How ACCURATE is The "Black Lives Matter" Narrative?

Judging by what I see above, the BLM narrative is a load of obfuscatory bovine excrement.

I think few people are actually aware of the origins of the BLM novement.  

http://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/

I have no problem backing anyone that opposes unjust treatment of people by the police, no matter their color, ethnicity, or any other identifying factor.  Frankly, I see police acting/reacting in an "us vs. them" mentality.  It isn't about color, or ethnicity, or status...it is about whatever makes someone "them" at any given point in time.  That indeed may be color or ethnicity or social class or anything.  When these abuses of power happen, that is wrong.  They happen across all colors, classes and ethnicities.  Granted that the lower "classes" are harder hit, but the bottom line is if you are perceived as "them"...you are screwed.  Think it cannot happen to you because you are a middle class white?  Think again.  It does...it just doesn't make the 11 PM News.  

     "I have no problem backing anyone that opposes unjust treatment of people by the police, no matter their color, ethnicity, or any other identifying factor.  Frankly, I see police acting/reacting in an "us vs. them" mentality.  It isn't about color, or ethnicity, or status...it is about whatever makes someone "them" at any given point in time."

PRECISELY!

And that's why the whole monstrous charade pisses me off.  It draws attention from the REAL problem of police brutality which impacts every single one of us.

(Edit: I actually waded through much of the BLM manifesto.  In summmary...WTF!?  It was like an effluxion of neologism.

Yeppers.

(Yes, it is not exactly what those who have co-opted it would have one think, is it?  It is actually even more exclusive than what most think when they hear "BLM".)

Congratulations! You're batting a thousand tonight.  Mebbe somebody should tell RP about this.  :-)

Exactly what claims are these statistics supposed to refute? How will you quantify the accuracy of a narrative, that doesn't include any numbers?

That (quantification) ain't my job, man.  I asked the question. You're free to refute it any way you like.

It would APPEAR, however, that the BLM narrative--that blacks are the predominant victims of lethal police shootings--is a massive load of bunk.  If you dispute the figures cited above, you're certainly free to provide your own.

That's just kinda sad, actually D:

Yeah, it's sad that anyone lends this group any credence at all.

I ask, because I don't understand what you're asking. You quote statistics, and appear to conclude that BLM is bullshit. Walk us through the reasoning, if you would.

Where does BLM make that claim exactly? I couldn't see from their website that the movement hinges on such a claim being true.

     "I ask, because I don't understand what you're asking."

Fair enough.  This is what I'm asking: "How ACCURATE is The "Black Lives Matter" Narrative?"  The objective seems pretty straightforward: to gather and discuss respondents' (yours, for example) opinions on the accuracy of the BLM narrative.  Do YOU think it's bullsh*t?  Do others think it's bullsh*t?  That sort of thing. (As the OP, my opinion, although plainly stated, is largely irrelevant. The question seeks to ascertain what YOU think.  You can answer with a simple yes or no, and/or address the degree of accuracy as by providing some sort of contradictory information. Is the BLM narrative 100 percent accurate; 70 percent accurate; 30 percent accurate...or total hogwash?)

     "You quote statistics, and appear to conclude that BLM is bullshit. Walk us through the reasoning, if you would."

My conclusion is that, based on the cited statistics regarding the number of fatal police shooting victims (where the police are doing the shooting), the BLM narrative as it is understood by the 'average' person is a massive load of bunk.  The logic?. A is not equal to B, ergo...C. The cited statistics do not bolster the claims of BLM that blacks are the predominant victims of lethal force on the part of police.  In fact they tend to refute such claims/perceptions.

NOW, one could argue that such is not really what BLM members claim, but then you'd be obliged to provide an alternative interpretation of their core message.

Does this help?

Not really. I was hoping you could clarify how one is to rate the accuracy of the narrative, as you see it.

I think reducing the whole movement to a central claim, that you can then refute with your statistics, is a straw man. Unless maybe you can show somehow that BLM is in fact predicated on that one claim. If that's stated on their website somewhere, I missed it.

I rate the accuracy of the narrative based on its conformity to actual data--data which, in this case, indicates that the narrative is bunk.

Perhaps, but a) they're not 'my' statistics, and b), strawman or no, either the claims (of BLM) conform to the facts/data or they do not.  In this case they do not. That the organization itself is predicated on the MYTH that Blacks are being singled out for brutal treatment by the police certainly suggests that it is bound to that data.  That, in turn, nullifies any justification they may have for being treated as an exclusive victim of the police.  American citizens as a gestalt are being brutalized by the police, but only BLM is expecting special consideration/treatment DESPITE there being no basis (in data) to support that expectation.

But again, I'll be glad to entertain an alternative explication of their core message/claims should you wish to provide same. :-)

 

I don't think you understand the logical fallacy of the "straw man"

No, that's not why it pisses you off. It does because of your views on race. Which you have plenty established before to be of the white is better persuasion.

