Whats so hard about reading the article?
These threads get my blood pressure into dangerous territory with how few people are willing to just take a few minutes...... Man I swear.
HuffPo: Obama Praises Black Lives Matter, But Says Activists Must Compromise
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
- Status
Whats so hard about reading the article?
These threads get my blood pressure into dangerous territory with how few people are willing to just take a few minutes...... Man I swear.
I read the OP. But I didn't mention Obama at all in my post because I haven't taken the time to read everything he said. I wanted to focus on the sentiment itself, which regardless if you say Obama doesn't share, a couple of people in this thread probably do and so I thought it would be relevant.
But they are. And shouting about it doesn't - in itself - change anything. This modern idea of leaderless movements with no clear agenda doesn't work to effect change. It's incumbent on protestors to have a clear idea of what they want when someone in power asks them. The meeting with Clinton was embarrassing. She literally asked them what they wanted her to do and they had no answer, no list of demands, and no idea of what to say. The protest worked -- they had one of the most powerful politicians listening, on camera, asking for their demands, and had nothing. That's a damn shame.
John Kowalski
Banned
Ok I read that again and it seems like the second half isn't directly related to the latter, that is the commentary about planning for incremental change isn't specifically about BLM, but about activism in general.
This is the truth. As much as many have this reflexive desire to automatically assume that leadership is corrupt and that those with power must be mistrusted in some way - and make no mistake, even the leader of a protest movement has a form of power - the reality is that things must be demanded, and it must be clear and concise once those demands are spoken. And that message must remain relatively consistent, across lines. And sometimes there will be compromises that must be made in order to move the ball forward at all.
If you have this unmovable force that just projects sheer anger all the time, your politicians might pay attention and pay lip service to it (if you're lucky), but likely they won't feel any pressure to actually do something about it.
metalslimer
Member
Yeah that was pretty terrible. I think it's good ultimately for people on the same side to at least be on the same page because with the country become more polarized instituting change becomes more difficult
I read the article was responding to posts I saw in the thread. If the Internet raises your blood pressure maybe you should take an extended vacation from a site like neogaf for your health.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
I'm not convinced enough people in power are actually listening, or are sympathetic in the slightest. You no doubt have many that treat BLM like Fox News does, meaning as professional agitators at best, and a hate group at worst. It's one hell of an uphill battle, I mean just look at the rhetoric you see after all these deaths, trying to do anything possible to justify them. They don't see a problem.
So with that in mind, It would take a damn miracle of coordination and ground game to get the right(?) people voted in, and the wrong ones voted out(at the local levels), to truly get the massive overhauls needed, and it would be massive, considering how many unsympathetic/shady ass people are out there. You need that Supreme Court too.
Prosecutors in a couple high profile cases actually did lose bids for re-election, people woke up and got out there to vote in a local election, so that's a baby step.
So with that in mind, It would take a damn miracle of coordination and ground game to get the right(?) people voted in, and the wrong ones voted out(at the local levels), to truly get the massive overhauls needed, and it would be massive, considering how many unsympathetic/shady ass people are out there. You need that Supreme Court too.
Prosecutors in a couple high profile cases actually did lose bids for re-election, people woke up and got out there to vote in a local election, so that's a baby step.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Yeah I think him saying this overseas at this time is bullshit. The basic equality that the BLM groups have protested for continue to be denied them in the most visceral/legal ways possible. Black people continue to be killed by people in positions of authority and the system acts as if nothing happened. I feel Obama's entire engagement with BLM has been bullshit (similar to how he dealth with Occupy Wall Street but BLM is more widespread so it might live longer).
I also hope BLM continues to disrupt/protest/hold accountable the candidates going into the general election. They've been in many ways patronized and ignored by the left and I think that needs to be pointed out in the general election.
Also saying BLM haven't accomplished any policy goals is untrue. They've stopped two DA's who blatantly sided with the police over the rights of the community from being rehired. That alone is more than Obama has done in regards to police brutality in America since he's been elected and I say that as a man who generally appreciates the good things Obama has done in his two terms.
I also hope BLM continues to disrupt/protest/hold accountable the candidates going into the general election. They've been in many ways patronized and ignored by the left and I think that needs to be pointed out in the general election.
Also saying BLM haven't accomplished any policy goals is untrue. They've stopped two DA's who blatantly sided with the police over the rights of the community from being rehired. That alone is more than Obama has done in regards to police brutality in America since he's been elected and I say that as a man who generally appreciates the good things Obama has done in his two terms.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Obama is rational in that once you get to the leaders, you need to communicate practical reforms to them. Perhaps you don't get everything now, but you get something, and then you build on it. No landmark changes have been made, only little ones (more forces picking up body cams), and so BLM must keep working. There does need to be leadership at this stage though.
