Movement for Black Lives releases its agenda

[JonA]

But in any event, I look forward to explanations for why black people have not already paid deeply into the US.

What does that mean?

I didn't realize you are unable to read English.

Learn something new everyday I guess.

 

[RavenSky]

The problem is capitalism itself. The poor are profitable as prisoners and expendable when free.

The answer is not working within the system to try to move capital and investment into regions it has not been going for centuries.

The answer is to replace the current top down system with a worker oriented democratic system.

To a degree, I agree with you. The problem is that "replace the current top down system with a worker oriented democratic system" has also been tried and failed. You are essentially calling for some sort of revolution, and that sort of sudden upheaval tends to end badly.

That said, the current form of capitalism we have in the U.S. does, as you note, make human beings expendable. It also ignores environmental and social impacts in favor of only the bottom line. It is also a model based on unlimited growth & unlimited resources - that is not sustainable.

Umair Haque in his book, The New Capitalist Manifesto, wrote about the fact that capitalism grew out of the Industrial Revolution, a time when resources were plentiful and the population was scarce. But that today, the scenario is reversed: we have too few resources and too many people and so a new form of capitalism must emerge for this new era.

As we have seen with leaders like Richard Branson and the work of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, an approach called Conscious Capitalism in which the purpose of the business is not just to maximize profits, but also to measure success based on the values of sympathy, empathy, friendship, love and the desire for social approval and kindness.

Developing a model of capitalism - stakeholder capitalism - that takes into account the needs, values and cultural demands of each of the stakeholders is critical to success, traction and maximizing returns and planetary impact. Creating a win for every stakeholder, and deconstructing the old paradigm power dynamic, is the key to capitalism thriving as we move forward.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pilar-stella/stakeholder-capitalism-th_b_7862048.html

For the most part, that is all the #BLM agenda in the OP is asking for, too.

 

[untermensche]

To a degree, I agree with you. The problem is that "replace the current top down system with a worker oriented democratic system" has also been tried and failed. You are essentially calling for some sort of revolution, and that sort of sudden upheaval tends to end badly.

Where was it tried and failed?

The current system is a train driving towards a cliff. It is going to create incredible upheaval very soon, environmental upheaval.

If workers, people, don't move away from this deadly system they are going to be swept away by the upheaval.

 

[laughing dog]

Still not relevant or clever. But, I will work on getting drunk.

You're right. I got that line from you. And it's not relevant or clever. Much like its author.

It's all about context, something you clearly have trouble grasping. So, better luck next time, snowflake.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well if you're going to give them those reparations, might as well do the same for Native Americans, who also got completely screwed over but who gives a shit because we completely forgot about them.

Indians actually have received numerous forms of reparations including land, money, free education, economic development. Probably the best form of reparations that we've ever received was gaming rights!

But I don't think that reparations have done all that much good. Reservations are some of the poorest places in America.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Movement for Black Lives releases its agenda...

... and it's utterly unintelligible.

It's written in plain, grammatically correct english. Maybe the problem is on your end?

It's written in plain English, the full objectives cannot be realised until the finalized agenda is detailed under each of the topics.

For instance

Ending the war on black people:
What does militarization of the Police mean and how can they be demilitarized and what is the alternative?

Reparations:
Too vague to understand at this point what is meant by reparations

Invest-divest:
Is there special funding used to criminalize Afro Americans?

Economic justice:
It is not yet clear what the restructure of tax codes means though it indicates a fairer system. Details required.

Community control:
More details required. (A lot of this will no doubt be internally debated and drawn up)
I am not aware of any Blacks who have less voting rights than others.
How is the group proposing this will be done?
Political power:
Are Afro-American voting rights not protected? Details required.
What political activities (to be decriminalized) are being referred to. Generally activities that are criminal or against public order are criminalized. Examples are needed.

Though there is nothing wrong with the way it is written but the meaning of the agenda is not at this point capable of being clearly understood or conceptualized by the reader as this framework has to be detailed.

 

[Mumbles]

It's written in plain, grammatically correct english. Maybe the problem is on your end?

It's written in plain English, the full objectives cannot be realised until the finalized agenda is detailed under each of the topics.

For instance

Ending the war on black people:
What does militarization of the Police mean and how can they be demilitarized

This would include the use of SWAT teams for routine warrant services, all the way up to police using riot gear or outright military surplus to meet protestors (or in the case of Ferguson, *mourners*. That particular problem was broadcast internationally and has included outright teargas attacks and arrests of journalists.). The *how* includes national standards for use of force, removal of military surplus equipment from local police, and the like.

This one's actually simple, although I will freely note that they've gone well beyond that to discuss surveillance (another problem with historic roots)

Reparations:
Too vague to understand at this point what is meant by reparations

As I said - compensation for direct, economic damage that has been ongoing throughout history until now. OF course, you can attempt to argue that there's no continuing damage, but you're really fighting an uphill battle on that one.

Invest-divest:
Is there special funding used to criminalize Afro Americans?

Police being used for routine school disciplinary matters, the War on Drugs, and the like.

Economic justice:
It is not yet clear what the restructure of tax codes means though it indicates a fairer system. Details required.

I agree - and they've included what they mean. This is one where I actually do think that a simple soundbite is not enough, although let's be honest, there's a reason why "soundbite" is a word.

And this is where we run into the real problem - you seem to be taking the soundbite and insisting it must include the details - but then not looking at the details that have been provided. The truth is that you could dig as deeply as you like on any of these topics - there have been academic careers built around them, journalists who cover them, experts who discuss them, and protest movements that bring attention to them. But it's on you to do the digging if you want - or to take up the general term, and insist that the policy experts put them into action (or not, if you choose that way).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A good start at tearing the nation apart, that is.

In case you have not noticed, that started some time ago, long before there was a BLM.

BLM is just the latest incarnation of the hate coming from people like Jesse Jackson.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, a very typical far-left agenda. Very poor strategy indeed since only a relatively small minority of the population supports such far-left policies. This will simply cause them to further lose support among moderates, which is necessary if they actually want to have a chance in hell of getting some real reforms.

While the rank and file probably believe it's about fixing things those at the top know it's about stirring up hatred so they get more power.

 

[ksen]

Policies from the left always emerge from those being crushed by the right.

Most of the black people being criminalized live in cities that have been run by Democrats for decades.

I guess the first thing to do is toss the Democrats out.

What's the democratic party have to do with the left?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Mumbles]

Most of the black people being criminalized live in cities that have been run by Democrats for decades.

I guess the first thing to do is toss the Democrats out.

What's the democratic party have to do with the left?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

A very good point. This is, in the end, probably more aimed at the individual level at *democrats* than at *republicans*, and that would have been true even before the national GOP hit the Trump Era. Many of these are direct repudiations of the Obama admin, after all.

But that's not to say that the GOP doesn't have massive problems here as well, nor that they (even relatively good GOPers like Bob Dole) weren't instrumental in causing the current mess.

(and as an aside, if the worst hatemonger you can think of is Jesse Jackson, you've had a good life)

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's written in plain English, the full objectives cannot be realised until the finalized agenda is detailed under each of the topics.

For instance

Ending the war on black people:
What does militarization of the Police mean and how can they be demilitarized

This would include the use of SWAT teams for routine warrant services, all the way up to police using riot gear or outright military surplus to meet protestors (or in the case of Ferguson, *mourners*. That particular problem was broadcast internationally and has included outright teargas attacks and arrests of journalists.). The *how* includes national standards for use of force, removal of military surplus equipment from local police, and the like.

This one's actually simple, although I will freely note that they've gone well beyond that to discuss surveillance (another problem with historic roots)

Reparations:
Too vague to understand at this point what is meant by reparations

As I said - compensation for direct, economic damage that has been ongoing throughout history until now. OF course, you can attempt to argue that there's no continuing damage, but you're really fighting an uphill battle on that one.

Invest-divest:
Is there special funding used to criminalize Afro Americans?

Police being used for routine school disciplinary matters, the War on Drugs, and the like.

Economic justice:
It is not yet clear what the restructure of tax codes means though it indicates a fairer system. Details required.

I agree - and they've included what they mean. This is one where I actually do think that a simple soundbite is not enough, although let's be honest, there's a reason why "soundbite" is a word.

And this is where we run into the real problem - you seem to be taking the soundbite and insisting it must include the details - but then not looking at the details that have been provided. The truth is that you could dig as deeply as you like on any of these topics - there have been academic careers built around them, journalists who cover them, experts who discuss them, and protest movements that bring attention to them. But it's on you to do the digging if you want - or to take up the general term, and insist that the policy experts put them into action (or not, if you choose that way).

Until its agenda is clear we can only speculate as to the fine detail.
Ending the war on black people:

It doesn’t specify that this. However police all over the world use SWAT gear so the nature of what is meant needs to be defined. In fact it is now clear given recent police shootings, bullet proof vests and helmets may even be normal issue for protection. Without having to second guess, the BLM should specify what it means.
Reparations:

It is not clear as to what economic damage is being done at this time. In the past until fairly recently there was discrimination on an apartheid level until the 1960s. This needs to be specified clearly with the remedy. The concern is now that people will have favourable treatment only because they are Afro Americans. The Native Americans and Chinese were also badly treated.
This does not say anything about war on drugs so the BLM should be clear on this
Invest-divest:

If this is the case, it has to specify this and provide its remedy for the drug problem in the USA, and other issues.
Economic justice:

The Agenda is possible for its own discussion but without this it is not clear what the issues are and their proposed curative actions

 

[SimpleDon]

It is more reasonable certainly than the Republican platform.

The Republicans are promising to erase the residual pain from the Great Recession by doubling down on the exact same policies that caused the Great Recession and the residual pain that we are still suffering from. They want to balance the budget by passing the largest tax cut in history, a trillion dollars a year, the exact same thing that has fueled the explosive growth of the deficits since 1980. They promise to appoint a commission to study the advisability of converting our money to a metallic basis just like the commission appointed by Reagan who advised that we would have to be "fucking crazy," or words to that effect, to convert our money to a metallic basis.

They promise to privatize everything that the government does except for the corporate welfare because they promise that the government that they run will be at least as incompetent as the last Bush lead one was. Not a direct quote of course, I am paraphrasing 62 pages here.

The constantly recurring theme of the platform is that the Republicans rely on the free market and God to make our country great again. Two massive fantasies that probably explain the heavy reliance on lies and fantasy facts to justify the delusional and certain to be destructive programs and policies outlined in the platform.

 

[dismal]

What's the democratic party have to do with the left?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

A very good point. This is, in the end, probably more aimed at the individual level at *democrats* than at *republicans*, and that would have been true even before the national GOP hit the Trump Era. Many of these are direct repudiations of the Obama admin, after all.

But that's not to say that the GOP doesn't have massive problems here as well, nor that they (even relatively good GOPers like Bob Dole) weren't instrumental in causing the current mess.

(and as an aside, if the worst hatemonger you can think of is Jesse Jackson, you've had a good life)

But obviously if the Democrats will not embrace this agenda the BLM people need to abandon them pronto.

I can't wait for Hillary to give her speech saying, after a period of careful reflection, she's for legalizing drugs and prostitution.

 

[untermensche]

A very good point. This is, in the end, probably more aimed at the individual level at *democrats* than at *republicans*, and that would have been true even before the national GOP hit the Trump Era. Many of these are direct repudiations of the Obama admin, after all.

But that's not to say that the GOP doesn't have massive problems here as well, nor that they (even relatively good GOPers like Bob Dole) weren't instrumental in causing the current mess.

(and as an aside, if the worst hatemonger you can think of is Jesse Jackson, you've had a good life)

But obviously if the Democrats will not embrace this agenda the BLM people need to abandon them pronto.

I can't wait for Hillary to give her speech saying, after a period of careful reflection, she's for legalizing drugs and prostitution.

Hillary is a politician.

She's says nothing in a straightforward manner. And has her finger to the wind with every utterance.

Not much different from Romney, or McCain.

Trump is a salesman.

This is slightly different. Every word is total bullshit.

 

[ksen]

It's written in plain, grammatically correct english. Maybe the problem is on your end?

It's written in plain English, the full objectives cannot be realised until the finalized agenda is detailed under each of the topics.

For instance

Ending the war on black people:
What does militarization of the Police mean and how can they be demilitarized and what is the alternative?

Militarization of the police is pretty self-explanatory. It's the change in focus of police forces from training to be officers of the law that are part of the communities they help police to training like they are an occupying force in a warzone that they are not part of. It includes local police forces receiving military grade material and equipment for deployment against civilians.

They can be demilitarized by taking their military grade equipment away, refocusing their training away from acting like an occupying force and holding them accountable for their actions. Even members of the military are held more accountable than US police forces are.

The alternative is going back to a community policing mindset rather than an occupying force mindset.

Reparations:
Too vague to understand at this point what is meant by reparations

I don't find it vague at all. Which part are you having trouble with? Economic harm has been done to the black community from slavery to Jim Crow to redlining. Normally when economic harm is done to someone the offender is expected to make it right.

Invest-divest:
Is there special funding used to criminalize Afro Americans?

No, why? Does there need to be in order for there to be a problem?

It doesn't seem too much for a community to ask that society shift funding that ends up oppressing that community to funding that helps raise that community up. One of the things they ask for is more local control over spending in their communities. Normally the Right is all for local control. The more local the better . . . usually.

Economic justice:
It is not yet clear what the restructure of tax codes means though it indicates a fairer system. Details required.

It's pretty clear "restructure the tax code" means make it more progressive. It even says so right in the OP.

Community control:
More details required. (A lot of this will no doubt be internally debated and drawn up)

They want more local control over what goes on in their communities. Again, it says it right in the OP.

I am not aware of any Blacks who have less voting rights than others.

Maybe you're not aware of the recent attempts at voter suppression that have been going on?

https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression

And the issue raised isn't that they have less rights. It's that roadblocks have been put into place to hinder them from fully exercising those rights.

How is the group proposing this will be done?

Democratically.

Political power:
Are Afro-American voting rights not protected? Details required.

See the ACLU link above.

What political activities (to be decriminalized) are being referred to. Generally activities that are criminal or against public order are criminalized. Examples are needed.

