F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

[Jezza13]

To have 'not being white' as a requirement for filling a position is manifestly racist. And I say that as a 'person of colour'.

I 100% support eliminating all race/gender/age/disability etc barriers to anyone who wants to enter and progress through the sport, however beyond that things should be left to take their natural course based on competence and a certain amount of luck, as it is now.

It's the old 'equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome' debate. In my view the former is essential, the latter is a folly. For more information about why I feel that way, research the gender equality paradox. It's fascinating read and basically shows that the more you equalise equality of opportunity, the more people fall into the same traditional positions as they do now. Helicoptering people into positions because of anything other than competence does no favours for the organisation doing it, or the person themselves.

As for the comment about 'yet another white middle aged man' - some may consider that racist, ageist and sexist. Can you imagine the uproar if someone referred to Usain Bolt disparagingly as 'yet another black man' when looking at a list of 100m record holders? What's the difference, except the skin colour of the target?

100% agree with you there Ted.

As for the gender equality paradox, I often wonder if men & women are truly equal in every way as some suggest, then how did the Patriarchal society come into existence in the first place without starting a full blown gender war sometime in the last 10,000 years?

[TedStriker]

To answer that question, first I'd need to be shown evidence of the existence of a patriarchal society.

And as for men and women being equal in every sense, only a fool would suggest that. What society needs to accept is that there are differences between men and women and that's fine! There are positives and negatives for both genders but when someone has an agenda to push, they conveniently forget that.

Anyway we've strayed a bit too far off topic even for off topic, so to bring it back...

It is important when looking at statistics around Police shootings to consider all of the figures, not just pick one that suits a particular point of view/agenda.

It is absolutely true that you are far more likely to be killed by Police in the US if you are black as opposed to white. However the statistic that is very rarely quoted alongside that is that in any given interaction with the Police, you are twice a likely to be killed if you are white as opposed to black. What creates this paradox is that if you are black, you are way more likely to have an interaction with the Police.

This, of course, is a societal issue that needs to be addressed, but it in no way shows the Police to be racist and trigger happy when it comes to dealing with black people. The truth is it is the other way round.

[Alienturnedhuman]

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24181 ... domenicali

[Banana Man]

I’m sure most people are in favour of diversity but they tend not to do anything when it’s detrimental to their own interests. Even Lewis sacked his black manager and replaced him with a white one a few years ago, so nobody is immune from it.

[Banana Man]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/54314430

Sensible move IMO, otherwise you end up with an impossible decision on where to draw the line. What’s to stop Max wearing a ‘Justice for MH17’ T-shirt this weekend for example.

[Jezza13]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/54314430

Sensible move IMO, otherwise you end up with an impossible decision on where to draw the line. What’s to stop Max wearing a ‘Justice for MH17’ T-shirt this weekend for example.

Yeah imagine how a " Autonomy for Honk Kong" or "Free The Uyghur's" t-shirt would go down in China?

[mikeyg123]

Or something dubious like a catholic driver wearing something pro life.

[oz_karter]

It is absolutely true that you are far more likely to be killed by Police in the US if you are black as opposed to white. However the statistic that is very rarely quoted alongside that is that in any given interaction with the Police, you are twice a likely to be killed if you are white as opposed to black. What creates this paradox is that if you are black, you are way more likely to have an interaction with the Police.

This, of course, is a societal issue that needs to be addressed, but it in no way shows the Police to be racist and trigger happy when it comes to dealing with black people. The truth is it is the other way round.

Why do black people interact with police more often? Reading between the lines, you seem to conclude that they are criminals and therefore this is expected.

But is it not possibly true that police pay more attention because of stereotyping or even racism?

Maybe white people are killed proportionally more (if that stat is even true) because when they interact with police they are holding an assault rifle...

Your statistics don't paint any more of a picture. Racism is much bigger than police killings. It is not imaginary.

[TedStriker]

It is absolutely true that you are far more likely to be killed by Police in the US if you are black as opposed to white. However the statistic that is very rarely quoted alongside that is that in any given interaction with the Police, you are twice a likely to be killed if you are white as opposed to black. What creates this paradox is that if you are black, you are way more likely to have an interaction with the Police.

This, of course, is a societal issue that needs to be addressed, but it in no way shows the Police to be racist and trigger happy when it comes to dealing with black people. The truth is it is the other way round.

Why do black people interact with police more often? Reading between the lines, you seem to conclude that they are criminals and therefore this is expected.

But is it not possibly true that police pay more attention because of stereotyping or even racism?

Maybe white people are killed proportionally more (if that stat is even true) because when they interact with police they are holding an assault rifle...

Your statistics don't paint any more of a picture. Racism is much bigger than police killings. It is not imaginary.

My intent was not to draw any such conclusion, which is why I said the higher rate of police interactions with black people is a societal issue which needs to be dealt with. Whether it is down to police racism or whether there is really is a higher crime rate among black people (which would naturally lead to a higher rate of interactions), is a matter for debate, for sure.

