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

Careful, those balloons can burst at high altitudes.

ridski said:
Okay, but you might not want it when I tell you where I've been hiding it.

PVW said:
No, you still need to give that to me.

ridski said:
You mean I've been hiding this stash for nothing?

PVW said:
(I'm not a cop

Why not let people speak for themselves?

http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

LOST said:
Why not let people speak for themselves?
http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

Reading under "herstory" on the left hand nav, I see perhaps some incoherence of purpose, if the offered site truly represents center mass of the political movement. Most of the discussion revolves around "charismatic Black men" stealing black lives matter from "Black queer women".

I do not see what you are referring to.

Sorry. I found it. Their "manifesto" or whatever they call it goes on and on and contains a lot content free rhetoric but some of the statements are inclusive and positive:

When Black people get free, everybody gets free
#BlackLivesMatter doesn’t mean your life isn’t important–it means that Black lives, which are seen as without value within White supremacy, are important to your liberation. Given the disproportionate impact state violence has on Black lives, we understand that when Black people in this country get free, the benefits will be wide reaching and transformative for society as a whole. When we are able to end hyper-criminalization and sexualization of Black people and end the poverty, control, and surveillance of Black people, every single person in this world has a better shot at getting and staying free. When Black people get free, everybody gets free. This is why we call on Black people and our allies to take up the call that Black lives matter. We’re not saying Black lives are more important than other lives, or that other lives are not criminalized and oppressed in various ways. We remain in active solidarity with all oppressed people who are fighting for their liberation and we know that our destinies are intertwined.

LOST said:
I do not see what you are referring to.

Left hand nav, under "who we are", "herstory".

Jackson_Fusion said:

LOST said:
I do not see what you are referring to.

Left hand nav, under "who we are", "herstory".

Got it.

bramzzoinks said:

GL2 said:
And gang/drug-related crimes are committed against people in the same vicinity. Unfortunately, they're overwhelmingly Af Am.

So it seems like you are agreeing with "Black Lives Matter" that those live do not matter.

No, I'm explaining to you that we commit crimes against those who are available. Very few gang members commit crimes against CEOs. That's why the con argument is ridiculous...who else would criminals kill in an overwhelmingly Af Am community? Laotians? Silicon Valley startup kids?

But why is BLM not concerned that there are gangs there. Theyfind the police worse than gangs.

bramzzoinks said:
But why is BLM not concerned that there are gangs there. Theyfind the police worse than gangs.

You are making things up.

bramzzoinks said:
But why is BLM not concerned that there are gangs there. Theyfind the police worse than gangs.

More silliness. Let's see: one group is trained and dedicated to public safety. The other is a group supporting a violent criminal underground economy based on fear. C'mon, get serious. This "comparison" is yet one more evasion of the real problem. I don't expect much from gangbangers. Nor am I paying their salaries.

The deep irony of this thread is that the OP loves to complain about statists, yet here he is defending agents of the state killing unarmed citizens. It's hard to get much more statist than that!

bramzzoinks said:
But why is BLM not concerned that there are gangs there. Theyfind the police worse than gangs.

Who says they are "not concerned?" It's just not their main focus. And that's okay.

It'd be kind of like saying the Susan G. Komen organization is "not concerned" about colon cancer because they only talk about breast cancer. I'm sure they think all cancer sucks but they're devoted to breast cancer specifically

PVW said:
The deep irony of this thread is that the OP loves to complain about statists, yet here he is defending agents of the state killing unarmed citizens. It's hard to get much more statist than that!

Consistency requires logic.

TarheelsInNj said:

bramzzoinks said:
But why is BLM not concerned that there are gangs there. Theyfind the police worse than gangs.

Who says they are "not concerned?" It's just not their main focus. And that's okay.
It'd be kind of like saying the Susan G. Komen organization is "not concerned" about colon cancer because they only talk about breast cancer. I'm sure they think all cancer sucks but they're devoted to breast cancer specifically

The focus of Koman does not increase the number of colon cancer deaths. The focus of BLM directly increases the number of civilian on civilian deaths and the number o civilian on police deaths.

This thread was started to be divisive. The OP has a history of racist statements over the years.

I do read many of his posts and it's puzzling that a person of his intellect feels as though he has to pluck the nerves to gain attention. I do believe that the OP actually believes his rhetoric, which is again puzzling because of where he chooses to live.

