Black Lives Don't Matter...

a reply to: Edumakated

So, since you can't sell the idea that the modern Democratic party is racist ... and that the Republicans are in favor of Civil Rights (after 1968 not 1868) ...

What else do you have? More welfare, etc. goes to White people. Black people are apparently not as gullible as you think.

Single mothers or single fathers are a problem, but there have been thousands of successful people that came from single parent homes. Wrong again.

You've clearly demonstrated here that you will spout ridiculous Republican propaganda in the face of fact after fact after fact that contradicts your agenda.

So what remains ... Democratic magic mystifying your brothers and sisters?

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights

The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt. The right has dutifully set itself to its task, circulating its convoluted version of history, honing it to the point where it can be repeated by any defensive College Republican in his dorm room.

Did someone mention Strom Thurmond?

This story completely ignores the explicit revolt by conservative Southerners against the northern liberal civil rights wing, beginning with Strom Thurmond, who formed a third-party campaign in 1948 in protest against Harry Truman’s support for civil rights. Thurmond received 49 percent of the vote in Louisiana, 72 percent in South Carolina, 80 percent in Alabama, and 87 percent in Mississippi. He later, of course, switched to the Republican Party.

William F. Buckley, anyone?

It is true that most Republicans in 1964 held vastly more liberal positions on civil rights than Goldwater. This strikes Williamson as proof of the idiosyncratic and isolated quality of Goldwater’s civil rights stance. What it actually shows is that conservatives had not yet gained control of the Republican Party.

But conservative Republicans — those represented politically by Goldwater, and intellectually by William F. Buckley and National Review — did oppose the civil rights movement. Buckley wrote frankly about his endorsement of white supremacy: “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” More often conservatives argued on grounds of states’ rights, or freedom of property, or that civil rights leaders were annoying hypocrites, or that they had undermined respect for the law.

... and honestly, it goes on and on.

Edumakated ... I think you really summed up your intentions in the thread fairly well in your title: "Black Lives Don't Matter"

It would be great if you'd demonstrated at least some sense of irony in your statement, or turned it around to show that you're really interested and concerned about your community ... but instead, you've basically implied that the Black community in America is not able to undo the "magic" of the Democratic party (that is also inherently racist, according to you ... too bad that falls apart every year after 1968 ... but keep on repeating it.)

I asked you earlier if the fact that you are Black should make us listen to your condemnations of your people, and virtually everything about them.

You didn't answer, but I've discovered the answer to my own question while talking to you: it doesn't have anything to do with liberals or Democrats deluding your people ... your problem is within you, and I feel sorry for you in that regard.

Rave on with the "Republicans support Civil Rights" garbage.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Forgot to mention this one... beautiful sister who was an up and coming model shot and killed in a drive by.

Chicago Model Killed

There will be some outrage for a day or so then they will be forgotten... but let a white cop rough up a brother and you wont't hear the end of it.

We get it...you dont like black people.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Forgot to mention this one... beautiful sister who was an up and coming model shot and killed in a drive by.

Chicago Model Killed

There will be some outrage for a day or so then they will be forgotten... but let a white cop rough up a brother and you wont't hear the end of it.

Also..LOL..."rough up". Love it


-Shoot an unarmed black man in the back multiple times as he runs away...this is only being roughed up in edumakated's world
-Throw a black man so hard into the back of a van that he gets brain damage and dies...this is only being roughed up in edumakated's world
-Choke a black man so hard that he tries to tell you he cant breathe...but carry on anyway and kill him.......this is only being roughed up in edumakated's world

etc... etc... etc...

I'd hate to see what they would do to black guys if they really wanted to hurt them rather than "rough them up"

Also, as others have said, the black communities ARE speaking out against the people being killed in daily violence....but since you dont want to see that you ignore it and pretend they dont.

originally posted by: PsionicOmniverse

originally posted by: dreamlotus1111
a reply to: Edumakated

so basically you are stating that you have zero respect for black indivudals. thats nice to hear. thanks for reaffirming what is true for 99% of white americans who just so happen to make up the majority of this country. hm wonder why anyone would create such a "silly" movement?