That's what happened all over the place in the 60s with civil, women's, gay, and farmers rights.
That's what happened all over the place in the 60s with civil, women's, gay, and farmers rights.
He's not saying they shouldn't be doing those things, he's saying they should be doing more than just protesting since protesting will only get you so far.
Occupy died the way it did because all it had was protests, it didn't try and do anything else. Even the protesters themselves weren't on the same page in terms of what needed to be done. Occupy died accomplishing none of it's goals because it couldn't articulate them properly.
OWS is almost certainly the reason he's making such strong comments. We've seen a recent high-profile liberal protest group rise, fall, and not accomplish very much in between. Worrying that BLM could suffer the same fate is a valid concern.
So is it safe to assume that BLM are considered civil right activists at this point? Who are the notable representatives and have they presented an overall platform? Per their site
Black Lives Matter is a chapter-based national organization working for the validity of Black life.
I know who Shaun King is and also DeRay McKesson is but he has decidedly taken a political route.
I feel the movement is fragmented at times. Each city has a BLM movement yet are they in turn inter-connected with a policy/agenda or do they operate autonomously?
I'm not agreeing nor dis-agreeing with Obama. I will state the their is and continues to be a socio-economic disenfranchisement that continues to take lives. What are we going to do about it?
Black Lives Matter is a chapter-based national organization working for the validity of Black life.
I know who Shaun King is and also DeRay McKesson is but he has decidedly taken a political route.
I feel the movement is fragmented at times. Each city has a BLM movement yet are they in turn inter-connected with a policy/agenda or do they operate autonomously?
I'm not agreeing nor dis-agreeing with Obama. I will state the their is and continues to be a socio-economic disenfranchisement that continues to take lives. What are we going to do about it?
Occupy kinda died also because Bloomberg and the NYPD violated their civil liberties. I mean, yeah the movement should have became more than what it was naturally but they were forcibly put to bed early. people only see the confrontational protesting part of BLM activism and not the community building and political engagement parts. Obama is speaking from a place of experience because he's done community building himself but BLM definitely isn't just confrontational activism.
Occupy could have survived past the original protests had they articulated their positions properly. They had cameras on them for weeks and couldn't get their shit together. Had they been able to pick at least one policy position to push forward they could have survived past the initial protests. All Bloomberg did was end the initial protests, Occupy itself ended the movement.
BLM is definitely better than Occupy, but it also has a lot of the same weaknesses. Obama's basically saying "Get good," because what they're for is too important to die the way Occupy did.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals (IE the protest bible) states "Never go outside the expertise of your people". It also says to continue to protest until its ineffective. BLM hasn't reached that point and they are good enough at protesting even Obama (who from what I have seen abhors having to recognize protest groups) has spoken about them. If anything my money is on it lasting as long as police murders continues but reaching its most popularity in the general election. Organizing people in grassroot elections is a key true, but that's not BLM strength. A whole new organization should be made to do that.
OWS was a very different organization both structurally and in intent.
1) OWS didn't have as singular a purpose as BLM,
2) OWS was tied to directly to Wall Street and a combination of Winter and Bloomberg waiting for them to fall out the news cycle led to them being dislodged
3) OWS were not confronting presidential contenders during an election year
4) OWS didn't represent a demographic that is basically a key component to the democratic presidential strategy.
5) The issue BLM is protesting continues to be in the news in one form or another
If anything BLM learned a lot from OWS and is applying it now. Arguably OWS thought to highly of Obama while BLM seems to mostly ignore him similar to how Obama ignores BLM. They are applying pressure to his replacements since they realize that the candidates are in a much more vulnerable position in regards to voters and thus easier to influence.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
But they should be able to, when asked to join a discussion about their issue, attend and give some changes they want to occur.
Either protesting the very same meetings they are asked to attend, or going and having nothing to say, hurts them more than helps them. That's exactly what Obama was trying to get the activists to understand (of course, the situation is not helped by the shitty Huffington Post story).
It sounds like he was speaking about the ones that didn't though. He didn't say "BLM is over, guys, pack it up"
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
I mean the message is pretty simple isn't it "stop killing black/brown people and claiming its their fault for being killed and/or refusing to punish their murderer(s)".
Also there are tons of organization (and a few Gov't ran agencies) that can speak on this issue and have representatives get bogged down in meetings on esoteric ways a corrupt system can be changed on both a local and national level. Those groups were specifically built to speak for the needs of the community. An organization like BLM on a national level operates as a watchdog group made to shine a light on all the many occurrences when this corruption happens and the ineffectiveness of elected leaders to change it at all. From what I have heard a few local chapters have got involved in local elections which is good, but to ask the organization to pivot to that makes it at best into another lobbying group that doesn't have enough money to be a "real" lobby group is going to lead to a slow death for that group.
