees with what it is otherwise a consensus. We can have this talk, but I'd like you to present arguments. Zionist Goy (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Two people and a concern troll is not a consensus. Regardless, BLM's general stance on BDS has been a topic of criticism by Zionists and conservatives who consider them anti-Israeli. Besides this section being well cited, that reason above is enough for it to be missional.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@ZG Having just disinterestedly glanced over the actual writing (I stay far way from Israel/Palestine), I will agree with Owlman that the segment appears to be fairly well sourced. I wonder, what's the harm in mentioning [whatever-the-segment-says-that-is-sourced]? Aren't the BLM people actually into the whole "free Palestine" thing, or what? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, should we have an equally long section on their stance on India/Pakistan or the European Union? I don't think the extracurricular activities regarding this one side-issue should take up a quarter of the article. Zionist Goy (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The good and the bad, people

As much as BLM's overall purpose is accepted to be progressive, the article is filled with anecdotes painting BLM in a highly victimized fashion. It also implies that BLM's only detractors are those of the extreme right.

However, nothing is stated of the damage done by their more violent protests, apparent inability to focus on more clear cut cases (Such as Phillando Castille instead of the apparently aggressive Michael Brown), and criticisms by older black generations.

Either have both types of anecdotes, or remove all anecdotes and focus solely on their position/philosophy. ^{— Unsigned, by: Milo Dangerous the book / talk / contribs} 14 August 2017 (UTC)

First: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.

Second: See balance fallacy and concern trolling. Oh, and this is not Wikipedia. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of the middle ground fallacy, and make my concerns despite of it. I don't object just for an arbitrary balance, but because the dearth of contrary evidence affects the rationality of the article as a whole. I'd say that the large difference between wikipedia and here is that RationalWiki attempts to make moral conclusions using logic with the facts presented, whereas wikipedia makes no such attempt. However, the conclusion needs to be free of egregious flaws, of course? This article attempts to paint the image, the conclusion, that criticisms against BLM are of the unprecedented nature and thus BLM is un-evidenced to be flawed (albeit implied than stated outright, but reasonably to that effect anyways), when mere contrary anecdotes that are not excessive to include undermine that entire conclusion.

Also, please don't assume 'concern trolling' at the mere suggestion that the nature of the matter isn't in fact one of two extremes. I do not enjoy my genuine concern being suggested to be otherwise.

Further, thank you for reminding me how to sign.71.80.163.105 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of Force Policies

Mapping Police Violence is an interesting and informative web site concerning the incidences of police killings of Americans. "Black people were 23% (216) of those killed despite being only 13% of the population." How racism affects the statistics is uncertain. Repeated reports of the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police is discouraging and very often the attempt to apologize for the responsible parties is sickening. But the path to improvement, according to MPV (mappingpoliceviolence.org), is independent of racial considerations. MPV maintains that there are proven solutions with respect to Use of Force Policies. For example, Buffalo, NY and Orlando FL have similar populations, have 50% and 42% minority populations (resp); Buffalo has had a higher violent crime rate than Orlando, but no police killings between 2013 and 2016. Orlando has had 16 such killings. The point is, nearly all of police killings could be eliminated with proper Use of Force Policies. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Question?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Does anyone know if the percent difference for the amount of African Americans vs white people living in the US makes up for this? Doublethink (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You should be able to find the info online e.g. US Census or Race and ethnicity in the United States. Complications exist although they're probably not very significant: there are various definitions of race, particularly re Hispanic status and bi/mixed. Rates change with time, of course. Also, I've no idea if differences in race or age would matter, so you may want to try and find the percentages of adult males rather than all people - I'd assume they're very similar to the totals but probably not identical (e.g. adult male Hispanics come here to work). --Annanoon (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I actually disagree with

Tactics. Laying down or standing in the middle of roads would only change traffic laws, not social change. Outside that, their message is fine. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Series

I reckon that we should use the Social Justice portal in stead of the Racialism template.—Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Censorship of words in software

Please add something about words like "slave", "master" (even in the sense of "original" - see git), "blacklist" and "whitelist" being mass-replaced in software code made in the US. 87.228.21.50 (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Has it been mass replaced? I've heard some chatter but nothing about a concerted campaign--Hastur! (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