This, what's really funny is, the members of ATS seem to be more sheepish than anyone and will say the "media is lying" whenever it's opposed to something they personally don't agree with, however, if its something they like, they instantly fall in line with whatever parroting is coming from the media and believe or support it.

ATS members love to think they are better than most people who watch the truth. They think that they are better informed. NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Every day i come on here and shake my head in wonder at how superior people on ATS feel to the every day person. Its an incredible sight. They are all just fooling themselves.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler





As noted, I think you would agree that statistics must be used with care when looking for the truth.

In regard to the stats you listed, I'd have these general observations (and I'm being brief): are Blacks more likely to be arrested? when convicted, are Blacks more likely to be incarcerated? Are the conviction rates equitable? Not only that, these factors to whatever extent they exist (I don't have data on that) would multiply against each other.

We are not talking about petty crimes, we are talking about murder, rape, and robbery. Is your contention that the DOJ and FBI stats are not usable because cops are arresting blacks when they commit these crimes or faking that they did them? Even if that is true it would have to be done thousands of times to affect the percentages as much as they are.

As far as incarceration and conviction rates do not apply. These stats only show those arrested for these crimes.

Your inability to be honest and admit that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crimes makes you seem biased.

Also from the first table in your first link:

Black on white crime is at 13.7% of total crimes. That's basically equal to the overall population percentage of Blacks (Seems reasonable).

White on black crime is at 10.4% of total crimes. That seems anomalous. I'd have to do more detailed research. Very statistically near the Black on White crime however.

But you are not taking into account that whites make up 62% of the population and blacks about 13. From the same article as my table, explaining these numbers.

Using figures for the 2013 racial mix of the population–62.2 percent white, 17.1 percent Hispanic, 13.2 percent black–we can calculate the average likelihood of a person of each race attacking the other. A black is 27 times more likely to attack a white and 8 times more likely to attack a Hispanic than the other way around. A Hispanic is eight times more likely to attack a white than vice versa.

www.vdare.com...

Sorry I can't make a grand sweeping statement based on the data you offered, but I hope I gave you an honest answer.

Honestly I thank you for reading the links. We may disagree but at least we are willing to hear out the other sides point of view.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated



What else do you have? More welfare, etc. goes to White people. Black people are apparently not as gullible as you think.

More white people have been killed by police this year than blacks. 443 whites compared to 232 blacks.

originally posted by: hammanderr
A reply to indigo5.

So, pretty much, if anyone has a difference of opinion with BLM, they're racists? Does that about sum it up?

No...anyone who describes a legitimate cause and it's supporters as ..

buck dancing, bojangling preachers in zoot suits.

is racist...


The rest of your post didn't make sense.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: hammanderr
A reply to indigo5.

So, pretty much, if anyone has a difference of opinion with BLM, they're racists? Does that about sum it up?

No...anyone who describes a legitimate cause and it's supporters as ..

buck dancing, bojangling preachers in zoot suits.

is racist...


The rest of your post didn't make sense.

Someone should write a comedy sketch where some guy keeps saying idiotic/racist/etc..things like that line from the Ops opening post and never understand why people are getting mad at him.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

So, since you can't sell the idea that the modern Democratic party is racist ... and that the Republicans are in favor of Civil Rights (after 1968 not 1868) ...

What else do you have? More welfare, etc. goes to White people. Black people are apparently not as gullible as you think.

Single mothers or single fathers are a problem, but there have been thousands of successful people that came from single parent homes. Wrong again.

You've clearly demonstrated here that you will spout ridiculous Republican propaganda in the face of fact after fact after fact that contradicts your agenda.

So what remains ... Democratic magic mystifying your brothers and sisters?