What is for sure though, is that these issues are not solved by rioting, looting and killing police officers. They are also not solved by dividing the world into 'people of colour' and 'white people' and pitching them against each other. That's how you start a race war.

Yes, of course racism is much bigger than police killings and nowhere have I suggested it is imaginary. What I am saying specifically is that police killings may not be racist - if you consider all statistics, not just the ones that support your position.

If you're going to tackle an issue, it really is best to be sure of where that issue needs targeting or, as is happening right now, you rapidly lose the support of the wider population. Especially if you use tactics of violence and intimidation.

There's a very important election coming up in the US soon. The overwhelming majority of those involved in the rioting, looting, etc will be Democrat supporters but it's kind of ironic that their behaviour could well be the very thing that tips the balance in favour of Trump and they end up with another four years due to their own actions.

It's very easy to watch the media and get the feeling that the whole of the USA is either interested in or supports the BLM movement. In reality it's very much a minority thing (which is given massively disproportionate support by the main stream media and virtue signalling celebrities/companies), and what most people see is anti Trump protestors destroying cities. That does not make them vote Democrat. Nor does calling them racist for not following the exact rules set out for how one must signal one's non racism.

Anyway, back on topic - I see Hamilton has once again hijacked the F1's 'End Racism' segment to show his support for one race only. That, also, is not how you end racism.

[kleefton]

It is absolutely true that you are far more likely to be killed by Police in the US if you are black as opposed to white. However the statistic that is very rarely quoted alongside that is that in any given interaction with the Police, you are twice a likely to be killed if you are white as opposed to black. What creates this paradox is that if you are black, you are way more likely to have an interaction with the Police.

This, of course, is a societal issue that needs to be addressed, but it in no way shows the Police to be racist and trigger happy when it comes to dealing with black people. The truth is it is the other way round.

Why do black people interact with police more often? Reading between the lines, you seem to conclude that they are criminals and therefore this is expected.

But is it not possibly true that police pay more attention because of stereotyping or even racism?

Maybe white people are killed proportionally more (if that stat is even true) because when they interact with police they are holding an assault rifle...

Your statistics don't paint any more of a picture. Racism is much bigger than police killings. It is not imaginary.

I'd wager that the only reason statistics show that police kills more whites than blacks is simply because the USA is still a predominantly white country. Also the statistic does not show whether or not the killings were wrongful or unwarranted. I'm sure that most killings by police are justified, but the matter which is creating those BLM protests focuses on those who are killed wrongfully.

And there is no reason to be "tired of being reminded of your white privilege". White privilege should be a good thing for you if you are white. I wish I had black privilege. It's like being tired of being called rich. I can't believe what I'm reading here sometimes.

[Siao7]

It is absolutely true that you are far more likely to be killed by Police in the US if you are black as opposed to white. However the statistic that is very rarely quoted alongside that is that in any given interaction with the Police, you are twice a likely to be killed if you are white as opposed to black. What creates this paradox is that if you are black, you are way more likely to have an interaction with the Police.

This, of course, is a societal issue that needs to be addressed, but it in no way shows the Police to be racist and trigger happy when it comes to dealing with black people. The truth is it is the other way round.

Why do black people interact with police more often? Reading between the lines, you seem to conclude that they are criminals and therefore this is expected.

But is it not possibly true that police pay more attention because of stereotyping or even racism?

Maybe white people are killed proportionally more (if that stat is even true) because when they interact with police they are holding an assault rifle...

Your statistics don't paint any more of a picture. Racism is much bigger than police killings. It is not imaginary.

I'd wager that the only reason statistics show that police kills more whites than blacks is simply because the USA is still a predominantly white country. Also the statistic does not show whether or not the killings were wrongful or unwarranted. I'm sure that most killings by police are justified, but the matter which is creating those BLM protests focuses on those who are killed wrongfully.

And there is no reason to be "tired of being reminded of your white privilege". White privilege should be a good thing for you if you are white. I wish I had black privilege. It's like being tired of being called rich. I can't believe what I'm reading here sometimes.

I find similarities for both sides. They are both tired of being called something just because of their skin. It may sound simple and surely whites have had it much better in the States and other countries, but as a principle it is quite similar.

The problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far. Someone sent me a link to some "public freakout" videos and it is unreal. For example someone asked a black lady to put her mask on the train and she started shouting "white privilege" and made a fuss over it. Many other examples of people harassing others to pledge allegiance to BLM. I also experienced it at work, people ranting racism about petty things.

Overall I think it has gone out of control and people got lost along the way. It is a valid cause, but the extreme situations that we see do not help.

[Asphalt_World]

There's one way we can remove the term 'White privilege' from use. Same as removing the need for the BLM movement. Sadly, I don't think this will ever ever happen.

[oz_karter]

The problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far. Someone sent me a link to some "public freakout" videos and it is unreal. For example someone asked a black lady to put her mask on the train and she started shouting "white privilege" and made a fuss over it. Many other examples of people harassing others to pledge allegiance to BLM. I also experienced it at work, people ranting racism about petty things.