The OP clearly understands why BLM exists. Understands that BLM does not want death to police of any color, just justice when an officer shoots and unarmed person of color -- and they say of "color" to emphasize that more unarmed people of color are shot and killed by police than any other racial group. The OP knows this but yet, IMO, feels as though if a person of color is shot and killed by an officer, that shooting was justified and no other steps of investigation need to be taken. This is the thought process of many in this country, just not the OP. And this is why BLM exists.

bramzzoinks said:

The focus of Koman does not increase the number of colon cancer deaths. The focus of BLM directly increases the number of civilian on civilian deaths and the number o civilian on police deaths.

Well,that's not true, but this is:

Giraffes are sociable, peaceful animals which rarely fight. Males do perform a behaviour called ‘necking’ where they will hit necks; however these encounters rarely last more than a couple of minutes and seldom result in injury.

Don't believe it check it out!

http://www.onekind.org/be_inspired/animals_a_z/giraffe/

This is a public service announcement

kibbegirl said:
This thread was started to be divisive. The OP has a history of racist statements over the years.
I do read many of his posts and it's puzzling that a person of his intellect feels as though he has to pluck the nerves to gain attention. I do believe that the OP actually believes his rhetoric, which is again puzzling because of where he chooses to live.
The OP clearly understands why BLM exists. Understands that BLM does not want death to police of any color, just justice when an officer shoots and unarmed person of color -- and they say of "color" to emphasize that more unarmed people of color are shot and killed by police than any other racial group. The OP knows this but yet, IMO, feels as though if a person of color is shot and killed by an officer, that shooting was justified and no other steps of investigation need to be taken. This is the thought process of many in this country, just not the OP. And this is why BLM exists.

I've accused Zoinks of being a troll in the past, so I share your suspicion. In fact, if he is a troll I doubt he even lives here.

However, if he is a troll, he trolls well enough that I often believe he very well may be serious.

You've accused him here not of simply being a racist, which is an opinion that can be agreed or disagreed with, but of making racist statements, which would have evidence in fact.

If you are going to drop the bomb of our time on the guy, you should provide specifics to back up your accusation. You may believe it's not your job to do so, and no, it's not, but if you're going to hang the "racist" sign on the guy, decency demands that you back up your statement

kibbegirl said:
This thread was started to be divisive. The OP has a history of racist statements over the years.
I do read many of his posts and it's puzzling that a person of his intellect feels as though he has to pluck the nerves to gain attention. I do believe that the OP actually believes his rhetoric, which is again puzzling because of where he chooses to live.
The OP clearly understands why BLM exists. Understands that BLM does not want death to police of any color, just justice when an officer shoots and unarmed person of color -- and they say of "color" to emphasize that more unarmed people of color are shot and killed by police than any other racial group. The OP knows this but yet, IMO, feels as though if a person of color is shot and killed by an officer, that shooting was justified and no other steps of investigation need to be taken. This is the thought process of many in this country, just not the OP. And this is why BLM exists.

I have never made a racist statement.

bramzzoinks said:

kibbegirl said:
This thread was started to be divisive. The OP has a history of racist statements over the years.
I do read many of his posts and it's puzzling that a person of his intellect feels as though he has to pluck the nerves to gain attention. I do believe that the OP actually believes his rhetoric, which is again puzzling because of where he chooses to live.
The OP clearly understands why BLM exists. Understands that BLM does not want death to police of any color, just justice when an officer shoots and unarmed person of color -- and they say of "color" to emphasize that more unarmed people of color are shot and killed by police than any other racial group. The OP knows this but yet, IMO, feels as though if a person of color is shot and killed by an officer, that shooting was justified and no other steps of investigation need to be taken. This is the thought process of many in this country, just not the OP. And this is why BLM exists.

I have never made a racist statement.

But you ascribe vile thoughts and motivations to black people based on nothing but your own warped beliefs.

What should we call it, if not racism?

I do not. And you pretending that I do is incorrect and mostly a reflection on you.

Jackson_Fusion said:
I've accused Zoinks of being a troll in the past, so I share your suspicion. In fact, if he is a troll I doubt he even lives here.
However, if he is a troll, he trolls well enough that I often believe he very well may be serious.
You've accused him here not of simply being a racist, which is an opinion that can be agreed or disagreed with, but of making racist statements, which would have evidence in fact.
If you are going to drop the bomb of our time on the guy, you should provide specifics to back up your accusation. You may believe it's not your job to do so, and no, it's not, but if you're going to hang the "racist" sign on the guy, decency demands that you back up your statement

He has an odd obsession with race. He lives in a town that is less than 2% black (Millburn) yet posts a lot of provocative race-based content on another town's message board--a town (Maplewood) whose population is 35% black.