I'm don't have to "sell" anyone. I refuted your points. The type of racism you see from your modern Democrats is paternalistic in nature. I've dealt all my life with smug white liberals such as yourself who think of the black community as incapable of taking care of itself without your help and understanding.

You've demonstrated your lack of understanding of basic math and stats numerous times through this thread as has been pointed out by others as well.

Regardless, we went off topic. My entire point of starting this thread is the rampant hypocrisy of the BLM movement when it comes to actually caring about black lives and the lack of priorities of the movement. I see it everyday. On a clear summer night, I can hear gun shots in Austin. I grew on Southwest Side of Atlanta. I've lost friends to random street violence. At its core, the only reason BLM exist is to try to prove this narrative that there is some great white boogeyman out there trying to get black folks which can explain away all the ills in the black community. it is a deflection of personal responsibility and the cultural decay that has occured in the black community over the past 50 years. The narrative of white racism has to be maintained.

I've done my time in the hood (Adamsville in Atlanta - corner of MLK & Fairburn Road) Had a guy get his brains blown out 10 feet in front of my car one night over nothing. I have yet to see a white Republican hanging around in any hood. But what I did see is a Democrat mayor. Democrat police chiefs. Democrat school boards. Democrat city councils. And I see blacks continuing to vote for the same sh*t over and over again, despite the fact ain't nothing changing. So one has to ask themselves, why?

originally posted by: HorusChrist

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: greencmp

Hey, I'm here on ATS discussing this with generally left-minded folks like yourself because I think it matters.

I've seen some chasmic echo chambers on here that dwarf any libertarian cliques.

I'm unimpressed with racism in general so, I try to treat human behavior as just that. Having established a baseline and eliminated a variable, it is possible then to see that the destructive influence is the intervention itself, not any predilection for dependency.



That argument is straight out of "white man's burden" book of justifications.

I'm unimpressed with modern American libertarian attempts to understand human behavior. How can you blame 50 years of intervention and completely ignore the preceding four centuries of history — 300 years of chattel slavery followed by 100 years of legally sanctioned oppression, disenfranchisement and a complete lack of employment and educational opportunities?

I wonder at what arbitrary point you've established a baseline? I'll quote myself from this post in a thread just like this one entitled #AllLivesMatter:

The problem is the system hits poor blacks harder. Let me give you a brief history lesson if you'll allow it.

According to the 1900 Census data, half of black men and 35% of black women in the US, who reported an occupation, were agricultural workers. At this point, 90.1% of black folks still lived in the South (3.6% in the Northeast, 5.8% in the Midwest and a mere .5% in the West) and nearly 76% of all black families lived in rural areas (as opposed to 25% of white families) and the percentage that owned their own home was less than half of what it was for whites.

A commonly accepted method for gauging educational attainment in this period of American history would be the literacy questions from the Census. Here are the historical percentages of those aged 10 and older, living in Southern states, who were illiterate, 1880 - 1900, with black people on the left and white people on the right:

1880 76.2% - 21.5%
1890 60.7% - 14.9%
1900 48.0% - 11.7%

Not surprisingly given birth years prior to 1845, in 1900 a whopping 93.4% of Southern black women and 86.7% of Southern black men over the age of 55 were illiterate. Also from Census data, school attendance by age in 1900 (left column males black/white, right column females black/white):

Ages 6 to 13 .... 37.8%-72.2% ... 41.9%-71.9%
Ages 14 to 17 ... 26.7%-47.9% ... 36.2%-51.5%
Ages 18 to 21 .... 6.8%-10.4% .... 5.9% - 8.6%

Estimates are that in 1900, the average black man in the US earned approximately 45% of what the average white man earned. Now that we've established some baseline measures in 1900, lets track the progress of black in their struggle to reach economic (and therefore social) parity with whites going forward.

