when you become the very thing you swore to destroy

It sort of happens when a lot of people in the movement sold themselves to the Democrat Party, which is the king of slush funds.

I've learned by now that basically neither US political party is really "good".

They're all politicians, so of course they both want to use their positions to exert power and gain wealth at everyone's expense.

Exactly.

I feel like our issues with police are symptoms of bigger problems that no one wants to talk about. I think people have just gotten tired of complaining about the absolute state of our public education system so they just gave up because no one's going to do anything about it. They moved on to healthcare, but the problem won't be solved because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to make for-profit hospitals illegal. Everyone talks about how black people were discriminated against in the past and that's why a lot of them are poor, but they neglect to see the bigger issue that we have a cycle of poverty in the 'States. Once you're poor, it's very difficult to get out. You get substandard housing, underfunded schools, and jobs that don't pay enough to live on because automation has replaced a lot of factory workers. Most other jobs that can't be automated either require a degree or skills that poor people can't obtain without destroying their physical health to keep up the workload involved with obtaining those skills and working a dead-end job, or they have to settle for said dead-end job, and usually a side-hustle on top of that just to make ends meet. At that stage, people who are poor can't gain any equity - they can't buy a car or a house that can be passed on to future generations, effectively starting their children off in the world with nothing.

And that's not even opening the "private prison" can of worms. It's a system that discourages rehabilitation, and is profoundly unhelpful at reducing the amount of crime in the country. It's kept the laughably ineffective war on drugs alive, that's for sure. Addicts don't need to go to prison where they can do more drugs; they need to go to rehab.

I'm not saying that the police can do no wrong and that we shouldn't worry about them. I'm not saying solving all of these problems would be a "magic bullet" that would make the country perfect. What I am saying is that solving these problems first would probably be more productive than just yelling at the police. Clearly the majority of state governments don't care about these protests so, if they're not going to accomplish their goal this way, why not try a different approach?

That... Is a lot to take in. But from what I read, your assessment is dead on.

Yeah, and word's already gotten out that so little of the money raised went where it was supposed to (most went to Democrats and their campaigns) It was a movement created by a self-centered prick in the NFL, the good intentions were stolen and over-politicized and used as yet another race-baiting weapon, and the whole thing has long since lost it's true meaning.

This is all true, but ya know, still an unpopular opinion.

I don't know about the second article. Right now, the title says that the dude is accused of grifting, but not a whole lot of proof that he did that. If the accusations are true, I hope justice is done. BLM the organization, and BLM the movement are two different things, but its critics always try to exaggerate the importance of the organization and frame it as responsible for the entire grassroots movement.

I'm sorry though.. the first article is super partisan. I think you've been had. First off, that article was "written" by Senator Tom Cotton. A REPUBLICAN senator from Arkansas. In it, he spouts a bunch of data but cites no sources. That doesn't mean that the numbers aren't true, but considering no sources were posted, and considering the author is deep in the Republican camp, I'm pretty sus about his framing of the data.

A big problem with his argument, is that he states only percentages of violent crime. When you see numbers like 30% and 40%, it sounds scary, but without the context of the specific occurrences, I personally can't be sure how much of a problem it is, and you probably shouldn't be either. It is a common tactic of the right to cite data without context. For example, if 10 people are murdered one year, and 14 people are murdered the next year, that would be described as a 40% increase. It sucks that people were murdered, and numbers like that should not go up, but I know what the right is doing. They're doing what they always do, exaggerate a problem to make it seem like an existential crisis. The fact that they aren't talking about the raw data should make you skeptical of this article.

Finally, Cotton argues that BLM is responsible for the increase in violent crime. His only proof is a correlation he makes between less arrests and an increase in violent crime. (There is no context, no description of what these violent crimes are, whether they are murders or not etc.) I think it's difficult to measure exactly how much influence BLM had. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Cotton fails to cite specific policies for a number of the data points he cited that would explain the cause for "less arrests." He talks about cuts to the police forces in New York and Los Angeles, but then also cites data from cities like Minneapolis and Chicago. I don't even think the budget cuts from New York and LA even apply to the correlation he describes, as those cuts happened in 2021 and most of the data is dated from 2015 and 2016.