Overall I think it has gone out of control and people got lost along the way. It is a valid cause, but the extreme situations that we see do not help.

I wouldn't base an opinion on a video or even a collection of videos. They aren't a representation of a whole movement. Just individuals.

It's the big picture that matters.

[oz_karter]

There's a very important election coming up in the US soon. The overwhelming majority of those involved in the rioting, looting, etc will be Democrat supporters but it's kind of ironic that their behaviour could well be the very thing that tips the balance in favour of Trump and they end up with another four years due to their own actions.

It's very easy to watch the media and get the feeling that the whole of the USA is either interested in or supports the BLM movement. In reality it's very much a minority thing (which is given massively disproportionate support by the main stream media and virtue signalling celebrities/companies), and what most people see is anti Trump protestors destroying cities. That does not make them vote Democrat. Nor does calling them racist for not following the exact rules set out for how one must signal one's non racism.

I think this is a bit backwards. There seems to be a perception that people either support one major party or the other from birth and they base everything in their lives around this. In some cases that may be true, but in most cases it is far from true.

If someone who denounces racism and believes in equality and equity was looking at the election, they would obviously be more likely to vote Democrat. But this doesn't mean they ARE a Democrat, it's just voting that way is more likely to move the US towards the values they believe in.

Don't fall for the narrative that everyone is a rusted on party supporter.

[Jezza13]

The problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far. Someone sent me a link to some "public freakout" videos and it is unreal. For example someone asked a black lady to put her mask on the train and she started shouting "white privilege" and made a fuss over it. Many other examples of people harassing others to pledge allegiance to BLM. I also experienced it at work, people ranting racism about petty things.

Overall I think it has gone out of control and people got lost along the way. It is a valid cause, but the extreme situations that we see do not help.

I wouldn't base an opinion on a video or even a collection of videos. They aren't a representation of a whole movement. Just individuals.

It's the big picture that matters.

They very much are a representation of the movement. They chant the slogan. They raise thye fist. They carry the sign. They wear the shirt, How much more of a representation do you need?

Also, pity that line of thinking doesn't seem to apply to US cops as well does it? Things would be a lot quieter.

Remember your teacher telling you to behave when you went on an excursion because you were representing your school? Why do you think they said that? Because bad behaviour could've damaged the school name?

Why do you think sports people get the sack when they get caught out in some scandal that might not even be illegal? Because it could reflect negatively on the sport in general & the team in particular.

Individuals are the movement & acts of those individuals define the movement.

[Siao7]

The problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far. Someone sent me a link to some "public freakout" videos and it is unreal. For example someone asked a black lady to put her mask on the train and she started shouting "white privilege" and made a fuss over it. Many other examples of people harassing others to pledge allegiance to BLM. I also experienced it at work, people ranting racism about petty things.

Overall I think it has gone out of control and people got lost along the way. It is a valid cause, but the extreme situations that we see do not help.

I wouldn't base an opinion on a video or even a collection of videos. They aren't a representation of a whole movement. Just individuals.

It's the big picture that matters.

They very much are a representation of the movement. They chant the slogan. They raise thye fist. They carry the sign. They wear the shirt, How much more of a representation do you need?

Also, pity that line of thinking doesn't seem to apply to US cops as well does it? Things would be a lot quieter.

Remember your teacher telling you to behave when you went on an excursion because you were representing your school? Why do you think they said that? Because bad behaviour could've damaged the school name?

Why do you think sports people get the sack when they get caught out in some scandal that might not even be illegal? Because it could reflect negatively on the sport in general & the team in particular.

Individuals are the movement & acts of those individuals define the movement.

Unfortunately it was a large number of videos. And who knows how many we haven't seen yet. But doesn't really matter, there is no metric really, what is certain is that a lot of people have just gone overboard, that's what I was saying.

[oz_karter]

They very much are a representation of the movement. They chant the slogan. They raise thye fist. They carry the sign. They wear the shirt, How much more of a representation do you need?

Also, pity that line of thinking doesn't seem to apply to US cops as well does it? Things would be a lot quieter.

Remember your teacher telling you to behave when you went on an excursion because you were representing your school? Why do you think they said that? Because bad behaviour could've damaged the school name?

Why do you think sports people get the sack when they get caught out in some scandal that might not even be illegal? Because it could reflect negatively on the sport in general & the team in particular.

Individuals are the movement & acts of those individuals define the movement.

But BLM isn't an institution or formal organisation. It's a sudden social movement and anyone is free to use the hashtag and the flag.

Unlike the police. Or a school. Or a sports team. They are institutions and controlled.

Even a large number of videos of individuals doesn't change the fact that racism exists, is institutionalised and ruins lives.

[Siao7]

They very much are a representation of the movement. They chant the slogan. They raise thye fist. They carry the sign. They wear the shirt, How much more of a representation do you need?

Also, pity that line of thinking doesn't seem to apply to US cops as well does it? Things would be a lot quieter.

Remember your teacher telling you to behave when you went on an excursion because you were representing your school? Why do you think they said that? Because bad behaviour could've damaged the school name?

