Does Randolph Holder's life matter to "Black Lives Matter"?

I doubt it. They will express "regret", but insincerely. It doesn't fit with their agenda.

???

.

It is a very legitimate question about the "movement" and the left in general. Try as you like you can not just sweep it under the rug.

bramzzoinks said:
It is a very legitimate question about the "movement" and the left in general.

No, it's not. It's an idiotic question from someone who chooses to not understand the BLM movement.

bramzzoinks said:
Try as you like you can not just sweep it under the rug.

Yes, we can.

I don't know who that is.

RobB said:
I don't know who that is.

NYC police officer shot to death last night during a shoot-out in East Harlem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/nyregion/police-officer-is-shot-in-east-harlem.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Story spreading across RW media circles is that the shooter was a member of BLM.

bramzzoinks said:
It is a very legitimate question about the "movement" and the left in general. Try as you like you can not just sweep it under the rug.

bull****

Well, it was short lived....I'm back to vehemently disagreeing with @bramzzoinks.

Zoinks, you've gone from libertarian to FOX/hate radio fan. What's next? The war on Xmas?

No, wait. New Black Panthers outside the voting booths, right?

using this murder as an indictment of #BLM doesn't work. try using this murder as a reason there needs to be national laws regarding gun control.

Do black lives matter to bramzzoinks? Do any lives? I mean, it's as much of a fair question as the one he asked (which, admittedly, isn't really very fair at all, but hey, there are ideological axes to grind!)

hoops said:
using this murder as an indictment of #BLM doesn't work. try using this murder as a reason there needs to be national laws regarding gun control.

I'm sure stricter gun control laws would have kept the gun from this fine upstanding ( no previous arrests) law abiding (most likely an NRA member also) citizen.

Anyone familiar with the movement knows that, in context, the slogan means "Black lives matter too," as opposed to the definition that cons use to serve their purposes.

It's a really poorly written slogan. They should fire their PR firm.

But, from the rhetoric of the "movement" the black lives of victims, innocent and not, of civilian criminal activity and the black lives of African American police officers do not really matter to them. So it is only a extremely small subset that care about. Because only that small subset brings the "movement" political advantages.

Well, that's not really accurate. "The movement" came from an extraordinary set of circumstances in which it seemed, both in the media and in the justice system, that certain black lives did not actually matter. It was not intended to address all facets of society, though it has in some ways moved in that direction.

GL2 said:
Anyone familiar with the movement knows that, in context, the slogan means "Black lives matter too," as opposed to the definition that cons use to serve their purposes.

That's nonsense on stilts- or haven't you noticed the hysteria any time someone publicly proclaims "all lives matter?" You can google it, honest!

It may well be that the "movement" started as you claim, but blaming "cons" or anything else for what you're claiming as a misperceptions is ludicrous.

Look, the thread is provocative, as I'm sure is your intent. If you can look at recent events and take issue with the intent of BLM, fine. There are many who have problems with it. Not realistic people, mind you. The kind of people who want their country back. The folks who fear the inevitability of changes to the usual hierarchy...the kind of folks who boycott a sci-fi film because there are Af Am characters. That type of thing.

Saying "all lives matter" dilutes the message. White lives have always mattered. We don't routinely treat white kids and adults as potential threats. But I can tell I'm wasting keystrokes here.

"On stilts?" That's funny. Haven't heard it before.

Saying "all lives matter" simply dismisses the problem...if you see a problem; which I suppose you don't.

I kind of look at it through the same lens as the "Violence Against Women is Wrong" slogan.

Of course violence against women is wrong, just like violence against men, kids and dogs is wrong. But the point (I think) of the slogan is to point out that violence against women was sometimes looked at as being less serious. I walk up to a guy on the street and punch a guy in the nose for no particular reason, I'm probably going to jail. But there was (still is?) a time where a husband could slap his wife around with no real risk of punishment.

But on the other hand...it's just such an easy statement for someone with an agenda to kind of upend.

Violence against women is wrong!

Violence is wrong.

Well yeah...I guess you've got a point.

At least "Violence Against Women is Wrong" refers to ALL women. "Black lives matter" only refers to a small subset of black lives. The "movement" does not give a damn about most black lives lost. Only the small number that fits their political agenda.

So GL if I'm reading you correctly, if an individual does not want to see a film because it may have an Af /Am as the lead actor or so they are wrong and should be labeled?

GL2 said:
Saying "all lives matter" simply dismisses the problem...if you see a problem; which I suppose you don't.

Three things-

First, I didn't start the thread.

Second, the Star Wars thing was a 4chan style thing seeing how badly the credulous could be trolled into outraged howls by a fewpeople tweeting a hashtag. The answer- pretty badly

Third, you shouldn't suppose anything.

I said was that your proposition that "cons" changed the meaning of the slogan is nonsense -nothing more, nothing less- and you confirmed that, rapid fire triple post no edit style.

So thank you.

maresleg said:
So GL if I'm reading you correctly, if an individual does not want to see a film because it may have an Af /Am as the lead actor or so they are wrong and should be labeled?

No, I'm saying that the virulent racism expressed online after the release of the trailer for Star Wars is very sad.

bramzzoinks said:
At least "Violence Against Women is Wrong" refers to ALL women. "Black lives matter" only refers to a small subset of black lives. The "movement" does not give a damn about most black lives lost. Only the small number that fits their political agenda.

Yeah, the subset generally is Af Am boys (12-year-olds to senior citizens). Those are the targets. That's why the subset is identified.

Cop gets fired for aggressive incompetence; hired in another town; executes a 12-year-old 5 seconds after arrival on scene. Voile! Probable cause.

Nope GL2. It is only African Americans killed by police. A small subset. All the other much more and way too numerous the "movement" does not care one whit about.