I don't know about that one.

Though there is nothing wrong with the way it is written but the meaning of the agenda is not at this point capable of being clearly understood or conceptualized by the reader as this framework has to be detailed.

A framework is just that, a framework. Details are typically debated and argued until some sort of consensus is reached. It's unrealistic to reject a framework because it's not presented a complete bill ready for congressional action. That's not the purpose of a framework.

 

[dismal]

I don't find it vague at all. Which part are you having trouble with? Economic harm has been done to the black community from slavery to Jim Crow to redlining. Normally when economic harm is done to someone the offender is expected to make it right.

Harm vs. what? And who is "the offender"? I guess if you could find a case where actual Person A harmed actual Person B, they could take them to court and recover some money

It doesn't seem like that's what we are talking about here.

I struggle to see how I should be forced to pay Malia Obama (who seems to lead a fairly privileged life) money because someone not my ancestor harmed her ancestors.

 

[ksen]

I don't find it vague at all. Which part are you having trouble with? Economic harm has been done to the black community from slavery to Jim Crow to redlining. Normally when economic harm is done to someone the offender is expected to make it right.

Harm vs. what?

versus not harm

And who is "the offender"?

Society and its norms.

I guess if you could find a case where actual Person A harmed actual Person B, they could take them to court and recover some money

It doesn't seem like that's what we are talking about here.

No, it's not what we're talking about.

 

[dismal]

Harm vs. what?

versus not harm

Demonstrate this: Malia Obama has been harmed by Person(s) X.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's written in plain English, the full objectives cannot be realised until the finalized agenda is detailed under each of the topics.

For instance

Ending the war on black people:
What does militarization of the Police mean and how can they be demilitarized and what is the alternative?

Militarization of the police is pretty self-explanatory. It's the change in focus of police forces from training to be officers of the law that are part of the communities they help police to training like they are an occupying force in a warzone that they are not part of. It includes local police forces receiving military grade material and equipment for deployment against civilians.

They can be demilitarized by taking their military grade equipment away, refocusing their training away from acting like an occupying force and holding them accountable for their actions. Even members of the military are held more accountable than US police forces are.

The alternative is going back to a community policing mindset rather than an occupying force mindset.

Reparations:
Too vague to understand at this point what is meant by reparations

I don't find it vague at all. Which part are you having trouble with? Economic harm has been done to the black community from slavery to Jim Crow to redlining. Normally when economic harm is done to someone the offender is expected to make it right.

Invest-divest:
Is there special funding used to criminalize Afro Americans?

No, why? Does there need to be in order for there to be a problem?

It doesn't seem too much for a community to ask that society shift funding that ends up oppressing that community to funding that helps raise that community up. One of the things they ask for is more local control over spending in their communities. Normally the Right is all for local control. The more local the better . . . usually.

Economic justice:
It is not yet clear what the restructure of tax codes means though it indicates a fairer system. Details required.

It's pretty clear "restructure the tax code" means make it more progressive. It even says so right in the OP.

Community control:
More details required. (A lot of this will no doubt be internally debated and drawn up)

They want more local control over what goes on in their communities. Again, it says it right in the OP.

I am not aware of any Blacks who have less voting rights than others.

Maybe you're not aware of the recent attempts at voter suppression that have been going on?

https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression

And the issue raised isn't that they have less rights. It's that roadblocks have been put into place to hinder them from fully exercising those rights.

How is the group proposing this will be done?

Democratically.

Political power:
Are Afro-American voting rights not protected? Details required.

See the ACLU link above.

What political activities (to be decriminalized) are being referred to. Generally activities that are criminal or against public order are criminalized. Examples are needed.

I don't know about that one.

Though there is nothing wrong with the way it is written but the meaning of the agenda is not at this point capable of being clearly understood or conceptualized by the reader as this framework has to be detailed.

A framework is just that, a framework. Details are typically debated and argued until some sort of consensus is reached. It's unrealistic to reject a framework because it's not presented a complete bill ready for congressional action. That's not the purpose of a framework.

My observation is based from reading from the page and since what you mentioned is not stated in the text I can't fully comment until a full agenda is brought forth in detail.

Unfortunately if police are now being shot, (where also they have shot people and some are under investigation) or demonstrations turn wild they will end up like a war zone. It's usually a few that cause it. At the same time, while keeping control the police must try not to overdo things. This perhaps would require more training.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of BLM as far as I see, but I would look forward to a more expressive framework rather than one that is generalised as the details will make a difference. I'm sure there will be periodic changes in such an agenda since it would cover a wide range of issues and events.

The ACLU link is not available, but the website is there stating 'Page 404 could not be found.'

 

[ksen]

versus not harm

Demonstrate this: Malia Obama has been harmed by Person(s) X.

Nah, I don't need to prove your red herring.