For an organization like BLM to begin to sit down and make deals and compromise in many ways just means its been co-opted to being something that is controllable. The only reason they have had success so far is the fact that they are an unknown factor. The fact that they could potentially sway black voters in 2016 to look less favorably on a candidate is in many ways the best chance they have to create change based on the way the organization was structurally set up to do.
GiantBreadbug
Member
I think the changes that need to be made, and the ones that BLM protesters want, are pretty fucking clear. They can't be bothered to sit down and map out policy ideas; their friends and family are being killed every day.
A politician saying "oh we're listening, just stop yelling and say something" is a fucking cop out. They're rightfully angry, so forgive them if they appear to be lashing out. That Clinton-BLM meeting is honestly not just embarrassing for the movement, it should be embarrassing for her as well. If she's so in-touch with the black community, she should be privy to the fact that they just recently were able to get ahold of the ideological megaphone. Sure, it would be good if BLM leaders were present for policy discussion, but for fuck's sake, the things the president (and Bill Clinton) are trying to say just don't really make any sense.
Why does it surprise you that there's so much yelling? Talking around this issue and saying shit like this sure doesn't signal to the movement that you're truly interested in bringing in people who can eventually contribute great ideas. Be patient, it's a relatively young protest movement about an issue that goes EVERY DAY without being addressed in most parts of our country. Forgive them if they're so impassioned about the problem that they forgot to draw up their policy ideas in a nice little document. They're grieving, angry, and scared. Reach out with some ideas and temperance of your own, fucking politicians.
A politician saying "oh we're listening, just stop yelling and say something" is a fucking cop out. They're rightfully angry, so forgive them if they appear to be lashing out. That Clinton-BLM meeting is honestly not just embarrassing for the movement, it should be embarrassing for her as well. If she's so in-touch with the black community, she should be privy to the fact that they just recently were able to get ahold of the ideological megaphone. Sure, it would be good if BLM leaders were present for policy discussion, but for fuck's sake, the things the president (and Bill Clinton) are trying to say just don't really make any sense.
Why does it surprise you that there's so much yelling? Talking around this issue and saying shit like this sure doesn't signal to the movement that you're truly interested in bringing in people who can eventually contribute great ideas. Be patient, it's a relatively young protest movement about an issue that goes EVERY DAY without being addressed in most parts of our country. Forgive them if they're so impassioned about the problem that they forgot to draw up their policy ideas in a nice little document. They're grieving, angry, and scared. Reach out with some ideas and temperance of your own, fucking politicians.
UnemployedVillain
Member
But no one is confused by the message or asking them to fundamentally change what they're doing. It's just that if some of them are given the opportunity to actually meet in a private setting with a candidate or someone in a position of power, there needs to be something more substantial than the same, crystal clear, message repeated. Obviously BLM is composed of mostly normal people, as in not necessarily people with political backgrounds, so no one is asking them to turn into lobbyists or legislation makers, but if you were given a meeting with Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders or Obama, what would you say to them?
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
The idea of meeting on a local level is simple enough a candidate could go to the meeting san say "Systemic racism is allowing police to kill innocent black people without repercussions....... This is what I propose to change that....... and I promise to institute it if I am elected"
Bernie did it on the local level.
http://news10.com/2016/04/15/bernie-sanders-meets-with-members-of-black-lives-matter-in-albany/
Someone send that link to Obama......
Hillary (and Bill) however have had a much more confrontational relationship with BLM. I don't think she could even have a meeting one on one with BLM at this point. So the idea that they would be given a meeting with Hillary at this point is beyond questionable. At this point they need to basically Humble Hillary through protesting into recognizing they exist similar to how they had to humble Bernie.
UnemployedVillain
Member
But she met with them last October...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-hillary-clinton_us_56180c44e4b0e66ad4c7d9fa
Some thought the meeting was helpful and came out optimistic, while others remained skeptical, which is pretty much how you'd expect it to go down
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
A lot has happened since last october that soured the relationship since. That Bernie link is from last week. In the last few week Hillary had about 10 BLM removed from a rally in Philly after having security screen for them prior. Not to mention the Bill defense from his Crime Bill which is becoming a new rallying point for BLM protesters the more its becoming apparent she will be the candidate.
Wafflecakes
Member
So what you are saying is that you were wrong and completely made up that Hillary even couldn't have a meeting?
Be racist as all hell while holding your party hostage to far fringe ideals? They are a short term success but only because they literally don't want government to function and they set about doing that. They're fine with the status quo even if their outrageous demands aren't met. And by they, I'm talking distinctly about the business moneyed interests who created the "grass roots" movement. BLM and OWS are in a bit of a different pickle as they not only want government to function, but they want a fully functional and fair government to expand itself to care for people who have no money, power, and who historically wield very little influence.