Why do you think sports people get the sack when they get caught out in some scandal that might not even be illegal? Because it could reflect negatively on the sport in general & the team in particular.

Individuals are the movement & acts of those individuals define the movement.

But BLM isn't an institution or formal organisation. It's a sudden social movement and anyone is free to use the hashtag and the flag.

Unlike the police. Or a school. Or a sports team. They are institutions and controlled.

Even a large number of videos of individuals doesn't change the fact that racism exists, is institutionalised and ruins lives.

Can I ask what do you mean by sudden? It was founded in 2013.

[Jezza13]

They very much are a representation of the movement. They chant the slogan. They raise thye fist. They carry the sign. They wear the shirt, How much more of a representation do you need?

Also, pity that line of thinking doesn't seem to apply to US cops as well does it? Things would be a lot quieter.

Remember your teacher telling you to behave when you went on an excursion because you were representing your school? Why do you think they said that? Because bad behaviour could've damaged the school name?

Why do you think sports people get the sack when they get caught out in some scandal that might not even be illegal? Because it could reflect negatively on the sport in general & the team in particular.

Individuals are the movement & acts of those individuals define the movement.

But BLM isn't an institution or formal organisation. It's a sudden social movement and anyone is free to use the hashtag and the flag.

Unlike the police. Or a school. Or a sports team. They are institutions and controlled.

Even a large number of videos of individuals doesn't change the fact that racism exists, is institutionalised and ruins lives.

Beg to differ.

From the BLM website

BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada,

BLM is indeed a formal organisation. It's a 501 C3 organisation which means it's a corporation, trust, unincorporated association, or other type of organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code.

The organisation has a mission statement (which incidentally has been changed within the last few months to remove some of their, lets say, more interesting, components), it obviously accepts donations, you can buy merchandise, it lists one of the founders, Patrisse Cullors. as the incoming Executive Director. It has an email address dedicated to "corporate/foundation grants or other partnership questions"

Also, being a C3 organisation, they're not suppose to portray any political leanings or communicate political opinions, but it's clear reading through the material & watching some videos that the movement does indeed seem to have a political bias.

BLM may be a social movement in some minor respect, but to suggest it's not a formal organisation, & a well funded organisation at that, which coincidently is affiliated with ActBlue Charities, an organisation which according to Wikipedia, "is a nonprofit technology organization established in June 2004 that enables left-leaning nonprofits, Democratic candidates, and progressive groups to raise money from individual donors on the Internet by providing them with online fundraising software". that not only has a social but a political agenda, is totally inaccurate.

[Asphalt_World]

Also, regardless of when the BLM tag became a thing, people wanting equal rights, oportunities and and respect, regardless of skin colour, has been an ongoing issue for centuries. The fact that people are trying to bash the BLM movement and claiming it's some kind of recent thing, is ignorant and stupid.

[oz_karter]

Also, regardless of when the BLM tag became a thing, people wanting equal rights, oportunities and and respect, regardless of skin colour, has been an ongoing issue for centuries. The fact that people are trying to bash the BLM movement and claiming it's some kind of recent thing, is ignorant and stupid.

Fully agree.

And just because someone is wearing a shirt, waving a flag or otherwise using Black Lives Matter does not mean they are part of an organisation.

The pettiness and misunderstanding is mindblowing.

[Siao7]

Also, regardless of when the BLM tag became a thing, people wanting equal rights, oportunities and and respect, regardless of skin colour, has been an ongoing issue for centuries. The fact that people are trying to bash the BLM movement and claiming it's some kind of recent thing, is ignorant and stupid.

Fully agree.

And just because someone is wearing a shirt, waving a flag or otherwise using Black Lives Matter does not mean they are part of an organisation.

The pettiness and misunderstanding is mindblowing.

I am not sure if you are referring to me about pettiness and misunderstanding, but the examples I gave included both individuals and organised groups. Some of them affiliated with BLM and some just using it as a way to get out of a situation (where they were on the wrong). Sadly there were a lot of examples, which of course does not mean that everyone is like that, I was just discussing how even if they have the purest of causes, some people will take advantage of it as it suits them. And that is bad publicity for them.

But your first sentence sounds a bit bizarre to be honest. Marching in a BLM protest, chanting with them, waving the flags and wearing the shirts, but when they go overboard they suddenly are NOT affiliated with BLM? Come on...

[Jezza13]

Also, regardless of when the BLM tag became a thing, people wanting equal rights, oportunities and and respect, regardless of skin colour, has been an ongoing issue for centuries. The fact that people are trying to bash the BLM movement and claiming it's some kind of recent thing, is ignorant and stupid.

Fully agree.

And just because someone is wearing a shirt, waving a flag or otherwise using Black Lives Matter does not mean they are part of an organisation.

The pettiness and misunderstanding is mindblowing.

But your first sentence sounds a bit bizarre to be honest. Marching in a BLM protest, chanting with them, waving the flags and wearing the shirts, but when they go overboard they suddenly are NOT affiliated with BLM? Come on...

Yeah I took a bit of time to consider that response & honestly try to understand where oz_karter was coming from.

