In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
This is poor delivery. Asking for 10 different objectives won't work. People won't read and get behind it. It needs to be 1 or 2 core issues and nothing else. The public isn't capable of being swayed by a list of demands. They/we are a bunch of low effort, low attention idiots. Cater your message accordingly or it will continue to go nowhere.
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
This is poor delivery. Asking for 10 different objectives won't work. People won't read and get behind it. It needs to be 1 or 2 core issues and nothing else. The public isn't capable of being swayed by a list of demands. They/we are a bunch of low effort, low attention idiots. Cater your message accordingly or it will continue to go nowhere.
So the solution is "it's too hard to fix, settle for some cosmetic improvements"? Not going to happen. People either get on board with a list, or get used to stuff getting shut down.
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
No they are not, they may have browsed very briefly but their comments suggest they didn't engage with the material.
Thinking of the public as failures is not productive.
If you say so, doesn't mean it's not true though.
That BLM exists at all is a failure of society to address this stuff when we were talking about decades ago. So talking about failures of their messaging is like criticizing fire fighters for not properly fighting a fire you started.
They may not be fighting it perfectly but the discussion about how they are fighting the fire is missing the context of why they are fighting it in the first place.
Stop saying 'we' if you weren't around decades ago to talk about this stuff.
Apparently the GOP platform wants the Bible taught in public schools due to its" indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry." No other religions, just the bible.
Man, from my reading the GOP could give the Victorians a run for their money.
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
This is poor delivery. Asking for 10 different objectives won't work. People won't read and get behind it. It needs to be 1 or 2 core issues and nothing else. The public isn't capable of being swayed by a list of demands. They/we are a bunch of low effort, low attention idiots. Cater your message accordingly or it will continue to go nowhere.
So the solution is "it's too hard to fix, settle for some cosmetic improvements"? Not going to happen. People either get on board with a list, or get used to stuff getting shut down.
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
No they are not, they may have browsed very briefly but their comments suggest they didn't engage with the material.
Thinking of the public as failures is not productive.
If you say so, doesn't mean it's not true though.
That BLM exists at all is a failure of society to address this stuff when we were talking about decades ago. So talking about failures of their messaging is like criticizing fire fighters for not properly fighting a fire you started.
They may not be fighting it perfectly but the discussion about how they are fighting the fire is missing the context of why they are fighting it in the first place.
Stop saying 'we' if you weren't around decades ago to talk about this stuff.
No.
then things are just going to get shut down every time another black person is shot by the police. Hes saying fix one thing at a time or nothing will get done and your saying "lets get nothing done then". Do you see how hard it is for people not on your side to support it?
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
This is poor delivery. Asking for 10 different objectives won't work. People won't read and get behind it. It needs to be 1 or 2 core issues and nothing else. The public isn't capable of being swayed by a list of demands. They/we are a bunch of low effort, low attention idiots. Cater your message accordingly or it will continue to go nowhere.
So the solution is "it's too hard to fix, settle for some cosmetic improvements"? Not going to happen. People either get on board with a list, or get used to stuff getting shut down.
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
No they are not, they may have browsed very briefly but their comments suggest they didn't engage with the material.
Thinking of the public as failures is not productive.
If you say so, doesn't mean it's not true though.
That BLM exists at all is a failure of society to address this stuff when we were talking about decades ago. So talking about failures of their messaging is like criticizing fire fighters for not properly fighting a fire you started.
They may not be fighting it perfectly but the discussion about how they are fighting the fire is missing the context of why they are fighting it in the first place.
Stop saying 'we' if you weren't around decades ago to talk about this stuff.
No.
Okay continue to lie and take credit for the accomplishments and hard work of others then
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
This is poor delivery. Asking for 10 different objectives won't work. People won't read and get behind it. It needs to be 1 or 2 core issues and nothing else. The public isn't capable of being swayed by a list of demands. They/we are a bunch of low effort, low attention idiots. Cater your message accordingly or it will continue to go nowhere.
So the solution is "it's too hard to fix, settle for some cosmetic improvements"? Not going to happen. People either get on board with a list, or get used to stuff getting shut down.
