Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

No, I don't recognize riots and killing cops as a "civil rights movement". I just saw a video in which the sister of the man shot in Milwaukee called for rioters to "take that shit to the surburbs. Burn that shit down."

Perhaps BLM's problem is that they have no official spokespeople, so they get the best and the worst.

Are there racists in America? Yes. Too many.

But this is a story about a white cop acting aggressively toward a white man.

If we both care about all victims of police brutality, once in a while we should actually discuss (gasp) some of the 75% of victims who aren't black.




As MLK says, "riot is the language of the unheard". And as you should know, BLM supports neither riots nor police killing. It's explicitly a non-violent protest movement.

If you really cared about limiting police brutality, you'd be spending your time working on police brutality. But instead, you're busily arguing that people should stop talking about white suppression of black Americans. Your refusal to acknowledge black grievances is part of the white supremacist structure that goes back to our country's founding, a structure that riots are a natural reaction against. You are part of the problem.

Whatever you say you care about, I'll believe how you spend your time over your words.


How can you claim BLM supports this, or doesn't support that? Who speaks for BLM officially?

Whoever writes the website blacklivesmatter.com did support the Ferguson riots. [1] As did Simone Sebastian in the Washington Post. [2] DeRay Mckesson called In Defense of Looting "absolute required reading". [3] The list goes on and on.

And you yourself just defended riots. In one sentence you defend riots and in the very next falsely claim BLM doesn't support riots.

And speaking of how you spend your time, you could offer some evidence for your claims. How many words have you written now? How much time have you spent trying to persuade me, yet offering no evidence. Do you have any evidence, or just prejudice and insults?

Do you even know what you're talking about?

1: http://blacklivesmatter.com/ferguson-1-year-later-why-protes...

2: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/01/...

3: https://twitter.com/deray/status/524704650218729473


Your biased reading of these things is exactly why there's no point to give you evidence on anything. Your goal is not to understand; it's to "win".

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. As I said, I think you are in the same sort of laggard [1] category as other people were on other opinions about race. Although I hope otherwise, I expect you'll take your hate for Black Lives Matter to your grave.

If you were serious about ending police violence, you'd be out there trying to end police violence. Instead, you spend your time trying to shut up anti-racist people. Why? Try taking a look at who else spends their time objecting to Black Lives Matter:

http://www.chron.com/houston/article/White-Lives-Matter-grou...

[1] Per Moore's model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm


Replying 4 days later?

I seriously doubt you're "not trying to persuade [me] of anything."

You're doing a terrible job of it though. Nothing but name calling. No evidence, and no rational arguments.

(And yes, I am replying 3 days later because I am trying to convince you of something. I'm trying to convince you to have rational conversations.)


It's weird! I have a life where I go do things that are not always compatible with replying to internet randos.

And seriously, I am doing a terrible job at persuading you because I'm really not trying to persuade you of anything. As I've said, I don't believe you're persuadable.

People who vigorously mount a defense of a biased status quo rarely are persuadable because their motivation isn't rational; they're the sort of person who will defend whatever status quo they happen to be born into. That they have convinced themselves that they're the only truly rational people is also not a new phenomenon. The people who argued against the anti-slavery movement felt exactly the same way.


And yet here you were, days later, again, still replying.

And still with no evidence. Because you don't have any.


It's weird! I have a life where I go do things that are not always compatible with replying to internet randos.

And seriously, I am doing a terrible job at persuading you because I'm really not trying to persuade you of anything. As I've said, I don't believe you're persuadable.

People who vigorously mount a defense of a biased status quo rarely are persuadable because their motivation isn't rational; they're the sort of person who will defend whatever status quo they happen to be born into. That they have convinced themselves that they're the only truly rational people is also not a new phenomenon. The people who argued against the anti-slavery movement felt exactly the same way.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: