+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Bad Boys II (/Thread-Bad-Boys-II)
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 12:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought you were supposed to be a gteacher who knew about history.
So tell me when society ever advanced without some sort of rules or laws to control behavior. How does it usually turn out when one group says they don't need any authorization from anyone to do whatever they want?
Sometimes like this--though some might argue that mob rule has worked to "control behavior" of minorities in the past.
![[Image: shadow-lynching-people-crowd-image-NAACP.jpg]](https://cdn.britannica.com/36/192836-004-E99F458D/shadow-lynching-people-crowd-image-NAACP.jpg)
And sometimes, at least, like this.
![[Image: boston_tea_party_1773-23393.jpg]](https://paintingandframe.com/art-imgs/others/boston_tea_party_1773-23393.jpg)
Not sanctioning "Mob rule," but it has at times turned out to be the first stage in implementation of a more just order.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know. We've been told that art is supposed to be offensive and controversial. Like dunking a crucifix in a jar of piss.
I think art is supposed to do a lot of things.
A lot of artists, though, would say JUST being offensive is not enough to qualify something as art.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 12:27 PM)Dill Wrote: And sometimes, at least, like this.
Not sanctioning "Mob rule," but it has at times turned out to be the first stage in implementation of a more just order.
The American Revolutionaries had a specific goal. They wanted a say in the laws that controlled them. They NEVER fought for the right for any group to do whatever they wanted with out sanction from the government/citizens. This is pretty much the exact opposit of what these BLM mobs want.
Like I said before. Where is the guarantee that I, or anyone else, is going to agree with whatever they want to do?
If you strt letting mobs make decisions then you will eventually have massive violence between mobs. That is why we have a government with rules and laws to address these issues. White people passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act. White people ratified the 13th-15th Amendments. If we need to make new changes to the system then lets make them in a way that honors the rule of law instead of mob violence.
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 01:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The American Revolutionaries had a specific goal. They wanted a say in the laws that controlled them. They NEVER fought for the right for any group to do whatever they wanted with out sanction from the government/citizens. This is pretty much the exact opposit of what these BLM mobs want.
I really have no idea where you are getting this from. Can you cite some source that this is what BLM wants?
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 01:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I really have no idea where you are getting this from. Can you cite some source that this is what BLM wants?
Sorry, I assumed that BLM was involved in all this destruction of statues and attempts to occupy certain areas under their own control. I see a lot of BLM signs in the crowds when this stuff is happening If they are not supporting this then they need to get the message out.
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, I assumed that BLM was involved in all this destruction of statues and attempts to occupy certain areas under their own control. I see a lot of BLM signs in the crowds when this stuff is happening If they are not supporting this then they need to get the message out.
I mean, BLM isn't really a centralized organization but a movement that focuses on reducing police violence against black people. So, people who may agree with BLM's position could be involved in the destruction of property and what not but that does not mean that the position of the BLM movement in any way supports their actions.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 01:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The American Revolutionaries had a specific goal. They wanted a say in the laws that controlled them. They NEVER fought for the right for any group to do whatever they wanted with out sanction from the government/citizens. This is pretty much the exact opposit of what these BLM mobs want.
Like I said before. Where is the guarantee that I, or anyone else, is going to agree with whatever they want to do?
If you strt letting mobs make decisions then you will eventually have massive violence between mobs. That is why we have a government with rules and laws to address these issues. White people passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act. White people ratified the 13th-15th Amendments. If we need to make new changes to the system then lets make them in a way that honors the rule of law instead of mob violence.
First of all, BLM does have a specific goal. They need government and rule of law to accomplish that goal. And so far as I know, they are not fighting for the right of any group to do whatever it wants--most especially white supremacists.
Not sure who is advocating that we "let mobs make decisions." Not BLM. (you need to be more careful selecting parts to be representative of some negative whole: same problem in our discussion of "black culture" on the Juneteenth thread.
Fred, I too take rule of law very seriously, and don't support actions that undermine the principle--though that does not mean I support every law as passed and reject civil disobedience as a legitimate remedy at times.
"White people" passed the Civil Rights Act and Voters Rights Act in response to the tension created by civil rights "mobs." You agree with that, right?
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 01:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, BLM isn't really a centralized organization but a movement that focuses on reducing police violence against black people. So, people who may agree with BLM's position could be involved in the destruction of property and what not but that does not mean that the position of the BLM movement in any way supports their actions.
Isn't Shaun King considered a leader of BLM?
And please present me with anything from BLM saying NOT to tear down statues.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: "White people" passed the Civil Rights Act and Voters Rights Act in response to the tension created by civil rights "mobs." You agree with that, right?
No. I don't think white people supported the Civil rights Act because they were intimidated by violent mobs tearing shit apart. Instead I think the white people in the north reacted to the atrocities finally showing up on the televisions (dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protestors) and in magazines (the horrific image of Emmitt Till).
Most of the extreme "race riots" across the country actually occured AFTER the passage of the Civil Rights Act
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 01:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Isn't Shaun King considered a leader of BLM?
To some people he may be considered a leader. To a lot of people he is a joke and extremely problematic to the movement.
(06-23-2020, 01:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And please present me with anything from BLM saying NOT to tear down statues.
I'm sorry, what part of "BLM isn't really a centralized organization" didn't get through? There is a group of people that have tried to claim the name and an organization, but the movement is far beyond what they encompass. There is no real structure to the movement. When that is the case, who would there be to tell people not to do something?
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 02:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is no real structure to the movement. When that is the case, who would there be to tell people not to do something?
How about any responsible black person who cares about BLM movement and wants it to succeed.
But I guess you can never really succeed if you have no plan or goal, right? Just keep tearing shit apart and hope things get better.
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 02:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How about any responsible black person who cares about BLM movement and wants it to succeed.