Three decades after the Civil War, segregation, racism, racial violence (thousands of lynchings for example) and a complete lack of economic opportunity led waves of blacks to emigrate from the South, seeking employment in industrialized urban centers elsewhere in the country such as Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, New York, Newark, Philadelphia/Camden, NJ, Oakland, Los Angeles, etc. In the period between about 1900 and 1930, around 1.6 million black folks migrated in what would be the first wave of the The Great Migration and the numbers of blacks in non-agricultural jobs increased drastically. For example, between 1910 and 1920 alone, the number of blacks employed in industrial sectors doubled.

You should take a moment to read that post in its entirety. It's not hard to understand how we got to where we are today and it has nothing to do with Cloward–Piven.

Slavery doesn't have squat to do with the problems facing the black community today. It is a convenient boogie man for deflecting from personal responsibility. Most of the problems the black community faces today didn't start until the late 60s when they bought into liberalism. Senator Moynihan was prophetic.

The black community's problems stem from the 75% out of wedlock birth rate that was brought on by the war on poverty and feminist convincing black women that they no longer needed a man in the house. The lack of jobs and Democrat run school systems just exacerbate the problem.

I drive through the West Side of Chicago daily. The corners are littered with basically feral young men with zero direction in their lives.

it's still related to slavery just cuz a few generations over a few hundred years is not really that far removed in the grand scheme of human history. crime will go down in Chicago and everywhere once there are more jobs, right now there is a shortage of them and black people are farther down on the list in getting them, why that is is another discussion, education, racism, yes their own laziness but show them a possible light at the end of the tunnel. they do work hard just in the underground black market with drugs, that happened before with al capons Chicago outfit, people saw money to be made and went about making it.

It has nothing to do with slavery or lack of jobs. Just look at all the rich *educated* football players and rich rappers constantly getting into trouble. Why are they getting into trouble when they have all the money they could ever need? Statistically there are more whites out of work, yet we do not see them running around in mobs committing vast amounts of crime. Why? What does not having a job have to do with not listening to or attacking a police officer?

Pcgamer

originally posted by: pcgamer11

originally posted by: HorusChrist

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: greencmp

Hey, I'm here on ATS discussing this with generally left-minded folks like yourself because I think it matters.

I've seen some chasmic echo chambers on here that dwarf any libertarian cliques.

I'm unimpressed with racism in general so, I try to treat human behavior as just that. Having established a baseline and eliminated a variable, it is possible then to see that the destructive influence is the intervention itself, not any predilection for dependency.



That argument is straight out of "white man's burden" book of justifications.

I'm unimpressed with modern American libertarian attempts to understand human behavior. How can you blame 50 years of intervention and completely ignore the preceding four centuries of history — 300 years of chattel slavery followed by 100 years of legally sanctioned oppression, disenfranchisement and a complete lack of employment and educational opportunities?

I wonder at what arbitrary point you've established a baseline? I'll quote myself from this post in a thread just like this one entitled #AllLivesMatter:

The problem is the system hits poor blacks harder. Let me give you a brief history lesson if you'll allow it.

According to the 1900 Census data, half of black men and 35% of black women in the US, who reported an occupation, were agricultural workers. At this point, 90.1% of black folks still lived in the South (3.6% in the Northeast, 5.8% in the Midwest and a mere .5% in the West) and nearly 76% of all black families lived in rural areas (as opposed to 25% of white families) and the percentage that owned their own home was less than half of what it was for whites.