Basically, it's easier to burn down a house then to build one up. That's somewhat Obama's point I guess. Building up a house will take time and you have to put in more work than righteous anger. I do agree with that, but I also get the patronizing angle he and those in power give off. A lot of BLM activists are probably pissed off that they are even needed to shine light on the poor state of America when it comes to how she treats black people. It's not as if a guy like Obama who spent 20+ years on Chicago's south side needs to be educated on that in order to try to do something more about it.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Ok is this you trying to derail the points I tried to make..... should I just have avoided saying Hillary and said "candidate" to make you feel better and not post the above? Then again that would be me avoiding the reality of what is going on right now, and the fact that democrats in power (Obama, Biden, Hillary, and Bill) would like to avoid a long conversation on the 1994 crime bill when it is in many way a major contributor to why a group like BLM even exist. As I said earlier that law is becoming a rallying point for BLM and its likely going to get nastier before it becomes resolved.
Could she have a meeting with BLM at this point "No", because she or they would need to compromise and right now neither side looks ready to do so.
UnemployedVillain
Member
And he would have responded "When did I say compromise?"
timetokill
Banned
What sounds bad about this is he's basically putting the onus on protesters to make policy, when the whole point of elected officials and people who are in power is to make serving the public their job.
For a lot of people protesting, it's simply pain and misery being expressed. "Stop shooting us," or "I don't want to be afraid of cops simply because I'm black," or "I don't want to worry about my dog being shot if I call the cops," etc etc etc.
Asking for specific policy on how to accomplish those goals is basically a doctor asking the patient what medicine they want prescribed. They're in pain. Here are the symptoms. It's the doctor's job to fix it.
For a lot of people protesting, it's simply pain and misery being expressed. "Stop shooting us," or "I don't want to be afraid of cops simply because I'm black," or "I don't want to worry about my dog being shot if I call the cops," etc etc etc.
Asking for specific policy on how to accomplish those goals is basically a doctor asking the patient what medicine they want prescribed. They're in pain. Here are the symptoms. It's the doctor's job to fix it.
the taking "half an loaf" analogy. but for what it's worth he never said the specific word "compromise."
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
And who the fuck brought that to the table, from the other side?
The part where some people actually need to be killed in specific instances? The negotiable part is the part where force is allowable. And how shooting are treated. And who does the treating. Like all of the normal stuff surrounding these issues? Are you just ignorant of the issues surrounding this or approaching this in bad faith?
This feels like an oversimplification. The current policies aren't working clearly. Having your representatives who literally work for you, be open to hearing your suggestions on policy is not out of order; nor should it be likened to a doctor shrugging and asking a bleeding out patient for what the next action is.
There's a huge difference there. Your local officials SHOULD value your input. If you have ideas that you feel would make things better policy wise; you SHOULD have their ear. You can't yell that no one is listening to our problems, then when we get their ear yell "WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME!? SHOULDN'T YOU BE THE DOCTOR FIXING IT?"
I mean, damn.
The reason the $15 wage thing is the talking point instead of something else is because of labor's backing/marketing/etc.
Jedi thinks its fucked that Obama is telling them to settle when what BLM is asking for is already law for the most part.
what are you talking about.
Not sure how I could state that any more plainly sorry
So you think BLM wants police stop policing black people completely? Is that really what you think the movement is about?
I would imagine Infinite asked what you were talking about because what you wrote was astoundingly absurd.
Dude, did you read what Infinite wrote that I responded to? He said "what is negotiable about "stop killing us?"" I was responding to the absurdity of him saying that THAT'S what the movement is about. There are LOTS of things to be negotiated here. There are lots of intricacies that need to go into what would need to happen.
Do you too feel that nothing needs negotiated?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Exactly;
Point out what about the situation is pissing you off, for example Lack of Accountability, in particular the Blue Wall of Silence. Nobody sane is expecting them to figure out how to nudge police culture in the right direction, but you gotta provide a starting off point.
Or, the guidelines for Use of Deadly Force.
How the broken windows model of policing is fucked up, and greatly muddies the relationship between the police and population.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
They need the link then. As previously stated there have been two examples of either refusing to meet or not having anything to bring to the table.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Those kids need to keep doing their thing their way. I remember when folks I knew thought BLM was going to fail and they were taking the wrong approach to get attention. Great job by activists for sticking with the movement.
Some of the activist made a conscious choice not to meet with the president because they thought it will amount to nothing more than a photo-op while some others did. And the Hillary Clinton thing was confrontational protesters being taken out of their element but I'm not sure why people let that means that all of blm and it's many local chapters aren't ready for political engagement and community organizing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll