iirc the civil rights protestors didn't have to be so obnoxious to prompt that response. just had to be black and in the wrong place at the wrong time. maybe that has something to do with why their movement won so much national and international sympathy, and in turn why it was ultimately so successful.
Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, sure. To Hell with all the people who paid a fortune for a college education to actually learn about college subjects. Things that, you know, will help them enter the work force. THat's ok though, right? They can just drop out and get hooked on welfare/food stamps. No harm done. 🙄Anything to help promote the socialist agenda of having everybody dependent on the government, right? 👆
It's no wonder you support dumbasscrats. We have rules in society for a damn good reason. One of those rules is that a library is supposed to be a quiet place where people can go to learn/read/study. If people like you had your way, instead of a Republic, we'd have anarchy where all rules would be thrown out the window at the drop of a hat in the name of equality or the "greater good".
Originally posted by Bardock42returning to this...
Why do you think the things BLM does can't have positive results but things like the Montgomery Bus Boycott or Civil Rights Marches could? And what can BLM do to have better results in your opinion?
when i think about it, my understanding is the civil rights movement was an example of an effective use of civil disobedience. because the laws in the united states and especially in the jim crow south were so unfair and racist, demonstrators were able to "civilly disobey" these laws by holding relatively benign demonstrations. things like sit-ins in white-only establishments, etc. when these demonstrations were met with severe police violence, all of which was caught on tape and used as a powerful source of propaganda by the movement, we saw that civil disobedience can in some cases turn the tides in terms of policy and eventually in terms of public consensus.
however, not every instance of civil disobedience/protesters being attacked has been as successful. many protesters have seen the success of ghandi and the civil rights movement in america etc and attempted to replicate these results, and many have failed to really do so. it all really comes down to how you can use the civil disobedience to construct a powerful narrative for the purposes of propaganda in favor of your political cause.
so there are a few things to consider, with regard to whether this tactic will be successful in any given instance. one is the cause itself. how severe is the injustice in question? how cut and dry is it? how important is it? how contentious is it? how easy is it to convince the public at large that something is severely wrong?
another is the proposed solution. how straight forward is the problem to solve through legislation? in the case of the civil rights movement, it was simply a matter of granting black americans the same legal protections as their white counterparts. the issue of police profiling is not nearly so simple to solve through legislation.
if you decide you think the stats on black police murders are a high enough priority to warrant such a movement, then you can attempt to do so through organized activism. you still have to decide if you only want to engage in consciousness raising (like staging normal protests and hoping bystanders are sympathetic to your message) or whether you want to delve into the realm of civil disobedience. if it is the latter, then you have to break and law and then accept the consequences when you break said law. the consequences are a part of the overall demonstration. the civil rights protesters knew this all too well.
the thing is, the civil rights protesters had easy and clear targets, in terms of civil disobedience. they had unjust laws which simply by breaking them they would engage in civil disobedience. BLM doesn't really have this. if they want to engage in civil disobedience they will have to try some sort of occupy type demonstration.... maybe occupy a police station or a courthouse and then accept the consequences when they are predictably arrested for doing so. as to how sympathetic the public will be to such an action... that is unknown. and it will be determined largely by the temperament of the demonstrators, the police who confront them, and the media/public at large who have the task of interpreting said spectacle.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, I don't believe there's a BLM protest that would satisfy you, I think you don't like the message of BLM, which is why you are always on the opposing side of any BLM thread, and you are always on the opposing side of any racially biased police murder.
No, I just oppose people being obnoxious. I have only ever called out the obnoxious protests. I have never once supported any cop for killing someone who was innocent.
They don't like that it is loud, black women talking about oppression and police violence.
No, I just don't like that it is obnoxious people. Them being black has nothing to do with it. I've seen black protests of the non obnoxious kind. First hand. Right in this very city.
That's why disrupting a library, a relatively small protest, is stylized as something awful and vilified by people who are against the message.
No, people thinking these specific protests are obnoxious does not equate to not liking the message. It equates to not liking the specific methods they used in those incidents.
I mean basically in your mind if you criticize some of their methods you are racist and just don't support their overall message.
That video with Bernie Sanders..if people call it obnoxious it is because they just don't like black women or loud black women? It's not because the acted obnoxious and utterly disrespectful?
You say I think any protest from them is bad, while you seem to feel that they can do no wrong in any type of protest and any criticism is obviously just racism or misogyny or gosh both. If you didn't feel that way then you wouldn't always dismiss any criticism as "yup, just racist". It's hard to get a sense of if you truly believe these things or just tend to say things just to say them. Or out of some misplaced attempt to play devil's advocate.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bardock if you move to the US how will you live, work, eat and pay for things?
He doesn't need much. He'll rent a cheap run down house in the ghetto while spending his money on a Ford Crown Victoria with 30 inch rims and an overpriced stereo system, thumpin' N.W.A's greatest hits up and down the great city of Compton.
Originally posted by Surtur
Did he share his finances with you or something wacky like that? Since I haven't come across a single poster here that posts in a manner that says "this person must make a lot of money".
Nah, hence why I said 'probably'. Still, he's part of a family business or something like that.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Nah, hence why I said 'probably'. Still, he's part of a family business or something like that.
I'm sure he makes bank. Knockin' over 7-11's and liquor stores, perfecting the art of home break ins and selling stolen property. The family business is good. That's how he rolls in the hood, dawg! You can't be gangsta til you can pay for a legit golden grill.