A commonly accepted method for gauging educational attainment in this period of American history would be the literacy questions from the Census. Here are the historical percentages of those aged 10 and older, living in Southern states, who were illiterate, 1880 - 1900, with black people on the left and white people on the right:

1880 76.2% - 21.5%
1890 60.7% - 14.9%
1900 48.0% - 11.7%

Not surprisingly given birth years prior to 1845, in 1900 a whopping 93.4% of Southern black women and 86.7% of Southern black men over the age of 55 were illiterate. Also from Census data, school attendance by age in 1900 (left column males black/white, right column females black/white):

Ages 6 to 13 .... 37.8%-72.2% ... 41.9%-71.9%
Ages 14 to 17 ... 26.7%-47.9% ... 36.2%-51.5%
Ages 18 to 21 .... 6.8%-10.4% .... 5.9% - 8.6%

Estimates are that in 1900, the average black man in the US earned approximately 45% of what the average white man earned. Now that we've established some baseline measures in 1900, lets track the progress of black in their struggle to reach economic (and therefore social) parity with whites going forward.

Three decades after the Civil War, segregation, racism, racial violence (thousands of lynchings for example) and a complete lack of economic opportunity led waves of blacks to emigrate from the South, seeking employment in industrialized urban centers elsewhere in the country such as Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, New York, Newark, Philadelphia/Camden, NJ, Oakland, Los Angeles, etc. In the period between about 1900 and 1930, around 1.6 million black folks migrated in what would be the first wave of the The Great Migration and the numbers of blacks in non-agricultural jobs increased drastically. For example, between 1910 and 1920 alone, the number of blacks employed in industrial sectors doubled.

You should take a moment to read that post in its entirety. It's not hard to understand how we got to where we are today and it has nothing to do with Cloward–Piven.

Slavery doesn't have squat to do with the problems facing the black community today. It is a convenient boogie man for deflecting from personal responsibility. Most of the problems the black community faces today didn't start until the late 60s when they bought into liberalism. Senator Moynihan was prophetic.

The black community's problems stem from the 75% out of wedlock birth rate that was brought on by the war on poverty and feminist convincing black women that they no longer needed a man in the house. The lack of jobs and Democrat run school systems just exacerbate the problem.

I drive through the West Side of Chicago daily. The corners are littered with basically feral young men with zero direction in their lives.

it's still related to slavery just cuz a few generations over a few hundred years is not really that far removed in the grand scheme of human history. crime will go down in Chicago and everywhere once there are more jobs, right now there is a shortage of them and black people are farther down on the list in getting them, why that is is another discussion, education, racism, yes their own laziness but show them a possible light at the end of the tunnel. they do work hard just in the underground black market with drugs, that happened before with al capons Chicago outfit, people saw money to be made and went about making it.

It has nothing to do with slavery or lack of jobs. Just look at all the rich *educated* football players and rich rappers constantly getting into trouble. Why are they getting into trouble when they have all the money they could ever need? Statistically there are more whites out of work, yet we do not see them running around in mobs committing vast amounts of crime. Why? What does not having a job have to do with not listening to or attacking a police officer?

Pcgamer

Its got nothing to do with it. Its like the commentators on (shudder), L*veleak. They see a black person mugging someone, fighting, shouting and its all "lazy monkey", "im getting fed up with blacks, my tolerance almost gone" etc...

They see similar videos of white people do these things and not a single comment

a reply to: Grambler

Speaking of honesty, please don't rephrase what I say or the way I say it and then attack that. That's dirty pool, and I won't waste my time on the discussion with you.

1. I asked general questions about the stats, I didn't make statements. I stated that I don't have the data to answer those questions. Do you have the answers to those questions? Please don't turn my questions into statements and then attack that.

2. The stats, as you just said, reflect arrests. An arrest is not a conviction. You are basically making the assertion that anyone who is arrested is also automatically guilty. That's not true, and doesn't follow from the data.

3. The fact that I don't agree with your conclusions doesn't make me dishonest.

4. In regard to my comments on your first link. The percentages are percentages of crimes committed filtered into categories. The entire 13 or so percent of Blacks Americans do not all commit crimes, and the data were already categorized by race in the table in your link, so actually you're skewing the data by race in your analysis. The table is based on the TOTAL crimes committed, and of that sample, 13% were Black on White, 10% were White on Black. The difference is not "27 times" anything but is greater by a factor of 3% OF THE TOTAL CRIMES NOT THE TOTAL POPULATIONS. Period.