The best I could do was say maybe that's correct in that a person wearing the clothes, chanting etc may not technically be part of that organisation, the same way that if I to go & watch my favorite football team play, wear the jersey, paint the face in team colours & sing the team song, doesn't necessarily mean i'm part of the team as I may not be a member, i'm just a supporter. That's about as far as I could stretch that particular bow. What it will say though is that I supporter the team & the way they play the game & i'd argue that by extension that'd at least make me a de facto member of the organisation.

Lets put it this way. if I was dumb enough to throw a white hood over my head, carry a burning cross & abuse black people, do you think the general consensus among the community would be " Now lets not jump to conclusions here, he might not be a racist jacka$$"? Nah, don't think that'd be the case.

What about if I were to go to a BLM rally wearing a MAGA hat chanting Trump 2020 ? Do you think that not only would I get my head caved in but i'd also be abused and called a right-wing extremist, white supremacist or fascist? Do you think the media would straight away link the Trump government to my actions because of what I was wearing and chanting even though I may have absolutely no links to the current administration? Of course all that'd happen.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then it's reasonable to call it a duck.

While we're on about judging books by covers and all that, I wonder if the main stream media or BLM will jump on board to call out this blatant act of racism...or was it?

I'll not hold my breath waiting.

[Siao7]

Also, regardless of when the BLM tag became a thing, people wanting equal rights, oportunities and and respect, regardless of skin colour, has been an ongoing issue for centuries. The fact that people are trying to bash the BLM movement and claiming it's some kind of recent thing, is ignorant and stupid.

Fully agree.

And just because someone is wearing a shirt, waving a flag or otherwise using Black Lives Matter does not mean they are part of an organisation.

The pettiness and misunderstanding is mindblowing.

But your first sentence sounds a bit bizarre to be honest. Marching in a BLM protest, chanting with them, waving the flags and wearing the shirts, but when they go overboard they suddenly are NOT affiliated with BLM? Come on...

Yeah I took a bit of time to consider that response & honestly try to understand where oz_karter was coming from.

The best I could do was say maybe that's correct in that a person wearing the clothes, chanting etc may not technically be part of that organisation, the same way that if I to go & watch my favorite football team play, wear the jersey, paint the face in team colours & sing the team song, doesn't necessarily mean i'm part of the team as I may not be a member, i'm just a supporter. That's about as far as I could stretch that particular bow. What it will say though is that I supporter the team & the way they play the game & i'd argue that by extension that'd at least make me a de facto member of the organisation.

Lets put it this way. if I was dumb enough to throw a white hood over my head, carry a burning cross & abuse black people, do you think the general consensus among the community would be " Now lets not jump to conclusions here, he might not be a racist jacka$$"? Nah, don't think that'd be the case.

What about if I were to go to a BLM rally wearing a MAGA hat chanting Trump 2020 ? Do you think that not only would I get my head caved in but i'd also be abused and called a right-wing extremist, white supremacist or fascist? Do you think the media would straight away link the Trump government to my actions because of what I was wearing and chanting even though I may have absolutely no links to the current administration? Of course all that'd happen.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then it's reasonable to call it a duck.

While we're on about judging books by covers and all that, I wonder if the main stream media or BLM will jump on board to call out this blatant act of racism...or was it?

I'll not hold my breath waiting.

I think that maybe a more apt comparison (using the football example) would be if some fans wearing that team's shirts were behaving like hooligans, causing trouble. It does not mean that everyone with that shirt is a hooligan of course, I think this is what oz_karter means.

Equally, you cannot argue that they are fans of that team just because they were causing havoc. Surely it is up to the team and the authorities to put a stop to it, as I'm sure teams would not want to be affiliated with such football fans and behaviour. But you can't just chose when you are affiliated with the said team, depending on the behaviour. This is the confusing bit for me.

[Asphalt_World]

Also, regardless of when the BLM tag became a thing, people wanting equal rights, oportunities and and respect, regardless of skin colour, has been an ongoing issue for centuries. The fact that people are trying to bash the BLM movement and claiming it's some kind of recent thing, is ignorant and stupid.

Fully agree.

And just because someone is wearing a shirt, waving a flag or otherwise using Black Lives Matter does not mean they are part of an organisation.

The pettiness and misunderstanding is mindblowing.

I am not sure if you are referring to me about pettiness and misunderstanding, but the examples I gave included both individuals and organised groups. Some of them affiliated with BLM and some just using it as a way to get out of a situation (where they were on the wrong). Sadly there were a lot of examples, which of course does not mean that everyone is like that, I was just discussing how even if they have the purest of causes, some people will take advantage of it as it suits them. And that is bad publicity for them.

But your first sentence sounds a bit bizarre to be honest. Marching in a BLM protest, chanting with them, waving the flags and wearing the shirts, but when they go overboard they suddenly are NOT affiliated with BLM? Come on...

As a fan of football, I will go to matches, shout, cheer, wave flags etc and be counted as a true fan. Those at matches who shout racial abuse, throw things, call players offensive names, are in my eyes, not true fans of football and I choose ot separate them from real fans.

The heart of racial equality movements, and other things like equality between genger and sexuality, can all have people go too far and these people should indeed be separated from the true meaning of the movembet for equality.

[oz_karter]

I am continually blown away by people trying to diminish a social movement against racism.

It doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far, overall there are millions of people participating or supporting the movement.

My question is, why even make this argument?

[Siao7]

I am continually blown away by people trying to diminish a social movement against racism.

It doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far, overall there are millions of people participating or supporting the movement.

My question is, why even make this argument?

I am equally surprised from your lack of understanding of what I said. I only mentioned that "the problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far". Which is true in my view, but from that you ended up with me trying to diminish a movement against racism... Way to twist my words. It's a discussion, that's what we do in a forum.

The statement "doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far" is quite terrible frankly. Why don't you give the police the same excuse? No worries if some policemen ended up killing innocent people, it doesn't matter really.

[Asphalt_World]

I am continually blown away by people trying to diminish a social movement against racism.

It doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far, overall there are millions of people participating or supporting the movement.

My question is, why even make this argument?

I am equally surprised from your lack of understanding of what I said. I only mentioned that "the problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far". Which is true in my view, but from that you ended up with me trying to diminish a movement against racism... Way to twist my words. It's a discussion, that's what we do in a forum.

The statement "doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far" is quite terrible frankly. Why don't you give the police the same excuse? No worries if some policemen ended up killing innocent people, it doesn't matter really.

Who are they? It's not BLM going too far, but people who decided to go too far. I can't think of many movements for race, gender, environmental, political, or whatever, that doesn't have some extremists using it as an excuse to take things too far. That shouldn't detract from the basic belief and desire behind said movement.

[oz_karter]

I am equally surprised from your lack of understanding of what I said. I only mentioned that "the problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far". Which is true in my view, but from that you ended up with me trying to diminish a movement against racism... Way to twist my words. It's a discussion, that's what we do in a forum.

The statement "doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far" is quite terrible frankly. Why don't you give the police the same excuse? No worries if some policemen ended up killing innocent people, it doesn't matter really.

My post wasn't directed at you in particular.

As for the second part, it was meant in the context of this discussion, not that their actions don't have consequences.

Yes I think some people want to diminish the anti-racism movement by focussing on a small number of incidents. You can both support the movement and condemn the actions of those individuals.

[Jezza13]

I am equally surprised from your lack of understanding of what I said. I only mentioned that "the problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far". Which is true in my view, but from that you ended up with me trying to diminish a movement against racism... Way to twist my words. It's a discussion, that's what we do in a forum.

The statement "doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far" is quite terrible frankly. Why don't you give the police the same excuse? No worries if some policemen ended up killing innocent people, it doesn't matter really.

My post wasn't directed at you in particular.

As for the second part, it was meant in the context of this discussion, not that their actions don't have consequences.

Yes I think some people want to diminish the anti-racism movement by focussing on a small number of incidents. You can both support the movement and condemn the actions of those individuals.

You can't on one hand say you can't condemn the BLM movement because of the actions of certain individuals yet not offer the same free pass to the police.

I think last count there was well over $2b worth of damage, almost 40 dead & countless livelihoods shattered. There's numerous vids on You Tube of BLM supporters intimidating people, shouting in their faces & issuing threats should those people not pledge allegiance to the cause plus at least one other more disturbing vid of people doing stuff in the name of BLM that I won't describe in depth here but suffice it say it involves a white baby & it's sickening.

$2b damage bill & rising. 40 dead. That's a "small number of incidents"? What's next, calling WWII a "minor disagreement"?

It doesn't matter if it's the act's of a few individuals because it's always the acts of the few that spoil it for the many. The group is always measured by the actions of the worse members. It's the one bad apple that spoils the bunch. It always has been. Also another factor in associating BLM with the riots is that unfortunately i'm not aware that BLM has been too active to condemn the unrest either.

I googled " BLM condemns riots", & really found nothing substantial in that area nor could I find a statement on the BLM website, but I did find a statement regarding Trump refusing to condemn white supremacists during the presidential debate, which is patently false & re-enforces BLM's political agenda.

One would think that if BLM was intent on distancing itself from the riots & stop them tarnishing their good name it'd at least have a very straight forward & very clear statement on it's home page, but there's just nothing I could find.

As the saying goes these days, " Silence is consent".

[Siao7]

I am continually blown away by people trying to diminish a social movement against racism.

It doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far, overall there are millions of people participating or supporting the movement.

My question is, why even make this argument?

I am equally surprised from your lack of understanding of what I said. I only mentioned that "the problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far". Which is true in my view, but from that you ended up with me trying to diminish a movement against racism... Way to twist my words. It's a discussion, that's what we do in a forum.

The statement "doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far" is quite terrible frankly. Why don't you give the police the same excuse? No worries if some policemen ended up killing innocent people, it doesn't matter really.

Who are they? It's not BLM going too far, but people who decided to go too far. I can't think of many movements for race, gender, environmental, political, or whatever, that doesn't have some extremists using it as an excuse to take things too far. That shouldn't detract from the basic belief and desire behind said movement.

I am not sure what you are asking here Asphalt. If you read what I wrote in the first place, I am not detracting what they are trying to achieve; only observed that sometimes they are taking it too far and obviously that makes them look bad. Like the BLM protesters that would bother people having dinner and make them pledge their allegiance or they wouldn't leave. I just do not agree with the approach of "shoving their opinions down peoples' throats", surely there must be a better way to put your argument across. And people are jumping on the bandwagon; for example we had a talk at work where a colleague/guest speaker told us of his horrible racist experience of... someone misspelling his (admittedly very difficult to spell) name and so missed out from an email.

In any case, some of the BLM beliefs and tactics have been questioned and up to a point, rightly so. With the large exposure they got after Floyd's death, they had to actually go and make changes to their website and remove some of the more radical ideas. But their main tactic of making people uncomfortable until they have to confront the problem can be very annoying and make people difficult to actually embrace their cause. I think I would have a lot of trouble to do so if someone was disturbing me while I was trying to have dinner or try and relax after a tough day.

[Siao7]

I am equally surprised from your lack of understanding of what I said. I only mentioned that "the problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far". Which is true in my view, but from that you ended up with me trying to diminish a movement against racism... Way to twist my words. It's a discussion, that's what we do in a forum.

The statement "doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far" is quite terrible frankly. Why don't you give the police the same excuse? No worries if some policemen ended up killing innocent people, it doesn't matter really.

My post wasn't directed at you in particular.

As for the second part, it was meant in the context of this discussion, not that their actions don't have consequences.

Yes I think some people want to diminish the anti-racism movement by focussing on a small number of incidents. You can both support the movement and condemn the actions of those individuals.

Apologies then, since we have been conversing, I thought you were referring to me or the other poster involved.

From my part, the small number of incidents (which is not small, but anyway) is not the focus obviously, but surely it is something that BLM needs to address at some point.

[Asphalt_World]

I am equally surprised from your lack of understanding of what I said. I only mentioned that "the problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far". Which is true in my view, but from that you ended up with me trying to diminish a movement against racism... Way to twist my words. It's a discussion, that's what we do in a forum.

The statement "doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far" is quite terrible frankly. Why don't you give the police the same excuse? No worries if some policemen ended up killing innocent people, it doesn't matter really.

My post wasn't directed at you in particular.

As for the second part, it was meant in the context of this discussion, not that their actions don't have consequences.

Yes I think some people want to diminish the anti-racism movement by focussing on a small number of incidents. You can both support the movement and condemn the actions of those individuals.

Apologies then, since we have been conversing, I thought you were referring to me or the other poster involved.

From my part, the small number of incidents (which is not small, but anyway) is not the focus obviously, but surely it is something that BLM needs to address at some point.

Who, specifically, are BLM?

[Siao7]

I am equally surprised from your lack of understanding of what I said. I only mentioned that "the problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far". Which is true in my view, but from that you ended up with me trying to diminish a movement against racism... Way to twist my words. It's a discussion, that's what we do in a forum.

The statement "doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far" is quite terrible frankly. Why don't you give the police the same excuse? No worries if some policemen ended up killing innocent people, it doesn't matter really.

My post wasn't directed at you in particular.

As for the second part, it was meant in the context of this discussion, not that their actions don't have consequences.

Yes I think some people want to diminish the anti-racism movement by focussing on a small number of incidents. You can both support the movement and condemn the actions of those individuals.

Apologies then, since we have been conversing, I thought you were referring to me or the other poster involved.

From my part, the small number of incidents (which is not small, but anyway) is not the focus obviously, but surely it is something that BLM needs to address at some point.

Who, specifically, are BLM?

I am not sure I'm following you Asphalt, I will have to ask you to be a bit more clear please.

[Banana Man]

BLM, rather like ‘English Defence League’, ‘Britain first’ or ‘Antifa’ is a politically minded movement with a seemingly well meaning statement as it’s tag line. These groups have branded themselves this way, some what cynically IMO, in order to thrive off the ambiguity. Do you support Britain First - No? - Well you hate our country. Do you support antifa - No? - Well you’re a fascist. Etc.

Individually I would agree with all four of those statements, yet support none of them as political groups.

[Asphalt_World]

I am equally surprised from your lack of understanding of what I said. I only mentioned that "the problem with BLM is now that sometimes they have gone too far". Which is true in my view, but from that you ended up with me trying to diminish a movement against racism... Way to twist my words. It's a discussion, that's what we do in a forum.

The statement "doesn't matter if there are individuals taking things too far" is quite terrible frankly. Why don't you give the police the same excuse? No worries if some policemen ended up killing innocent people, it doesn't matter really.

My post wasn't directed at you in particular.

As for the second part, it was meant in the context of this discussion, not that their actions don't have consequences.

Yes I think some people want to diminish the anti-racism movement by focussing on a small number of incidents. You can both support the movement and condemn the actions of those individuals.