On July 15 2016 05:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 15 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 15 2016 05:35 Mercy13 wrote: Are the people criticizing BLM for not having specific objectives familiar with Campaign Zero?
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
No they are not, they may have browsed very briefly but their comments suggest they didn't engage with the material.
Thinking of the public as failures is not productive.
If you say so, doesn't mean it's not true though.
That BLM exists at all is a failure of society to address this stuff when we were talking about decades ago. So talking about failures of their messaging is like criticizing fire fighters for not properly fighting a fire you started.
They may not be fighting it perfectly but the discussion about how they are fighting the fire is missing the context of why they are fighting it in the first place.
Stop saying 'we' if you weren't around decades ago to talk about this stuff.
No.
then things are just going to get shut down every time another black person is shot by the police. Hes saying fix one thing at a time or nothing will get done and your saying "lets get nothing done then". Do you see how hard it is for people not on your side to support it?
The time for incremental improvements passed a long time ago. We've seen what those "incremental changes" look like and we're telling you it's no longer acceptable. No one is stopping like minded folks to yourself from protesting for the changes you all think would alleviate the problem, bottom line is that it's not happening.
The choice is "get nothing done" or "get nothing done" and the protests are saying "we don't accept that choice". The people opposing/not actively supporting things like reforming police union contracts, coming up with federal use of force guidelines, stopping the habitual violations of peoples 4th amendment rights, etc... have to come up with a better offer or the interruptions will continue.
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
This is poor delivery. Asking for 10 different objectives won't work. People won't read and get behind it. It needs to be 1 or 2 core issues and nothing else. The public isn't capable of being swayed by a list of demands. They/we are a bunch of low effort, low attention idiots. Cater your message accordingly or it will continue to go nowhere.
So the solution is "it's too hard to fix, settle for some cosmetic improvements"? Not going to happen. People either get on board with a list, or get used to stuff getting shut down.
On July 15 2016 05:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 15 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 15 2016 05:35 Mercy13 wrote: Are the people criticizing BLM for not having specific objectives familiar with Campaign Zero?
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
No they are not, they may have browsed very briefly but their comments suggest they didn't engage with the material.
Thinking of the public as failures is not productive.
If you say so, doesn't mean it's not true though.
That BLM exists at all is a failure of society to address this stuff when we were talking about decades ago. So talking about failures of their messaging is like criticizing fire fighters for not properly fighting a fire you started.
They may not be fighting it perfectly but the discussion about how they are fighting the fire is missing the context of why they are fighting it in the first place.
Stop saying 'we' if you weren't around decades ago to talk about this stuff.
No.
Okay continue to lie and take credit for the accomplishments and hard work of others then
Yawn, the interruptions are obnoxious, wasteful, and unhelpful. As is the poor messaging and lack of focus. But I don't feel like arguing about it with you GH. I'd rather focus on winning.
On July 15 2016 06:03 zlefin wrote: Yawn, the interruptions are obnoxious, wasteful, and unhelpful. As is the poor messaging and lack of focus. But I don't feel like arguing about it with you GH. I'd rather focus on winning.
Yeah, because before the interruptions some serious progress was being made... smh
On July 15 2016 06:03 zlefin wrote: Yawn, the interruptions are obnoxious, wasteful, and unhelpful. As is the poor messaging and lack of focus. But I don't feel like arguing about it with you GH. I'd rather focus on winning.
Yeah, because before the interruptions some serious progress was being made... smh
And with the interruptions serious progress has been made in the last few years?
On July 15 2016 06:03 zlefin wrote: Yawn, the interruptions are obnoxious, wasteful, and unhelpful. As is the poor messaging and lack of focus. But I don't feel like arguing about it with you GH. I'd rather focus on winning.
Yeah, because before the interruptions some serious progress was being made... smh
There was, you just refuse to see it or accept it. And there's stuff being done now as well, which you again refuse to see or accept. And the interruptions aren't making a difference anyways, they just piss people off, everyone was already well aware of the issues.
On July 15 2016 06:03 zlefin wrote: Yawn, the interruptions are obnoxious, wasteful, and unhelpful. As is the poor messaging and lack of focus. But I don't feel like arguing about it with you GH. I'd rather focus on winning.