To make your (and the articles) argument, you'd have to answer this question:

What percentage of the Black population committed that 13% of the total crimes? Do you have that data?

Is that number closer to 10% or to 100%? Because if it approaches 100% that would make your comparison meaningful.

Else, you're trying to compare 13% of total crimes with 13% of the total population and it just doesn't follow.

I know why you're doing it and why the horribly-biased source you're claiming did it, but that doesn't make it sound reasoning.

a reply to: Edumakated

LOL ... wouldn't it be great if saying that you disagree with someone actually "refutes" what they said?

You refuted nothing. I showed that you're very willing to distort the facts (the ridiculous flaws in your list of Dixiecrats/Democrats). I've showed you quotes from the primary individuals involved (like Lee Atwater) that conclusively prove that what you're claiming is utter bosh.

How many self-defined kinds of racism is there? What do you call your kind of racism? Sarcastic/Dishonest Racism?

"Paternalistic" racism eh? So, Democrats have passed laws that only benefit Black folks? You keep desperately trying to ignore the fact that the dollars spent on the social safety net in this country proportionately go to Whites as well as Blacks, but somehow, in your logic, only the Blacks are susceptible to the Democratic Magic Mindcontrol.

You're arguing fallaciously that it is the Republicans who are passing laws to help equality and to authentically help Black America, and yet you have not (and cannot) point to one thing that any Republican has done for your people.


I know the areas you're talking about, and that certainly was one of the worst areas of the city 20 years ago. You may be surprised to find that things have improved, but of course, nothing's perfect. At the same time, you ignore the dozens of other communities in Atlanta that are thriving, because, of course, that doesn't fit your narrative.

What about the Republican Governor of Georgia and the Republican legislature. They are also in control politically, and yet, because of your more than obvious bias, you're only interested in trying to tie everything to Democrats ...

TL;DR - No, there are not different kinds of racism, there's only one, and you've demonstrated time and time again that your own racist feelings against your own people is what is driving you to make these asinine posts.

a reply to: RichardCorbn

So three people in your example are either unaware that there are different places with different characteristics or they're not and what they're saying is really pretty racist.

I myself know six predominantly Black neighborhoods with a 3 mile radius of Emory University, Atlanta, that are wonderful, neat orderly and comparable to any predominantly White neighborhood in the same area. I'd be glad to live in them.

Every Black community, even inner-city neighborhoods, is not in a warzone. Some are, and we all need to work together to remedy that. But, please, stop acting like that these examples represent the entire Black community everywhere in America.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


1. I asked general questions about the stats, I didn't make statements. I stated that I don't have the data to answer those questions. Do you have the answers to those questions? Please don't turn my questions into statements and then attack that.

2. The stats, as you just said, reflect arrests. An arrest is not a conviction. You are basically making the assertion that anyone who is arrested is also automatically guilty. That's not true, and doesn't follow from the data.

I can not find conviction stats. It wouldn't matter if I did, you would just say "Do you have proof that courts aren't biased against blacks?" The truth is you can raise these types of questions on any stat. I think any reasonable person would read these numbers from the FBI and the DOJ and come to the conclusion that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. Are you saying that you can't make that determination based on these stats?

Also, I see you didn't mention my post that more white people have been killed by police this year than blacks. 443 whites compared to 232 blacks.

3. The fact that I don't agree with your conclusions doesn't make me dishonest.

This is true. If you honestly can look at the statistics and believe that doesn't show blacks commit a disproportional amount of violent crime then I am afraid you are so clouded by bias that you can no longer fairly look at this issue.

I keep seeing (and honestly it is unsurprising) that the Black Lives Matter movement is conflated here with Black Community leaders like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson et. al., and of course, as usual, broad gestures toward "the Black Community at large."