Apologies then, since we have been conversing, I thought you were referring to me or the other poster involved.

From my part, the small number of incidents (which is not small, but anyway) is not the focus obviously, but surely it is something that BLM needs to address at some point.

Who, specifically, are BLM?

I am not sure I'm following you Asphalt, I will have to ask you to be a bit more clear please.

You say that BLM needs to address things, but BLM is a movement, not something like a political party. There is no single set of rules or expectations for following BLM. I'm not sure who it is that needs to address issues regarding those that take things too far under the banner of BLM.

[Siao7]

My post wasn't directed at you in particular.

As for the second part, it was meant in the context of this discussion, not that their actions don't have consequences.

Yes I think some people want to diminish the anti-racism movement by focussing on a small number of incidents. You can both support the movement and condemn the actions of those individuals.

Apologies then, since we have been conversing, I thought you were referring to me or the other poster involved.

From my part, the small number of incidents (which is not small, but anyway) is not the focus obviously, but surely it is something that BLM needs to address at some point.

Who, specifically, are BLM?

I am not sure I'm following you Asphalt, I will have to ask you to be a bit more clear please.

You say that BLM needs to address things, but BLM is a movement, not something like a political party. There is no single set of rules or expectations for following BLM. I'm not sure who it is that needs to address issues regarding those that take things too far under the banner of BLM.

Ah, got it. You are right, but you'll find that they identify themselves as a global organization. So, if I get this right, you are saying that this organization should have no accountability when the people rallied for them start causing trouble, looting, even killing, etc.?

I would expect BLM to at least distance themselves from these acts and call for peaceful demonstrations (which they have been largely). Actually, their web page advocates "countering acts of violence", so there's that

[Asphalt_World]

Apologies then, since we have been conversing, I thought you were referring to me or the other poster involved.

From my part, the small number of incidents (which is not small, but anyway) is not the focus obviously, but surely it is something that BLM needs to address at some point.

Who, specifically, are BLM?

I am not sure I'm following you Asphalt, I will have to ask you to be a bit more clear please.

You say that BLM needs to address things, but BLM is a movement, not something like a political party. There is no single set of rules or expectations for following BLM. I'm not sure who it is that needs to address issues regarding those that take things too far under the banner of BLM.

Ah, got it. You are right, but you'll find that they identify themselves as a global organization. So, if I get this right, you are saying that this organization should have no accountability when the people rallied for them start causing trouble, looting, even killing, etc.?

I would expect BLM to at least distance themselves from these acts and call for peaceful demonstrations (which they have been largely). Actually, their web page advocates "countering acts of violence", so there's that

I've seen people whjo support BLM speak out against some of the extreme actions taken by some people, who claim to be acting in support of the movement. At the end of the day, I doubt there's any kind of pressure groups or political parties that haven't had people go way too far, often not because they support the specific issue, but because they want to use it as an excuse for acting the way they do.

[LBET]

BLM is a great marketing organization run by proud Marxists and is also very misguided. In speaking out against the nuclear family, omitting fathers from the equation and doing very close to nothing to stop the epidemic level of the murder of blacks by blacks they have missed the mark by a non-trivial margin.

I also have a huge problem with their business model as they are neither a charity or a not-for-profit organization. They are a for profit corporation with a Marxist driven agenda and, once again, a brilliant marketing strategy.

I can NOT wait for the public at large to see them for what they really are.

From their website before it was recently updated (in the face of widening questions and criticism). Clearly someone was expressing their true viewpoint. Once called out, the "What We Believe" page was removed. Thank to the wayback machine web archive nothing is every really gone.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

https://web.archive.org/web/20200529080 ... e-believe/

If by "disrupt you mean break, mission accomplished. If by "villages" and extended families you mean gangs, mission accomplished. If you intentionally omitted fathers from those who care for one another, mission flippin accomplished. So much for positive black male role models. (Sigh)!

[Asphalt_World]

BLM is a great marketing organization run by proud Marxists and is also very misguided. In speaking out against the nuclear family, omitting fathers from the equation and doing very close to nothing to stop the epidemic level of the murder of blacks by blacks they have missed the mark by a non-trivial margin.

I also have a huge problem with their business model as they are neither a charity or a not-for-profit organization. They are a for profit corporation with a Marxist driven agenda and, once again, a brilliant marketing strategy.

I can NOT wait for the public at large to see them for what they really are.

From their website before it was recently updated (in the face of widening questions and criticism). Clearly someone was expressing their true viewpoint. Once called out, the "What We Believe" page was removed. Thank to the wayback machine web archive nothing is every really gone.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

https://web.archive.org/web/20200529080 ... e-believe/

If by "disrupt you mean break, mission accomplished. If by "villages" and extended families you mean gangs, mission accomplished. If you intentionally omitted fathers from those who care for one another, mission flippin accomplished. So much for positive black male role models. (Sigh)!

BLM is being used by some people to make a profit. This is not the reason for it and it's hardly the first movement used by unscrupulous people to make money. Blimey, Farage does this all the time.