Does post 15 make me a supporter and member of #blacklivesmatter now?

Anyone who thinks that is constructive and acceptable is part of the problem.

 

Thinks what is constructive and acceptable?

This is poor journalism. Just because he puts #blacklivesmatter in a hashtag doesn't make him a true member or a supporter. People automatically assume that everyone who says "black lives matter" is a part of the movement. The true Black Lives Matter movement preaches non-violence. Some in the media want to distort that message and label them a domestic terrorist group and that is reckless. It does silence their true intent and IMO that is what the media is trying to do.

 

See Shaun King.

 

The point is the tea party was painted as a racist group because of a select few people. When the entire movement was non-violent and without arrests.

 

Then we have the leaders of the Minnesota chapter of BLM supporting and excusing the chants at that state fair of a phrase associated with killing police.

 

I'm looking for equal treatment from the media.

 

I think BLM started with good purpose. But like occupy wall street has no clear message , and no clear direction on how to reach intended goals. Also they have allowed crazy radicals to infiltrate their group.

This is poor journalism. Just because he puts #blacklivesmatter in a hashtag doesn't make him a true member or a supporter. People automatically assume that everyone who says "black lives matter" is a part of the movement. The true Black Lives Matter movement preaches non-violence. Some in the media want to distort that message and label them a domestic terrorist group and that is reckless. It does silence their true intent and IMO that is what the media is trying to do.

 

See Shaun King.

 

Funny, because poor journalism is partially responsible (IMO) for the anti police climate we see today.

 

I would ask though, are any of the leaders of this movement speaking out against the large groups claiming to represent the black lives matter movement chanting violent things regarding police? If they're not, how is anyone supposed to distinguish who is or isn't a supporter of the actual "black lives matter" movement?

The point is the tea party was painted as a racist group because of a select few people. When the entire movement was non-violent and without arrests.

 

Then we have the leaders of the Minnesota chapter of BLM supporting and excusing the chants at that state fair of a phrase associated with killing police.

 

I'm looking for equal treatment from the media.

 

I think BLM started with good purpose. But like occupy wall street has no clear message , and no clear direction on how to reach intended goals. Also they have allowed crazy radicals to infiltrate their group.

 

Let me nitpick just a bit.

 

If you don't believe TP was treated fairly because of a few whackos then you think the same about BLM, correct?

 

Chapters? I don't think BLM is organized as such.

 

"allowed crazy radicals..." Who "allowed?" Do they file applications?

Thinks what is constructive and acceptable?

 

Putting vegetables in a donut box...oh wait...another thread.

 

Forgot to quote the post..but this: Black Lives Matter Supporter Arrested for 'Kill All the White People' Tweet - Breitbart

Putting vegetables in a donut box...oh wait...another thread.

 

Forgot to quote the post..but this: Black Lives Matter Supporter Arrested for 'Kill All the White People' Tweet - Breitbart

 

Okay. Yes I agree. I just maintain that he isn't a true member of the Black Lives Matter movement. He's just an idiot and a thug who happens to be black and on Twitter.

Okay. Yes I agree. I just maintain that he isn't a true member of the Black Lives Matter movement. He's just an idiot and a thug who happens to be black and on Twitter.

 

2 point bonus for correctly using "thug" when referring to a brother.

Let me nitpick just a bit.

 

If you don't believe TP was treated fairly because of a few whackos then you think the same about BLM, correct?

 

Chapters? I don't think BLM is organized as such.

 

"allowed crazy radicals..." Who "allowed?" Do they file applications?

 

By speaking out against a crazy person and their ideas.

 

If someone in the tea party crossed the line you had people running to disassociate with them.

 

In both occupy and BLM movement they not only don't disown radical people they invite them into the conversation. Show me the statements off dissent from BLM movement over the chants in Minnesota.

 

To go even further it's like they don't understand how change is made in this country. This isnt 1960 and they aren't fighting segregation. The change they want will be done by legislation.

 

Their strategy as of now has disrupt , destroy and annoy.

 

Part of what they should be doing is making allies and not enemies of political figures if you want change.

Funny, because poor journalism is partially responsible (IMO) for the anti police climate we see today.

 

I would ask though, are any of the leaders of this movement speaking out against the large groups claiming to represent the black lives matter movement chanting violent things regarding police? If they're not, how is anyone supposed to distinguish who is or isn't a supporter of the actual "black lives matter" movement?

 

They aren't and that is why I posted this thread.

Funny, because poor journalism is partially responsible (IMO) for the anti police climate we see today.

 

I would ask though, are any of the leaders of this movement speaking out against the large groups claiming to represent the black lives matter movement chanting violent things regarding police? If they're not, how is anyone supposed to distinguish who is or isn't a supporter of the actual "black lives matter" movement?

 

I would hope they are speaking out against these acts so they can separate themselves and their movement from the nut jobs making them look bad. I haven't seen anything on their Twitter page denouncing these acts but I also don't see anything from them supporting these acts either. It would be wise for the movement to separate themselves from the crazies though.

 

 

I don't disagree with anything you are saying.

The point is the tea party was painted as a racist group because of a select few people. When the entire movement was non-violent and without arrests.

 

Then we have the leaders of the Minnesota chapter of BLM supporting and excusing the chants at that state fair of a phrase associated with killing police.

 

I'm looking for equal treatment from the media.

 

I think BLM started with good purpose. But like occupy wall street has no clear message , and no clear direction on how to reach intended goals. Also they have allowed crazy radicals to infiltrate their group.

 

I'd like to see them separate themselves from the crazy radicals. Otherwise their message is muted.

By speaking out against a crazy person and their ideas.

 

If someone in the tea party crossed the line you had people running to disassociate with them.

 

In both occupy and BLM movement they not only don't disown radical people they invite them into the conversation. Show me the statements off dissent from BLM movement over the chants in Minnesota.

 

To go even further it's like they don't understand how change is made in this country. This isnt 1960 and they aren't fighting segregation. The change they want will be done by legislation.

 

Their strategy as of now has disrupt , destroy and annoy.

 

Part of what they should be doing is making allies and not enemies of political figures if you want change.

 

You'll pardon them for not completely believing that they can be friendly with legislators and police. Right or wrong, generalizing or not, they cast a jaundiced eye towards "the system."

I'd like to see them separate themselves from the crazy radicals. Otherwise their message is muted.

 

By the way most the crazy radicals are the young white idiots who protest everything. Don't let the anarchists and communists into the movement.

 

One of the leaders of the chant I'm referring to was a young white woman.

My main point is that they aren't a domestic terrorist group that people are making the out to be. They aren't gangsters or thugs. They are scholarly people fed up with the system trying to affect change. Are there some crazies? Absolutely. There are crazies associated with all parties and groups. Hopefully their message will be heard in a way that can affect change. It's already worked on Bernie Sanders and the other democrats running for POTUS.