Jump to content

Are You Showing Support for Black Lives Matter in Second Life?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 358 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I've only seen you focus on the negative aspects of the BLM movement....have never seen you concerned for what Blacks have gone through over the centuries.  Why is that?

I am very skeptical of a lot of social justice movements.

In my experience, movements can have a sinister side, and are often used to do terrible things.

That is why I only offer conditional support. I do not want to be associated with this kind of behavior or help to enable it. It does not belong, it's not welcome.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not as such, no. We don't really have that kind of thing here as, well, our law enforcement seldom gun down people - and whilst I obviously do not condone of it, I'm hesitant to give my 'official' (i.

Alrighty, now that I've gone ahead and cleared out some not so pleasant posts from this thread I wanted to drop a quick note here. As many of you have seen me say several times before, delving in

Thank you for this.   Black woman here.  Of A Certain Age.  I have my BLM shirt.   For whatever that means. (freewheeling it here, went from wanting to say something to not wanting to say anythi

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

Well too much wrongness here to comment on properly, but the big claim about numbers is wildly inaccurate. The number of police killings of blacks in the USA over the last 5 years is in excess of 7000 people. The largest number I can see for those killed during recent protests is 20. Of those 20 some were killed by police, some by provocateurs, some of looters not necessarily associated with the protests. 

Would you care to provide some sort of reliable link for that claim of 7,000?  The data I can find puts that number in the 200 range annually, (the number of whites killed being consistently around double that) so about 1/6 of what you claim, and your number is in excess of the total number killed by police during that period  The vast majority of those appear to be of armed suspects, as the number of deaths of unarmed African Americans annually is between 10 and 20 (with Whites again about double that).

There are certainly issues with data on this subject, as police departments are not required to gather and report such data in any consistent manner, which is frankly ridiculous.  However, it seems unlikely that would explain such a disparity with your number.  There are also studies out there that call into question the narrative that this is a racial issue with cops (one shows Black suspects are more likely to be killed by Black or Hispanic cops than by White cops, for instance, others that link the greater per capita rate of Blacks killed by cops to the higher percentage of violent offenders that are Black, etc.)

Now, I realize several people will, the moment they read the first paragraph, immediately start typing their histrionic replies of righteous outrage, so let me just list my humble suggestion for curbing police murdering citizens:

  1. Make unjustifiable killing by a cop a federal crime
  2. Require that FBI field offices investigate all killings by police (combined with 1, this would make covering up in a police shooting, such as convent turning off of body cams, a federal crime)
  3. Dismantle police unions (which are a huge part of the reason bad cops keep getting put back on the street)
  4.  Murder 1 by cop = death penalty (federal). Murder 2 =  life in prison, no parole

You can't legislate racism away, and you can't get 50 states and countless municipalities to all get on the same playbook, so make it a federal issue, and enough of this "cops policing themselves" BS.  Knowing the FBI is coming for you with a needle and a dirt nap will either get cops to behave or, even more likely, get the corrupt ones out of policing (one way or another).  Trump claims he's against police murders, the Dems claim they are, the GOP claims they are, all they have to do is flip off the police unions and come together for legislation and screw the endorsements and campaign donations.

But, they won't, because this isn't about race or justice to them, it's about politics.

Edited by Tolya Ugajin
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Pixie Kobichenko said:

Churchill did a lot of bad, too.  I watched a documentary about Louisa Gould which was tied to how Churchill allowed the Nazi occupied Channel Islanders to starve from 1940-1945.   There’s also his starving of the people of British Imperial Bengal.  

Sorry but that's just utter bollocks! (though I don't blame you for it, there are many who fell for the same crap, said by an author who had his book removed and was disgraced!
Have a read of the truth:

Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, who had the ships available to take the grain from Australia to India:

"I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more. I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help."

Roosevelt said no. He gave his “utmost sympathy,” but his military advisers were “unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping….Needless to say, I regret exceedingly the necessity of giving you this unfavorable reply.”

To accuse Churchill of not even trying to help, no, of trying to deliberately murder the Indians is a complete and utter falsity and obscures what actually happened!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:
15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I've only seen you focus on the negative aspects of the BLM movement....have never seen you concerned for what Blacks have gone through over the centuries.  Why is that?

I am very skeptical of a lot of social justice movements.

In my experience, movements can have a sinister side, and are often used to do terrible things.

That is why I only offer conditional support. I do not want to be associated with this kind of behavior or help to enable it. It does not belong, it's not welcome.

Movements can have negative elements, as it's not all under the core people's control, but what were the Blacks supposed to do in order to get people to listen to them?  

* Sometimes protests really do effect change, like with the Viet Nam war.  But the process wasn't perfect.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

If supporting BLM is supporting disrespectful, arrogant behavior like this, consider me out.

I support human rights, not idiots who want to trash and disrespect history just to virtue signal.

I hear what you are saying in that to fight violence with violence is just another wrong and can never signal virtue but apparently in this thread it is not a favorable opinion, or it's a troll or a concern troll which is just more stereotyping and prejudice.  Stereotyping is stereotyping.  Prejudice is prejudice.   There are people of all colors who are separatists; they want to keep to their own kind, as Ashlyn keeps saying she wants it to be about her and her people.  Blacks have integrated in many neighbors and now hold positions in all job descriptions and we are friends and inter-racially coupled.  My ex-boyfriend was black.  I'm white.  We were just two people when we were together.   Should I tell my ex-boyfriend he should go be with "your people", Ashlyn?  Come on, that's wrong.  There is no "his" people; he loves all kinds of people.  

I feel like some things in this thread is taking people back to the 1950's.  Black people have changed and are just leading their lives with many different kinds of people and are unique even in so much as being Jewish.  

There is only one race.  The human race.  There aren't different races.  People mistake the word race for ethnicity.   

 

Edited by JanuarySwan
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Movements can have negative elements, as it's not all under the core people's control, but what were the Blacks supposed to do in order to get people to listen to them?  

 

I share some of the concerns for all too radical social justice movements. But the latter, by definition, are born from injustices. So, a few sharp edges, even radical ones, are to be expected. But Black Lives Matter, as a thought, an ideological statement to be carried towards becoming reality, I don't see how anyone could ever be on the opposite side of that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dano Seale said:

Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, who had the ships available to take the grain from Australia to India....

because he was trying to maintain India as colony of the British Empire. Context matters. The Indian perspective matters.

See Inglorious Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire

Rose tinted views of colonial actions by white majority countries is why we're still having this problem.

History is written by the victors, accepting your perspective on historical events might be somewhat biased is the first step. (not because you're personally a bad person, just that what they taught you in school might not have been entirely impartial)

Edited by CoffeeDujour
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JanuarySwan said:
38 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

I support human rights, not idiots who want to trash and disrespect history just to virtue signal.

I hear what you are saying in that to fight violence with violence is just another wrong and can never signal virtue but apparently in this thread it is not a favorable opinion, or it's a troll or a concern troll which is just more stereotyping and prejudice.

January, most of the BLM protesting is peaceful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kiramanell said:
23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Movements can have negative elements, as it's not all under the core people's control, but what were the Blacks supposed to do in order to get people to listen to them?  

 

I share some of the concerns for all too radical social justice movements. But the latter, by definition, are born from injustices. So, a few sharp edges, even radical ones, are to be expected. But Black Lives Matter, as a thought, an ideological statement to be carried towards becoming reality, I don't see how anyone could ever be on the opposite side of that.

Yes, and most of those opposing BLM take any negative element shoved in their faces via the media to trash the whole movement!  One can only conclude from this that they don't take the principles of BLM seriously at all -- they give it no merit.

* Actually, I think some of those opposing BLM make an active search on Youtube for any little morsel of violence they can find because they oppose social justice movement in general.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

January, most of the BLM protesting is peaceful. 

Defacing property was just shown above with grave sites and the BLM spray painted on people's headstones.  The protesting has turned violent in many areas.  It is not peaceful but it is not fully known who is doing what as it's far too many people.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dano Seale said:

Sorry but that's just utter bollocks! (though I don't blame you for it, there are many who fell for the same crap, said by an author who had his book removed and was disgraced!
Have a read of the truth:

Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, who had the ships available to take the grain from Australia to India:

"I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more. I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help."

Roosevelt said no. He gave his “utmost sympathy,” but his military advisers were “unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping….Needless to say, I regret exceedingly the necessity of giving you this unfavorable reply.”

To accuse Churchill of not even trying to help, no, of trying to deliberately murder the Indians is a complete and utter falsity and obscures what actually happened!

From what I’ve read, Churchill had grain diverted from India to soldiers.  
& again, he opted to starve those remaining on the Channel Islands in order to choke out the occupying Nazis.  For four long years.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JanuarySwan said:
9 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

January, most of the BLM protesting is peaceful. 

Defacing property was just shown above with grave sites and the BLM spray painted on people's headstones.  The protesting has turned violent in many areas.  It is not peaceful but it is not fully known who is doing what as it's far too many people.  

It's mostly peaceful, but there is some violence yes, and I understand why (in some cases):

President Lyndon Johnson

What did you expect? I don’t know why we’re so surprised. When you put your foot on a man’s neck and hold him down for three hundred years, and then you let him up, what’s he going to do? He’s going to knock your block off.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would welcome a debate some time about British colonial history, Britain's role in the history of the slave trade,  and public statuary  in the UK and elsewhere,  I really don't think this particular thread, about how black Americans' lives are so frequently taken with impunity by the police, is the best place to have that discussion right now.

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

any negative element

Winston Churchill is not any negative element. You may not care about him, but he is important to me and I think I speak on behalf of the majority of my country when I say to my countrymen too.

When people are openly willing to disrespect and support defacing someone so important to my country, it should not surprise you that you lose my support.

Of course I support the core concept that Black Lives Matter. However, to support this movement? To support people acting like this? No. Just no.

People must come to recognize that there are some lines that you just don't cross if you want the respect of others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's mostly peaceful, but there is some violence yes, and I understand why (in some cases):

President Lyndon Johnson

What did you expect? I don’t know why we’re so surprised. When you put your foot on a man’s neck and hold him down for three hundred years, and then you let him up, what’s he going to do? He’s going to knock your block off.

 

 

Or when you only do so for 9 minutes, and he no longer gets up. :( 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's mostly peaceful, but there is some violence yes, and I understand why (in some cases):

President Lyndon Johnson

What did you expect? I don’t know why we’re so surprised. When you put your foot on a man’s neck and hold him down for three hundred years, and then you let him up, what’s he going to do? He’s going to knock your block off.

 

But, that's double talk.  You say it's peaceful but it's not peaceful.  We don't have a right in this country to do anything else.  Should all those of a different colors be doing the same things such as knocking someone's block off?  Personally, I don't think so.   Because it's just behavior for behavior and what if you get the wrong person?  We have to make a more peaceful police for all and more accountability for all but the right way.  

This man who murdered this man needs to be held accountable.  He is going to be held accountable.  But, the craziness just keeps going on in the middle of a pandemic.   

 

Edited by JanuarySwan
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

Winston Churchill is not any negative element. You may not care about him, but he is important to me and I think I speak on behalf of the majority of my country when I say to my countrymen too.

When people are openly willing to disrespect and support defacing someone so important to my country, it should not surprise you that you lose my support.

Of course I support the core concept that Black Lives Matter. However, to support this movement? To support people acting like this? No. Just no.

People must come to recognize that there are some lines that you just don't cross if you want the respect of others.

Have you studied Black history in any depth?  I doubt you have. Unfortunately I had to study it in school more than I liked, and came across many descriptions so gruesome I could barely take it. I may still have some PTSD because of it.

Tell me how defacing some dumb statue representing one of your war heroes compares to the ongoing oppression of Blacks that keeps our boots on their neck in this country, the current slave trade of American prisons, and to something like this:

We hung a Black woman and slit her belly to reveal her unborn baby falling to the ground, and then stomped on its head, while a crowd viewing the spectacle cheered on?    And you are upset by graffiti?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pixie Kobichenko said:

From what I’ve read, Churchill had grain diverted from India to soldiers.  
& again, he opted to starve those remaining on the Channel Islands in order to choke out the occupying Nazis.  For four long years.

"There are two sides to every story...and somewhere in the middle lies the truth!"...Dunno who said that but I say it a lot too, lol.
 

 

28 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Yeah, being skeptical about that is some Alex Jones they're turning the frogs gay level 💩, right?

Nup!...But when you add in all your other posts on being skeptical and your "they din do nuffin!" attitude?....Then yup!
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 358 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...