From articles at a collaborative news site, without checking every source:

• master/slave and whitelist/blacklist: Google's Go.
• master/slave: BIND (left as synonyms), Django, Drupal, MediaWiki, PostgreSQL, Python, Redis, Salt.
• master (main branch): Microsoft's GitHub.
• slave: OpenZFS
• blacklist/whitelist: Google's Android and Chromium; Curl; proposed in Node.js
• Some people have been making noise about "blacklist" for years. IETF had a recommendation proposal about avoiding the words.
• Some of those probably haven't been approved yet, OpenSSL developers are having fun talking about "black magic", "white space" and "parent".

87.228.21.50 (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll point out that most of the stuff from technology seems to mostly come from white techbros, and most black folks I've seen talk about this really don't quite give a shit about the usage of these terms. Whilst this is no doubt harmless for most of the entries on this list (since synonyms), the most notable in this list is probably the GitHub one. Git is as a tool a bit of a pain to learn and the change from master to more ambigious terms (main ones that are being floated are main and trunk) make it the only change on the list that is important due to the impact it will cause and from my perspective being the only major case where it will cause problems. OpenSSL outright rejected the changes, which... certainly is a stance to take. I just don't know if all things considered we should mention this on our page, given the opener about this mostly seeming to have been a thing that white techbros gave a shit about rather than something BLM activists worked to achieve. (Especially given the sheer other amounts of issues in tech that are far more pressing, such as say... GitHubs ICE contract still being there, which makes this kinda stuff feel a bit lukewarm). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 11:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is why I believe BLM does not speak for black people

It tries to divide people instead of bringing them together. They really said blacks should boycott non-black businesses. I myself believe there is no difference between black and white. Skin color should not be the issue. Also, both BLM and the KKK are from the Democrats. 217.237.149.217 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I some questions before I get into it with you. Are you black? How well off are you? Do you think Liberals are left-wingers? And are you a right-winger? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"the KKK are from the Democrats"

Why not try finishing history class first before you start to even offer commentary on present issues? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The KKK were generally made up of Southern Democrats, though, and often used voter intimidation to force people into voting for the Democratic Party, so maybe you need to finish a history class? - The Mummy^{— Unsigned, by: 146.200.187.169 / talk / contribs}

You did use the past tense, so I'd like to remind you that after the Kennedys and LBJ pissed off the racist Southern Democrats enough with their support (however effective or ineffective, jaded or idealistic) for the Civil Rights Movement, Nixon got their votes when he opted to campaign for forced busing to keep segregation alive. So maybe, yes, don't focus on who they were but who they became and why. *edit for typos Kntai (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, that you even know to say that they were Southern Democrats suggests that you understand the subject matter somewhat more than you let on. Kntai (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I just do not see what is wrong with saying "all lives matter"

Since all lives do matter and non-blacks can face persecution too. I just find it bad and hypocritical that you have no mercy for persecuted Christians. It is just unfair and unjust. I apologize if I sound like a "I was born in the wrong generation" dude, I may sound edgy, but that is not my goal. We should reform our thoughts and positions and get rid of our cliches instead of being caught up in all those labels. Labelling should go away, it just hurts people. 217.128.167.152 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

which christians are you speaking of that are being persecuted? BLM is largely american based for issues that are mostly localised to us. no persecution of christians in the us.in a general sense all lives should matter, but the reality is that some peoples lives do matter so much. some peoples lives matter just a tad more than some. it is reflected in the equalities and discrimination faced by some groups and not others. here it is black people who have been mistreated and disadvantaged to such an appalling degree its need to be addressed. black lives matter has such a purpose. it is necessary to say black lives matter because for the longest time they did not and their treatment today tells they still do not matter. saying 'all lives matter' in response to this or to blm does nothing to correct injustices that do not effect all lives equally, and tells us not that 'all lives matter' but 'your lives do not matter' AMassiveGay (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I just wonder why everyone wants people to support this organization. It is just a government funded group and it would be dangerous to insist that there was no propaganda involved. I just see no need why I should be with the wave. It may be interesting for some people, but not for me. I care more about God than about BLM. You may laugh at me, but that is just how I roll. 217.128.167.152 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Government funded? I'd like to see a source for that claim. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I find it bad and wrong that 217 has no mercy for orphaned kittens. 77.101.82.205 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Joining to the above person's observation about all lives matter

When the father says everyone has to get his share, we do not mark the father an evil person whose existence the family can barely tolerate, at least not for this statement. BLM does exactly that. What BLM could do is find another statement that expresses the problem in an unbalanced way, because the balance in the BLM statement is obviously non-existent. This statement is a psychological trick stirring up emotions rather than anything else. It is good for creating/supporting ideologies, perfect to start a war between people, a great way to amplify feelings of unfairness without any proper definition of the problem. And this is the root of a lot of these emotions: the expression BLM does nothing to describe an exact, well defined problem that can be investigated and potentially solved. It is a phrase, and teh BLM organization puts varying content behind it depending on who their audience is at the moment. It is a summary of feelings, not problems. BLM has to stay around exactly for the purpose of causing anger, frustration, stress. That is the only thing that this phrase achieved so far, and this is exactly the purpose that it was created for. ALM is an expression that does not help this strategy so it must go. Without mercy. Hence the reasoning against ALM so complex, so painfully illogical. ^{— Unsigned, by: 84.224.166.132 / talk / contribs}

Are you also going to object to Greenpeace on the grounds that its name is meant to evoke feelings rather than being a statement of specific problems? Or the Republican Party, or National Audubon Society? The rationale for Black Lives Matter has been stated repeatedly, so you can hardly say you are unware of it. --Annanoon (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with the manipulative name Greenpeace. When a name tries to be nice instead of trying to be a good definition of the purpose, that is manipulation IMO. Same way I am totally upset about the complete lack of information, and an overwhelming amount of artificially generated feelings in most things today. That includes the deceptive and manipulative "science" whose only purpose is to fool masses of people more and more effectively, using every piece of weakness psychology finds in the human way of thinking and feeling. The name of the "science" is of course marketing. The application of marketing ideas determines a lot of names today. No wonder everyone is confused about everything.

About the organizations themselves, Greenpeace vs. BLM, I do not remember the same kind of hatred and violence going around because of Greenpeace. At the same time I do not remember Greenpeace making phrases like ALM taboo in our society. Can you remember such a (normally neutral) phrase that you do not dare to speak out in the presence of Greenpeace people? Because I have to admit that I am not a brave man, but I would not be courageous enough to say ALM in the middle of a BLM demonstration/riot/whatever. (Maybe I would not need to say anything, just my looks would get me into trouble with them.) While at the same time when a group wants to save whales, I'd be surely brave enough to say all animals matter. (I know what you're thinking now, I do not particularly care for mosquitoes either, but I accept their role and necessity in nature.) And if Greenpeace people starts treating people like the Catholic church in the middle ages, making them outcasts for using forbidden phrases, that to me will definitely mean that they have crossed a red line. And to me it will also suggest that they have no content, all they have is phrases, and they have no idea how to defend those phrases by reasoning, so they use force. Fortunately Greenpeace is not like that AFAIK.

One reason I know the Catholic Church was full of lies (could use a less polite word here) during the middle ages is exactly because it made statements, and it would not tolerate any arguments, any doubts about those statements. The equation is simple: if you say ALM, you need to be afraid even of a physical response, and you will be an outcast in a large portion of society. Best is not to say this. This phrase has become a taboo. This is the main problem with the ALM issue. Not that it conflicts with some organization's "message", the problem is the violent answer (physically and otherwise). This shows that whatever BLM says today cannot be questioned in their presence. No matter if they are wrong about some issues, arguments are not allowed. This is why ALM is a phrase that is not allowed. Think twice before you go against them. Any thought, phrase that questions anything the BLM organization says will get you in trouble. You might be happy about this, you might believe marking the father an outcast for that phrase is a good thing, I disagree. You might think the father should have forgotten about all his other children, and should have concentrated only on that one child, I disagree again. If the father finds a good solution to the problem he needs to consider every member of the family in his decision. You might disagree, I accept that. What I do not accept is the anger, the hatred and the violence. I wish people were a bit more liberal in their thinking. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.101.76.65 / talk}