I'm going to give you, honestly. Without any sarcasm or ulterior motive, the benefit of the doubt N.
You, and many miss the point.
The point is not that blacks are being killed by the police in larger numbers.
That is not the point.
It has already been demonstrated that this is not the case.
It has also been pointed out, the hypocrisy of a movement that proposes outrage about the white police killing blacks, while at the same time, ignoring the astronomical numbers pointing to black on black killing.
All of that has been pointed out and understood.
But that's not the point, the point is, are those killings perpetuated by the police on the black communities racially influenced? Are they part of a racist police mentality. THATS the point.
As exposed by several rulings from the federal government on police departments.across the nation.
Personally, I don't think that I, as a police officer, not being black, and having to deal with that kind of environment day in and day out of poverty and violence and drugs... . I think it would be very difficult for me to not develop a stereotypical attitude. But then again, I'm not a cop.

The BLM movement was created in 2013 over the death of Trayvon Martin. Despite all the federal resources brought to bear on local law enforcement, the case ended in acquittal. The movement gained steam over the death of Michael Brown. The narrative that he had his back to the officer, threw up his arms, begged not to be shot, but was then shot 10 times in the back was a complete lie, as proved by three autopsies including one requested by the Obama DOJ. All wildly outlandish eyewitness accounts were recanted when those witnesses were placed under oath. 

Hello N:

Oh, it's accurate, all right..  What's INACCURATE, is your portrayal of them. Are you a white guy?  Doncha think black people know MORE about their own movement than a white guy does?   Furthermore, your portrayal demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of American history..  Your stats probably are accurate, and have NOTHING to do with BLM.

excon

Not very accurate but then again I don't trust BLM for many personal reasons and if I don't trust someone I won't trust their narrative. They have ties to Islamic groups and a large chunk of their support comes from separatists. One of their off groups that are associated with them wanted to free the killer of one black cop and that same person injured another black cop who later stood trial against the aggressor. They call them "freedom fighters." Everyone on that list who they want to propose to free are all cop killers who belonged to some extremist group over another doesn't matter which.

BLM can't even answer why they want to free the killers of black cops. They can't even answer a simple question why would I trust their narrative?

The Milwaukee riots where protesters were solely motivated only by the race of the victim and nothing more or less.

Knowing all this it makes me doubtful over anything they say.

There's also other factors. One of the very co founders of Black Lives Matter (a woman I don't recall her name) actually claimed climate change was racist because some countries that were on the list were primarily black (while ignoring other factors of why it's on the list in the first place.) Major drought is one reason many of those countries are listed... (drought isn't racist lmao.)

Many who I debate with prescribe to the theory that black people can't be racist but they can be prejudice because they don't have power. Power plus prejudice equals racism. Black people can only be prejudice but not racist.

Even though the second definition of racism is prejudice but never mind all that with their narrative facts sure don't matter :)

There is even such a thing called Post Traumatic Slavery Syndrome apparently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Traumatic_Slave_Syndrome

Sadly most people spew this kind of propaganda which is why I don't trust their narrative all that much.

"No, that's not why it pisses you off. It does because of your views on race."

That's one heck of an ad hominem, mind reading attempts?

Are you seriously going to try to tell her what motivates her? Do you at least have some evidence to support your comments aside from her making statements with which you disagree?

If not, maybe attack the information she presented rather than her person.

I'm not sure this is the best measurement given that black people comprise only 13% (roughly) of the entire population.

Granted, I don't need convincing that discretionary use of force by police is out of control either. So...

There's black police and what the Milwaukee riots demonstrated is that it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the race of the victim. The cop was black and shot a black person.. the rioters still blamed white people.

'Not A Rational Person' isn't responding to her. S/he's individual is responding to me.  This individual has a clear need to 'other' anyone with whom s/he differs. S/he has also insinuated that I'm some sort of racist on multiple occasions, and for no other crime than asking hot button questions.

She isn't alone in the employment of this tactic, either.

And I'm going to return to you, honestly, without any sarcasm or ulterior motive, a response which is as civil as the one you've finally furnished here:

     "The point is not that blacks are being killed by the police in larger numbers. That is not the point."

Then they HAVE NO BASIS to expect exclusivity as victims, and should promptly DROP the asinine slogan 'black lives matter.'  If black lives matter no more or less than the lives of any other group, then there is NO POINT in identifying themselves BY that group. How about citizen lives matter? Our lives matter (too)? Etc.?

"It has also been pointed out, the hypocrisy of a movement that proposes outrage about the white police killing blacks, while at the same time, ignoring the astronomical numbers pointing to black on black killing."

Could you kindly provide a link to an example of this differentiation on the part of BLM?

"All of that has been pointed out and understood."

Then why do THEY keep clinging to this exclusivist slogan?

"But that's not the point, the point is, are those killings perpetuated by the police on the black communities racially influenced? Are they part of a racist police mentality. THAT'S the point."

I have no doubt that they are, and that THAT ALONE should be the sole focus of their attention.   I'll even help them write a new slogan!

About two things I'm damned certain; 1) as long as any minority group continues to identify themselves as apart from the rest of us, they will NEVER BE a part of the rest of us, and 2) I for one am up to my eyeballs with liberals marginalizationing and 'othering' anyone who DARES to disagree with them.

What I just as certainly do NOT give a damn about are the silly labels which the simpering, supercilious sycophants of statism try to pin on me.