Make of that what you will.

Why is the onus on me to prove that the OP is racist? Doesn't his hundreds of posts make the point? Glad to see that he has a fan.

kibbegirl said:
Why is the onus on me to prove that the OP is racist? Doesn't his hundreds of posts make the point? Glad to see that he has a fan.

I didn't say you had to prove he is a racist. YOU stated he has made racist comments. That's a serious accusation, and if you're going to make it you should be able to back it up.

And despite my comments regarding my belief he's a troll, now I'm "his fan".

What exactly are you suggesting of me with that statement, since there is no way you could reasonably get out of my comments that I'm a fan of his?

I think there's racist, and then there's obtuse. I see in OP's statements a rather willful ignorance when it comes to the goals of BLM, but I'm not sure I'm seeing racism. Then again, perhaps racism is in the eye of the beholder? This is a concept I'm wrestling with lately.

This thread is going really well.

TarheelsInNj said:
I think there's racist, and then there's obtuse. I see in OP's statements a rather willful ignorance when it comes to the goals of BLM, but I'm not sure I'm seeing racism. Then again, perhaps racism is in the eye of the beholder? This is a concept I'm wrestling with lately.

Yes racism is in the eyes of the beholder. Which is why the left uses claims and accusations of racism to stifle discussion and further its political goals. Becasue doing that in so many areas is all its got since its ideas are so destructive.

What has to happen or be said for racism to not be in the eye of the beholder and just be something that we all see, all hear at the same time that we collectively agree is racist?

Yes but the left would need to calm down and not shout racism at every moment. And that is not going to happen.

bramzzoinks said:
Yes but the left would need to calm down and not shout racism at every moment. And that is not going to happen.

You and I watch different programming. I don't hear racism being shouted at every moment. What I hear are discussions regarding police over reach in poor communities (all hues) and police over reach when dealing with black and brown. If unarmed white teens were shot and killed at the rate black and brown kids are being killed, Fox News would demand the heads of both Obama's on a plate.

Many of us are a bit tired of the trite "He / she pulled a weapon out" or "He / she reached for my weapon" spin. Especially since when properly investigated, many of these stories were falsified by police. It's a sad, sad commentary in our country and is causing a major divide in communities. I REFUSE to paint all officers with a bad brush because I don't like it when people make blanket accusations about blacks and Hispanics. There are thousands of great officers who don't get a spotlight and we can blame both left and right media for that. It's not salacious tv to see an officer doing this (see below) in a community. I want officers, both black and white, who over reach, commit crimes, harass, lie to cover for themselves and others, and yes, commit murder to NOT be officers anymore. Is that too much to ask?

kibbegirl said:

bramzzoinks said:
Yes but the left would need to calm down and not shout racism at every moment. And that is not going to happen.

You and I watch different programming. I don't hear racism being shouted at every moment. What I hear are discussions regarding police over reach in poor communities (all hues) and police over reach when dealing with black and brown. If unarmed white teens were shot and killed at the rate black and brown kids are being killed, Fox News would demand the heads of both Obama's on a plate.
Many of us are a bit tired of the trite "He / she pulled a weapon out" or "He / she reached for my weapon" spin. Especially since when properly investigated, many of these stories were falsified by police. It's a sad, sad commentary in our country and is causing a major divide in communities. I REFUSE to paint all officers with a bad brush because I don't like it when people make blanket accusations about blacks and Hispanics. There are thousands of great officers who don't get a spotlight and we can blame both left and right media for that. It's not salacious tv to see an officer doing this (see below) in a community. I want officers, both black and white, who over reach, commit crimes, harass, lie to cover for themselves and others, and yes, commit murder to NOT be officers anymore. Is that too much to ask?

Nobody contests that people of any job who commit murder should be punished and punished severely, PARTICULARLY when done under color of law. When that doesn't happen society disintegrates. It is an issue for everyone, of every color.

The most recent posts have taken issue with your accusation regarding a poster's "racist comments". I asked you to provide examples of those statements- I said I think the guy is half-trolling and stated I don't read his comments all that often or closely-and you dubbed me "a fan" of a racist. That's just unfair and a particularly nasty way to shut down a discussion.

Your next post lamented that we don't all "collectively agree" on what's racist. Great! Let's agree to use Zoink's view. Or mine. Or Hillary Clinton's. Or Donald Trump's.

But I imagine that's not the collective you were thinking of.

People who disagree with your view are not of necessity racists. They simply don't agree with your view. They're allowed.