I have personally cringed at some of the things that INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF BLM have done. I think sometimes, in their passion, they mistake their true enemies, but they, like us, are human ... and they pay attention to what they pay attention to.

Criticisms here are flung from high complaining that BLM, or Sharpton, or the Community didn't pay enough attention to the death of any listed individual. And, let's be clear and open here ... violence of all kinds, which includes Black-on-Black violence is a real problem in our country. But there are people AT EVERY LEVEL who are working to make changes.

And BLM, like them or not, are helping to make some of those changes.

Political activism is not supposed to be nice, or necessarily equitable ... activists mean to excite people, anger people, to further the awareness of their individual focus ... so let's let BLM speak for themselves on that issue (perhaps there can be a bit of indulgence on the length of this quote):

About | Black Lives Matter

Black Lives Matter is a chapter-based national organization working for the validity of Black life. We are working to (re)build the Black liberation movement.

This is Not a Moment, but a Movement.

#BlackLivesMatter was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was post-humously placed on trial for his own murder. Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our de-humanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes.

It goes beyond the narrow nationalism that can be prevalent within Black communities, which merely call on Black people to love Black, live Black and buy Black, keeping straight cis Black men in the front of the movement while our sisters, queer and trans and disabled folk take up roles in the background or not at all.

Black Lives Matter affirms the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, black-undocumented folks, folks with records, women and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements. It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement.

What Does #BlackLivesMatter Mean?

When we say Black Lives Matter, we are broadening the conversation around state violence to include all of the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state. We are talking about the ways in which Black lives are deprived of our basic human rights and dignity.

#BlackLivesMatter is working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. We affirm our contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression. We have put our sweat equity and love for Black people into creating a political project–taking the hashtag off of social media and into the streets. The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.

Now, if you want to critique that, fine. Do so factually. But let's stop the silly "well, I think BLM should do this or that or I think they didn't do that or this" conversations and focus on who they are and what they STATE that they're doing.

a reply to: Grambler

So now you're a sooth-sayer and can predict the future of what I'm going to say? Well, that's convenient for you, isn't it?

I see you no longer want to play games with the numbers and now want to retreat to the "well, any reasonable person would agree with me." How boring.

I pointed out to you, in detail what the stats in your first linked document mean mathematically and logically. I realize that doesn't come out to mean what you want it to mean. That doesn't prove that my analysis is wrong.

Why not speak to my analysis? Tell me why you want to compare specific categories of crimes to total population, when the total population OBVIOUSLY doesn't commit crimes?

Total Number of Crimes / Total Number of Black on White Crimes = 13%
Total Number of Crimes / Total Number of White on Black Crimes = 10%

That's what your stats say. So let's say that we're talking about 1000 crimes for convenience sake:

Black on White Crimes: 130
White on Black Crimes: 100

That's a difference of 30 crimes; see that?

Now, the actual mathematical and statistical DIFFERENCE there is 30/1000 or 3%.

So the most that you can say from that information is that in that sample, Blacks Committed Crime on Whites by a greater factor of 3/100 NOT 27 times or 2700 percent!

You want to compare the number of crimes of both races (which are basically equal in terms of total crimes) with the total population because that gives you an inflated number that means nothing.

Here's what what you want to do: Non-Hispanic White Americans: 63% of the total population, Black Americans: 13%.

Now, in your math you divide 63% / 13% and get a factor of 4.84 which means that there are about 5 times as many Whites as Blacks in the US in terms of the whole.

Said another way, there are 500% more Whites than Blacks.

So when a number like any given fraction of crimes (10 % or 13%) is considered (which is nearly the same) you then want to compare that to the total population, and since there are 5 times as many Whites as Blacks, you want to say that Blacks commit 5 times as many crimes AND THEY DON'T.

100 total crimes (White on Black) versus 130 total crimes (Black on White).

Now, if you don't get that, there's nothing I can do for you.