[–] umpaloompa 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Geez fuck this fucking site where there are 2 downvotes and only one comment trying to refute OP post. Fuck Fuck Fuck, Fuck reddit but fuck fucking voat. YOu fucking people can't have your fucking narrative challenged. You're not better then the so called fucking liberals who themselves are accused of not thinking of thought-provoking questions. Shit! Everything that linked to anti-rascism gets fucking downvoted jsut as liberals downvote everything that looks rascist. This subverse will go from now on unmoderated. /rant


[–] HumanitysPrecipice 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

While not the same argument, let me first direct you to this fairly similar topic, as I think, though asking the question almost in reverse of yours, provides a starting ground for where I'm coming from.

I do see them as a hate group. You are absolutely right, they are not openly stating hatred toward anyone. But since some members of the KKK might argue they aren't a hate group, I don't see self identification as a requirement of being a hate group. The reason I linked to the particular discussion I did was that it discussed the idea of a general consensus amongst members of a group that isn't openly stated, but becomes hard to hide over time.

The idea was that the group was fighting police brutality. That is an issue that goes beyond racial barriers and effects all members of society. BLM actively took to the dialogue of white officers engaging with black citizens. That narrowed focus shows that their stated objective doesn't match the actions they undertook; as excessive force by police officers can be seen by and against people of all creeds in bulk. The stated objective is noble, the actions aren't.

The group was fighting the idea that blacks are targeted more than other racial groups in America by police; specifically that they faced a greater threat of violence from police. I don't see this as true. The common rhetoric that I hear when this subject comes up goes as such: blacks are arrested more often then other races and make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population (both facts). The counter is that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of the crime in America, especially when it comes to violent crime (also a fact). The counter to this is most often linked to poverty; this is a have your cake and eat it too kind of argument. First you say that the arrests shouldn't be higher, but then attempt a justification for why the crime is higher? You can't have that argument both ways. Yes, areas where poverty is highest tend to have more crime than areas where there is less poverty. But while these rates are higher in areas of poverty overall, there is still a wide skew in the direction of the black community even within this sector. Could there be a cause for this? Possibly, but the BLM movement stopped short here and refused to engage the topic further (not to say the topic has never been engaged further, but that the group we are discussing didn't bother to do so as an organization).

Let's take it a step further. Assuming that poverty is a justifiable cause for the wildly disproportionate rates of crime amongst the black community, we still must face the fact that more crime is committed by this demographic than reasonably makes sense (poverty could explain this. While I don't personally believe that, unreasonable stresses may account for unreasonable crime). If then more crime is committed by the black community, justifiable or not, it makes sense then that blacks would interact with and be engaged by police in similarly disproportionate numbers as the crimes permitted. Given that there is a disproportionate amount of interaction with the police, an equally disproportionate amount of police on civilian violence might be expected in the black community. I contend (and jump to last paragraph for why I won't get into the numbers here) that given the amount of interaction that blacks have with police, you see a disproportionately lower amount of violence used against them than other racial groups; even though the raw numbers suggest a different narrative. BLM doesn't take any of this into account.

While they are certainly not the first group to do so, BLM certainly seemed to link the ideas of "systematic racism" and "white supremacy" together in a way that hadn't been done before. Those are two wildly different subjects, and linking them together is a very intentional way of guiding ill will towards whites specifically. Constant references to past injustices that have been dealt with since that time only went to further these feelings needlessly and to the extent that I can only see as promoting animosity and not genuine dialogue of the issues currently faced by the nation. That directed type of campaign isn't peaceful, and is what I certainly would determine as hate.

There are a number of other reasons and certainly evidence I have left out of this post so far. Facts, figures, videos, and speeches that I contend show BLM to engage in a targeted campaign against whites more specifically than their stated goal; which I would conclude makes them a hate group more than the activists they would claim to be. Seeing as I found this post several days after your original post, I'm not sure if you're personally still interested in discussing the topic. I'm more than happy to go further if you (or anyone reading this) wish, though for now I would say process what I have so far, and give me a response about what is already here and possibly where you may have specific questions. While I disagree with your view, that is the entire point of this sub so again, I am happy to engage further. But if you're over it, I shouldn't spend the time.