And what authority would they have to do so without an organization behind them?
(06-23-2020, 02:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But I guess you can never really succeed if you have no plan or goal, right? Just keep tearing shit apart and hope things get better.
Well, there have been some plans and goals put out there by people supportive of the movement. Like the "8 Can't Wait" thing, for instance.
RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 02:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Dill: "White people" passed the Civil Rights Act and Voters Rights Act in response to the tension created by civil rights "mobs." You agree with that, right?
No. I don't think white people supported the Civil rights Act because they were intimidated by violent mobs tearing shit apart. Instead I think the white people in the north reacted to the atrocities finally showing up on the televisions (dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protestors) and in magazines (the horrific image of Emmitt Till).
Most of the extreme "race riots" across the country actually occured AFTER the passage of the Civil Rights Act
Some of the most extreme certainly occurred after King's death. And I don't agree that at present, it's ok for people to tear down a statue at a prompt from Shaun King.
But your answer has shifted from my question, as I did not ask if the response was to "violent mobs tearing shit apart."
I put "mobs" in quotation marks because that is how '60s civil rights protesters were viewed by their critics, who argued that such protestors violated rule of law. E.g., King's actions in Birmingham in 1963 were addressed by a group of local clergymen as actions calculated to "incite hatred and violence," even as the clergymen complemented the police on their restraint.
https://www.morningsidecenter.org/sites/default/files/files/Excerpts%20Clergymen%20%26%20King%20letters.pdf
The "atrocities" you say showed up on television did so because black people were practicing peaceful protest as civil disobedience, much along the lines of BLM.
Owing to their actions, we are now daily viewing police "atrocities" video. We oughtn't let those out of sight when discussing their effects.
![[Image: WBTnOVC7qqta06gXHeKsQ8mH3mLcGMSGBY5-7QLD...3N21eP9WYP]](https://photos.wi.gcs.trstatic.net/WBTnOVC7qqta06gXHeKsQ8mH3mLcGMSGBY5-7QLDnPkX5KIEWXisGLrqUfQQgXzULo7dsBPQ5USpZ3QE8emlwTs6TWi1qF76Z4mjNLYz9lKEHD2egLS8-l3N21eP9WYP)
RE: Bad Boys II - BmorePat87 - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 02:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To some people he may be considered a leader. To a lot of people he is a joke and extremely problematic to the movement.
I'm sorry, what part of "BLM isn't really a centralized organization" didn't get through? There is a group of people that have tried to claim the name and an organization, but the movement is far beyond what they encompass. There is no real structure to the movement. When that is the case, who would there be to tell people not to do something?
Yep, and Shaun King has said himself that he is not part of the formal BLM organization, he is only associated with the broader, leaderless movement.
I think the distinction between the movement and the organization gets people hung up. There's the formal BLM organization that loosely unifies but does not direct some independent local chapters. There's the independent local chapters. Then there's the grassroots local movements under the ideology of "Black Lives Matter".
While the national organization may have defined goals or beliefs, these are not the same at every level. The spontaneous movements are even less beholden to it.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 02:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And what authority would they have to do so without an organization behind them?
Apparently they would have as much authority as anyone else because there is NO ORGANIZATION that is currently tearing down statues.
So what I am saying is get a responsible black person to lead/organize/direct BLM so they could get some results. Right now they have no goal, no leader, and no idea what they are doing ti actually help black people.
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 05:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apparently they would have as much authority as anyone else because there is NO ORGANIZATION that is currently tearing down statues.
So what I am saying is get a responsible black person to lead/organize/direct BLM so they could get some results. Right now they have no goal, no leader, and no idea what they are doing ti actually help black people.
You act as if some people haven't tried. They have. But the movement is too large and too grassroots for it to be contained and directed like that.
RE: Bad Boys II - fredtoast - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure who is advocating that we "let mobs make decisions." Not BLM.
Yes BLM. Even Bels agrees.
(06-23-2020, 05:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You act as if some people haven't tried. They have. But the movement is too large and too grassroots for it to be contained and directed like that.
BLM is nothing but a leaderless mob that does what it wants. Even black leaders can not control them.
And this just brings me back to my original point
(06-23-2020, 10:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Letting mobs decide the rules of society will end up with violence between mobs. THAT is the nature of things, and that is why we need laws and rules to govern society instead of just mob action.
If BLM will not even listen to black leaders then it will never accomplish anything except destruction of property.
RE: Bad Boys II - Lucidus - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes BLM. Even Bels agrees.
BLM is nothing but a leaderless mob that does what it wants. Even black leaders can not control them.
And this just brings me back to my original point
If BLM will not even listen to black leaders then it will never accomplish anything except destruction of property.
In my opinion, BLM is very similar to what Anonymous used to be, in that both were "ideas" that became "movements" in the loosest sense of the word. Both have attracted people to the "idea" but neither has a formal, centralized apparatus that can control or properly navigate the movement itself. As with Anonymous, not everyone that gravitates towards, or claims to be a part of the movement, does so with good intentions. Unfortunately, those people and their actions can hurt the overall cause.
I would like to see the BLM movement put together an organized leadership structure. Perhaps in time, it will evolve into that.
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-23-2020
Damn, Fred has awoke,
RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-23-2020
(06-23-2020, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes BLM. Even Bels agrees.
No, actually, I don't.
(06-23-2020, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: BLM is nothing but a leaderless mob that does what it wants. Even black leaders can not control them.
And this just brings me back to my original point
If BLM will not even listen to black leaders then it will never accomplish anything except destruction of property.
You are still using BLM as if it is some singular entity, which is understandable because it needs to be that way in order for your argument to make sense. But BLM isn't an entity. BLM is a movement made up of people. There are people within the movement that do these things, but that doesn't mean BLM is for those things.