Yeah, because before the interruptions some serious progress was being made... smh
And with the interruptions serious progress has been made in the last few years?
I'd say more so than that which preceded it. If we're going to be honest, the biggest shift in tone (in the right direction) from the GOP in decades came after some asshole murdered 5 cops, a dangerous precedent as I noted earlier.
It's also become increasingly absurd to suggest that there isn't a problem in policing. Go back 5-10 years and look at how people reacted to the claims that what we are now seeing on cell cameras was happening before we had them. It's pathetic that we have to tread this ground, but it's not insignificant that so many have over the last few years especially.
Undoubtedly, millions of Americans who thought the discussion on police brutality and racialized policing didn't concern them have been dragged into it when they had to opine about how it's impacting them. The traffic works to force people to engage in the conversation when otherwise they could turn a blind eye. This has been a key part of treading the ground I mentioned earlier. People who haven't been engaged say things like Corsair did a while back about the FBI stats* (not trying to pick on you, just the one that came to mind) and are forced to be confronted with the reality of how distorted their understanding (surrounding specific facts at least) actually is.
Most people are shocked to find out police aren't alcohol/drug tested when they are involved in car crashes, let alone during shootings, many have no idea police are often given 24-48+ hours before being questioned, when questioned they get special treatment, given access to evidence before being questioned about it, etc... That the mere suggestion that these investigations even have the appearance of validity is pretty absurd, is something many people typically opine on from a place of ignorance.
There's a lot of things people don't know about the whole situation and they are being forced to engage with it, that wouldn't happen if their lives weren't being interrupted, we know this.
Theres an argument about it yes but its still going against decades of it being reinforce of being an "urban problem" that the left fails to deal with despite having uncontested control over the issue in cities.
Not to mention that it directly conflicts with the hugely popular (if really bullshit) "tough on crime" politics that have delivered so many political victories.
There won't be any great victory that will come of this outside of incremental changes every time someone gets shot by the police. Sustained disruptions to society will never get anyone anywhere. Just look at what happened to OWS
GH, you say it's been too long and that the current rate of change isn't acceptable. But that's not your decision to make. That's what you aren't understanding. That decision falls on the people you hope to inspire and bring into your movement. You need to convince them, not yourself. Until there is significantly more support, it's going nowhere. Other people need to believe blm is a group worth supporting and that their goals are in line with their own. Breadth of support is the #1 most important component to a movement's success. You can decide enough is enough, but it doesn't mean anything. Gays felt the same way for a long time. It wasn't until public opinion was on their side that anything got done.
On July 15 2016 06:34 Sermokala wrote: Theres an argument about it yes but its still going against decades of it being reinforce of being an "urban problem" that the left fails to deal with despite having uncontested control over the issue in cities.
Not to mention that it directly conflicts with the hugely popular (if really bullshit) "tough on crime" politics that have delivered so many political victories.
There won't be any great victory that will come of this outside of incremental changes every time someone gets shot by the police. Sustained disruptions to society will never get anyone anywhere. Just look at what happened to OWS
I think history would disagree with this point.
I get what you all are saying, I think what you're misunderstanding is that the people protesting believe they are already living in a sustained disruption to society. I think anyone who claims to value the constitution should be able to see how at the very minimum the sustained and consistent violations of peoples 4th amendment rights substantiates that belief.
On July 15 2016 06:41 farvacola wrote: People who value the Constitution, as a group, do not agree with each other on anything as a matter of course, so try again.
Really, people being deprived of their 4th amendment rights is a matter of dispute as to whether their society is being disrupted?
I mean if we can't agree that being deprived constitutional rights doesn't constitute a disrupted society, we might as well call it a wrap.
On July 15 2016 06:41 farvacola wrote: People who value the Constitution, as a group, do not agree with each other on anything as a matter of course, so try again.
Really, people being deprived of their 4th amendment rights is a matter of dispute as to whether their society is being disrupted?
I mean if we can't agree that being deprived constitutional rights doesn't constitute a disrupted society, we might as well call it a wrap.
Stop being so obtuse; the deprivation itself is obviously the locus of disagreement.
EPT