Perhaps I read the article wrong. I'd like to think I'm up on all the arguments the right makes and these are quite familiar sounding, but I'm not perfect. Either way... I'd start checking your news sources, just in general. Maybe you already do that, in which case, I apologize.

I'm aware of the kind of person Tom Cotton is, and I'm also aware that his writing style is highly suspect. But this sort of information has also been being mentioned in much greater detail by better sources. I only saw it today and used it as a starting point. There have been observations by far more observant and detailed people in the past years. I know that Baltimore is probably one of the best examples of what had happened when an entire block was virtually set on fire. Violent crime increased drastically for the first time in years, and cops were afraid to do their jobs. And I've seen so many people say, "Well maybe they know they're in the wrong.", but that doesn't change the fact that innocent people are now in danger, and there must be an immediate resolution to the problem.

The issue has always been that BLM can not answer the fundamental question: if the police aren't going to be able to defend you as well (or at all, if you believe that none of them are out for your best interest), then what the heck are you going to do to fill in the hole left behind by defunding and losing police officers? My answer is simple: relax gun control laws in those cities and bring back proper militias and neighborhood watches. Do the BLM activists ever say this? No. All I've ever heard them talk about is diverting funds into "education" and "unarmed negotiators" (that last one makes me cringe because I know for a fact those poor people are going to get absolutely murdered 75% of the time). In short, their answers are vague and provide no actual replacement for the cops which, as the data shows, don't want to stick around anymore.

“I'm aware of the kind of person Tom Cotton is, and I'm also aware that his writing style is highly suspect.”
You admit that Tom Cotton's writing is highly suspect yet you posted it anyway.

“But this sort of information has also been being mentioned in much greater detail by better sources. I only saw it today and used it as a starting point.”
Just to clarify what you meant by this, you used this article as a starting point for your viewers and friends? Or you used it as a starting point yourself and then looked up a bunch of corroborating arguments made by better writers? Something else you meant by that?

“ There have been observations by far more observant and detailed people in the past years.”
I would need to see a connection to protestors being the direct reason for why the crime rate has escalated. They aren’t the ones that typically write laws or plan state budgets. I for one would think that with social programs being cut left, right, and center as well as the economic struggles as a result of the pandemic and the lack of adequate government support, as more likely explanations for an increase in violent crime than a burnt city block and some protesters.

“I know that Baltimore is probably one of the best examples of what had happened when an entire block was virtually” Virtually? So you mean a few buildings on a block?) “set on fire.” Violent crime increased drastically Increased like in hundreds or thousands of instances? That would be what I call drastic. A dozen, not so much)

“for the first time in years, and cops were afraid to do their jobs. And I've seen so many people say, "Well maybe they know they're in the wrong.", but that doesn't change the fact that innocent people are now in danger, and there must be an immediate resolution to the problem.”What would an “immediate resolution to the problem” look like to you?

“The issue has always been that BLM can not answer the fundamental question: if the police aren't going to be able to defend you as well (or at all, if you believe that none of them are out for your best interest), then what the heck are you going to do to fill in the hole left behind by defunding and losing police officers?”
They have answered it, you just don’t like the answer.

“My answer is simple”Simple answers to complex problems are neither a good idea nor effective at actually resolving a problem. “relax gun control laws in those cities and bring back proper militias and neighborhood watches. Do the BLM activists ever say this? No.” Community policing has been discussed so… Yes? “All I've ever heard them talk about is diverting funds into "education" and "unarmed negotiators" If you have heard them you would have described unarmed negotiators as mental health professionals instead.

“that last one makes me cringe because I know for a fact those poor people are going to get absolutely murdered 75% of the time” You know that FOR A FACT? Where did that number come from?

“In short, their answers are vague and provide no actual replacement for the cops which, as the data shows, don't want to stick around anymore.”
What answers have THEY given? Who has given these answers? Who are they? Are they even related to BLM? Sorry, I have so many questions about where you get your information from.

So if people want to argue for police reform (which they are doing right now) how should they go about doing it? If protesting in the streets isn't the answer, then what is?