Shadowheart328

Tachyons travel faster than light. :D Hypothetically :rolleyes: A LOT of what we 'know', is purely hypothetical. :D You're not completely wrong. :laugh: But Tachyons are literally hypothetical. They don't exist as far as we are aware and is just a hypothetical particle that travels faster than light, but would break all modern physics laws, so it probably doesn't exist. But again, only physics minor, if anyone has more knowledge about them outside of a textbook, then I'll defer to that :happy:

Tachyons travel faster than light. :D Hypothetically :rolleyes:

It depends on how you're viewing it. From a purely scientific standpoint nothing is faster than light (as far as we are aware) hence the whole E = mc2 formula. At the end of the day, thoughts are just the result of electric signals between neurons which I believe the fastest recorded was about 120 m/s (and I'm not even sure those are the ones we use for thought). This is much, much slower than the speed of light. Granted we are talking about light in a vacuum, but even if that weren't the case, our brain and the nerves in it don't work in a vacuum either, and is still slower than light. In fact I'm pretty sure our thoughts are actually slower than the speed of sound. Now this is all assuming we are talking about the process of thinking, (the firing off of electrical signals between neurons) thoughts themselves are immaterial and thus don't 'move'. From a philosophical perspective though it can be argued that thoughts are faster than light. The most common argument I've heard for that in some of my college classes, was that you can imagine yourself on the moon or some distant planet, and be there faster than it would take light to travel there. However, this isn't really thought's being faster than light, more than it is you painting a picture in your head, you're thoughts aren't moving to that distant planet or moon so they still aren't faster than light. As for slowing down our thoughts, again it goes down to whether or not you are talking about scientifically (physically) or philosophically. In which case scientifically I don't believe we can, but philosophically, it's a tossup. Source: Math and Computer Science major, with physics minor (So not an authority on the field of physics, but I have basic knowledge to carry a conversation haha)

I agree with you @Dimlhugion I feel like I've been doing my best to address every point brought up, and back up my own statements with facts. But sometimes I do let my emotions get the best of me and I'm guilty of some of the stuff you bring up.

He says, while providing no proof of said information, whereas we have all been providing evidence to our statements. Except when we provide evidence, it's fake and lies because it doesn't line up with your beliefs. But when you have evidence, especially the evidence you can't provide, it's truth. Get out of here with that nonsense, either back up your claims or don't 'debate'. /out

Sorry for my part in pulling this thread of topic, to get back on it: My take on it is, that suggestive titles are okay in my book for a few reasons. 1. If the goal is to get people who normally wouldn't debate to engage in discussion then click bait could be a good thing. 2. It helps weed out serious from non-serious debates. If the title has a stupid premise, then you know it's not a debate worth having. My main issues with bad debates aren't the suggestive titles, it's the people who frame an opinion as a fact, assert than anyone who doesn't conform to said opinion is lying, and then ignores any facts that contradict said opinion. Basically people who don't actually want to debate but just affirm their views with other like-minded individuals. But click bait titles are fine in my opinion.

Ask yourself why we aren't stopping the spread. It's not because quarantines don't work, it's because we waited way to late to start quarantining. The president you elected, decided that instead of quarantining all of the countries that were affected by Covid, he was only going to quarantine China, for basically political reasons. That came back to bite us because as it turns out most of the spreading in America came from those returning from or touring from Europe. Then in month between banning Europe after banning China we did absolutely nothing, implemented no quarantines, and just let it spread. The whole point of an effective quarantine is to do it ASAP and be strict about. It's effectiveness is only as good as its implementation. We implemented it poorly and thus it isn't working out well. But here's the cool thing, we can see the data for this stuff in real time, and you know what that data shows us. States that practiced heavier and stricter quarantine and lockdowns ended up reducing both the spread and cases of the disease. Like, just read the news and follow the data, everything you need to know about how effective quarantine and lockdown is can be inferred from there. About your second point, yes. That's the unfortunate side effect of a global pandemic, people and businesses are going to suffer. But you know what? Recovery is going to happen, it's a given. Will it take time? Yes. Will some people be left worst off financially than before? Yes. But economies can be fixed, you know what's permanent? Death. You're also acting like the unemployment extras are going to continue after Covid is no longer considered a pandemic and people are are able to get back to work. It's not a permanent thing, it's a temporary solution to people unable to work or fired during a national pandemic so that they can still provide for their families. Acting like people are suddenly not going to want to continue working just because they are collecting unemployment is a disingenuous argument with no data backing it up. The whole reason that extra money was given is because typical unemployment benefits received were way to low to help people affected by the pandemic. So yes, in some cases people are going to make more money than they did in their regular jobs, but this PUA is temporary, it was going to end in July but got extended to January (I think), these people aren't going to be able to rely on it forever. But just taking it away will probably have a higher negative impact on the economy than keeping it going a while longer.

It's like you ignored all of the proof of people more educated than both of us telling everyone that quarantine works. Like you can't have it both ways, you can't say you need to be a virologist to answer your question, and then when given proof and quotes of Virologists answering your question ignore that and say they are lying. I mean for someone who loves to use fallacies and sound like a good debater, you just used the begging the question fallacy yourself: "The government always lies, so anything said by someone working for the government is a lie." I seriously can't believe this is the argument your making, like you so clearly have nothing to back up your own statements so when pushed in a corner because I provided evidence to back up my claims, you just resort to the old: You've been lied to. Well prove it. I already did my burden of proof, your turn. Prove I'm being lied to, otherwise stop making up things and spreading dangerous misinformation about a topic and concept you have no actual knowledge on.

Nah, this is the dumbest thing I've seen written in this so far, and both of you need to learn how this stuff works before you just start spouting stuff. The point of lock-downs isn't to fight the virus itself, the point is to stop the spread of the virus. The spread. You know, the things that makes a virus become a pandemic. You can't seriously say that lock downs and travel restrictions aren't helpful to stop the spread of a disease. That's why quarantines exist. That's why when you get the flu, you don't go to school, or you stay home on sick leave. It's to stop it from spreading. This is a begging the question fallacy. There is no actual scientific proof that current quarantine at the levels the US has done has prevented any spread of the virus in any measurable way. Your logic fallacy relies on unfounded assertions that you know anything about virology and the spread of viruses beyond what you have been told by CNN/TV News which in itself is a false appeal to authority. Your assertion requires proof that you understand anything about virology and the clinical studies that isolate the exact strain and its propagation within a populace unrestricted vs. quarantined before you can even be considered seriously. Um...what? For starters, the point of my post was an objection to the statements that quarantine was how the virus is beaten. That isn't the case. Quarantines aren't how you beat a virus, they are how you stop it from spreading, basically containing said virus. And no I'm not a virologist, neither are you guys but apparently you know better than they do because pretty much every virologist agrees that quarantine is the best method of preventing a virus from spreading. Except there is: I am going to link to a bunch of studies related to viruses and the effectiveness of quarantine. These are doctors, virologists, and health organizations all saying that quarantine is a great way to stop the spread of the disease. In fact, use your damn brain, whenever lockdown happens the cases in an area fall, mutliple countries were able to curb the spread of the virus through sweeping lock downs. This isn't some made up phenomena, the only reason this get's debated is because uninformed people like you jump out of the wood works to act like you know better than virologists and doctors, because your inconvenienced by the lockdown. Well guess what? We all are, people lost jobs, people are suffering socially, it sucks and it's hard. But that's life, sometimes safety isn't comfortable or easy. No, it doesn't require proof of my own personal knowledge about virology. Just like it doesn't require proof for you to say quarantines aren't effective......when they clearly are. I mean, you aren't even looking at the data, you're literally talking out of your butt, and want to throw logical fallacies at me? Like you're some pro debater? This is one of the only studies i've found that even tackles whether or not quarantine is effective. And the conclusion is that quarantine is effective, but it all depends on the timing of said quarantine and how well the populace and doctors actually follow it. Basically the reason it is even as bad as it is, is because we waited way to late and didn't quarantine Europeans, and the the reason it's continuing to get worst is because people aren't treating the quarantines and lockdowns seriously. That's it. That's what the research and data is showing.

Nah, this is the dumbest thing I've seen written in this so far, and both of you need to learn how this stuff works before you just start spouting stuff. The point of lock-downs isn't to fight the virus itself, the point is to stop the spread of the virus. The spread. You know, the things that makes a virus become a pandemic. You can't seriously say that lock downs and travel restrictions aren't helpful to stop the spread of a disease. That's why quarantines exist. That's why when you get the flu, you don't go to school, or you stay home on sick leave. It's to stop it from spreading.

Alright, let's take apart your 'argument' piece by piece: Never made that argument. I explicitly said they would still be black. I'm not saying that in order to be black you must do x, I'm saying if you are black and do x, other black people are going to think your a huge butthole for doing so and call you out on it. There's a difference. Good try though. Easily. Here is a google document filled with examples of structural (aka Systematic) racism, and here's a good video explaining it. If you don't like that video, here's another good one if you are willing to sit through it. Ben Shapiro did a "debunking" of the first video, if you believe the crap Ben Shapiro states, here is a video debunking all of his points regarding systemic racism as well, but you'd best be ready to sit through it all. All of the videos I provide and the google document provide all the research and evidence you need. You just need to be willing to listen to it. Except no you're just really uniformed about how affirmative action works. I swear you guys think affirmative action means some random black guy off the street gets to take a job/school from some upstart deserving white kid. That's not how it works at all. It doesn't work on quotas, it works by simply preventing institutions and business from discriminating based on race/sex/sexual orientation alone. It's literally no different from how being a veteran offers you the same protections. But you don't hear people clamoring the streets to complain about veterans taking their jobs because of laws that support them. Nah, only when its minorities. They are politically agnostic. Their members come from all political walks of life. There isn't a political requirement. The only reason they seem political is because pretty much all of their policies are being opposed by the right who just want to keep the status quo. Not BLM's fault that right-wing supporters and institutions want to stand in the way of removing systemic racism in America's justice system, even though it would positively affect everyone. There's not alternative political system? Where do you see them proposing a new form of government? All we are asking and fighting for is reform to justice system, look at what we are doing. And that has nothing to do with being terrorists. Anarchists not really, I'm an Anarchist and they definitely aren't. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a terrorist organization or whatever the word of the month is that right-wing supporters are using. That's just you talking out your butt. In fact here is a fact-check proving your butt wrong, because you are definitely implying that they are. Because....it is? The First Amendment specifically applies to the government not being able to prevent citizens from saying what they want. It doesn't apply to the citizens themselves. I mean, you wrote it yourself. I think you just misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying the first amendment is for the government, I'm saying it applications are strictly to prevent the government doing anything to citizens (within reason, there are still plenty of things that you can say that will get you arrested or in trouble with the law/government) for saying what they want. As such it only applies to the government, and thus trying to apply the first amendment against citizens is a moot point, because as long as they don't physically assault you, they don't have to listen or put up with stuff other people say. What? I just linked evidence that the only reason the Civil Rights was passed was because of the riots. You do realize MLK wasn't liked by Americans at the time, he had a very low approval rating among whites. Maybe Presiden Johnson agreed with everything King said, but the only reason he was able to even get the law passed in the first place was because of the fear that the riots put in white Americans. So the fear of violence spreading is what caused the Civil Rights acts to pass. Not the peaceful protests. Instead the peaceful protests help spark the violence because black people realized that it didn't matter how peaceful you were, you'd still get shot and nobody would care. Yup. The typical there is so much proof, but I won't link any of it response. The burden of proof is on you. So far I've linked everything I've stated to back up my claims, if you want to seriously debate do the same. Otherwise it's conjecture. Anyway onto your point. No, BLM isn't a racist organization, it has never said that all white people or that it is calling for the death of police officers. Are there people in an organization that makes up hundreds of thousands of people that believe that, yes. And it would be stupid to believe that, just like it would be stupid to believe that those individuals speak for an entire fluid movement. They don't. But by your logic I guess if I find a few white people who are Nazis or white supremacists, that means all white people are that way. *shrugs* Here's an example of BLM being accused of wanting to kill cops but it not being true at all. Except it is. The individuals within it may not be, but the system as a whole is definitely systemic in it's racism. The whole war on drugs was actually a race war, that's a known thing. The fact that black people get higher sentences for the same crimes as white people when all the variables are the same. The fact the black populations where overp-policed due to the fact that systemic racism made them poor and poor communities have higher crime rates. The fact that cops can get away with murdering unarmed black people and be 'justified' in doing. The fact that cops practice arrest quotas and racial bias in their stops against black people. (All of these claims are corroborated in the studies I linked in the google document). It is. That's why there needs to be reform. Not removal, reform. What? I don't even know where this argument was made or where this 'rebuttal' came from. But there aren't going to be any rules that only apply to white people and not black people. And I'm not sure where you get that idea from. We want to be treated equally to white people when it comes to the justice system, not better. Except it is everywhere. The thing is, and here me out here, you are white. It's very easy to get accustomed to these things and not see the inherent racism because you aren't the target. There is a reason the white male protagonist gets derided, it's because it's done to death, even in situations where a white person should be a factor or exist in the narrative. I mean you even refer to a racist trope yourself, it's coined the Magical Negro trope. It's not a matter of looking hard enough, to those who are targeted it's very obvious. Very. Obvious. I mean, seriously how long ago in the past do you really think this is? Black people only just got their rights in the 1960s. People who are racist as hell are still alive and in power in these industries, and a lot of them keep those ideas alive, they just can't be outright with it anymore. So it's subtle but for those who have been experiencing it for years, it's very easy to spot. Oh here we go with this card. It's a very common talking point in the far-right and right wing groups. "just forget about it", "stop playing victim, it happened so long ago", "move on and let it die" , etc. Well tell you what, when the fact that we were slaves for most of American history stops affecting our social status, we'll let it go. Till then, we are still victims of it and will continue to bring it up, until America actually acknowledges it. Wikipedia is fine as a source, so long as you do your research and look at where they are getting their information from. I mainly provide the sources that I read, and typically tell you if I am linking a Wikipedia article to read the sources.

If that's all you got out of what I wrote then you didn't read everything I had to say, and just focused on the first argument. I answered your question: Would she be insulted by BLM supporters? The answer is yes, if you don't want to support a movement that is trying to end systematic racism in America especially against those of your ethnicity, while at the same time supporting a president who is a known bigot, racist, and misogynist. Then yeah. You are gonna get insulted by them. That's human nature. I swear people act like BLM has to be better than human in order to be taken seriously. EVERY SINGLE PROTEST REGARDLESS OF WHO IS DOING IT WILL INSULT/BELITTLE PEOPLE WHO DON'T SUPPORT THEM. BLM is no different, because it's comprised of humans. At the same time, your argument still doesn't hold water because you make the assumption that just because they insult and belittle you, they won't support you being racially profiled or discriminated against. ONCE MORE: BLM IS POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC. There are people who are both democratic, republican, and many other politically leaning people that are in the movement. Because the movement isn't political. It looks political because the only group of people who are arguing against the movement are primarily right-wing and far-right-wing supporters. Except it is, is it effective? No. Is it a freedom of expression? Yes. You are focusing so hard on this insult argument that you have ignored pretty much every other point that was addressed in what you wrote. MLK was a great man, but he accomplished next to nothing until after he was killed, and was only recognized as a peaceful protester 60 years later. You do realize all the same insults that are being hurled at BLM, all of the deflectionary tactics, all the dehumanizing, and victim blaming, all of that happened to the peaceful protesters too. You realize that the main reason MLK is so loved by American's is because he is so easy to point at and go 'see that's how you protest, if you do it peacefully people will listen'. Because it made them out to look like the good guys, like so long as you peacefully protest people will listen to what you have to say, we can't be that racist. However, you were fed a whitewashed version of history. While MLK was definitely the most peaceful protester in American History, he wasn't that effective at getting policies implemented until after he died. Now you would think that it is because a good peaceful man died. But that is far from the case. I bet you weren't taught about The Long, Hot Summer of 1967 or the King Assassination Riots both of which are confirmed as the reason the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed. MLK dying wasn't even enough. It was the riots that happened a year before and riots that occurred after he died not the peaceful protesting. Now I will give you that his peacefulness is what made black people turn to violence so quickly after he died, but basically MLKs biggest contribution to the Civil Rights Movement, was becoming a martyr. They aren't intolerant, they are supporting black lives, because right now black lives are the ones that matter least in this country's criminal justice system. Seriously you never answered my question, which is why I don't even believe you read what I wrote. Prove they are intolerant. The only things they are standing against are racist ideals/ideology/systems/people. If you think they need to be tolerant of racism, then I don't know what to tell you. As for protesting, in a perfect world, yeah it should be peaceful, and I personally don't agree with the rioting/looting that's going on. But that's what happens when you subjugate a people for 400+ years, and prove time and time and again that you don't care for their lives. Eventually they break. (I don't mean you as in you personally it's a general term). Black people have been peacefully protesting for decades now, Micheal Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Philandro Castille, etc, etc, etc. We've been down this road so many times, we know how America works, people only care about issues when it starts to affect them. If black people (and other minorities) being mistreated due to their ethnicity isn't enough to convince you that BLM is a valid movement (and nobody so far has given examples of what they are doing that makes them not a valid movement) then they are going to turn to the only thing left. Violence. That's just how it works, ask the founding father's of America. Violent protesting is how America was founded. They tarred and feathered, burnt down buildings and tea, rioted in the streets, and started a damn war because the peaceful way didn't work. Now look, if you actually want to debate. Address my points. I respected you enough to address all of yours. EDIT: SOURCES Long Hot Summer 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long,_hot_summer_of_1967 2. https://theweek.com/captured/712838/long-hot-summer-1967 3. https://time.com/5851111/protests-looting/ - also how America was founded on the idea of looting and violent protest King Assassination Riots 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots 2. https://www.history.com/news/mlk-assassination-riots-occupation Civil Rights Act Passing 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Background 2. https://www.propublica.org/article/living-apart-how-the-government-betrayed-a-landmark-civil-rights-law

(Double post ignore or delete)

Joe Biden doesn't speak for the black community so I'm unsure why you bring that up likes it's relevant here. And to answer your question, she'd still be black. Yes. She'd be denigrated and insulted for not agreeing that Black Lives Matter in America's judicial system, especially since she's a black woman. I'm not going to assume who you two are or how you act outside the computer screen. But I will tell your situation looks like for black people and why they get so angry and upset seeing people of their own ethnicity not support the movement. Basically the main reason people who are black who marry a white person tend to get denigrated, is because they forget their roots. It's like the moment they marry into a white family, they forget about the fact that they came from black roots and then worst tend to step on other black people (metaphorically of course) because they think they are better than that now. As an analogy: Imagine you go to school with the same group of friends, and one of them is your best friend. You've been going to school together for 10 years, you live in the same neighborhood, you like the same things, and you are comfortable in each other's company. Now imagine you've had bullies as well who've been bullying you and your friends over that same 10 years, they call you names, they beat you up whenever they get the chance, school teachers ignore their bullying, and they live in the rich side of town. Now one year your best friend falls for one of the bullies and they develop a relationship together, already you feel betrayed by your friend. How could they fall for someone who's been bullying them all these years? However, you stay friends, but over time they start growing more distant, spending more time with that bully than you and your friends. However, the tipping point comes when the bullies still bully you at school, but your friend instead of stopping them or trying to at least talk with them, they laugh at you to. How would you feel? Because that's how black people feel when we see other black people who marry into white families, and then pretend like all the issues plaguing black people don't exist. Is that fair for you? No, of course not. But they are allowed to express their displeasure for that because of their 1st amendment rights. And at this point, with all the technology, data, and information at our fingertips, if you truly believe that BLM isn't worth supporting, then yeah. Black people are gonna throw a lot of crap your way. What? We are only intolerant of racial bias in the criminal justice system, and police in-accountability. What are you trying to say here? What intolerance? Or are you trying to imply that because BLM supporters don't agree with racist and bigoted view points that they are suddenly intolerant? I see this argument all the time. Yes, there is a hell of a lot of racism and discrimination in media and video games. It's just really hard to see that discrimination and racism when you aren't the target of it. You know like how the hero is almost always white, darker skinned people are bad, minorities rarely have a leading role, and when they do it's met with "Oh, they're just pandering now...". Because apparently white people are so insecure about minorities having the leading role, that when they do, the only reason for that must be due to pandering to some sort of SJW agenda. So yeah. Of course we see blatant and subtle racism in media. As for people being afraid. That is blown so out of proportion it's not funny. People aren't skimming the internet waiting for someone to mess up so they can jump on and ruin that person's career. Most of the time, if you actually look into it. It's something that happened over a period of time. It's rarely a one and done thing. A lot of those people get fired because you know, it's part of your job application to not say or do intolerant things online, it risks your job. And if you have to stop and wonder if your joke is racist or not, here's a hint: It probably is, and you shouldn't be saying it in public. When minorities are the butt of your joke, stop and think for a moment about why you are saying said joke and in what company you are in. Among friends an likeminded people sure, say all the racist jokes you want. But when you are online. Be smart, not everyone is going to find racial humor funny. Yes actually, it's called being a minority in America. Why do you think BLM is out protesting? It sucks you grew up in one of those places, but guess what here's some good news, you should be well aware that BLM isn't Marxist then. BLM is filled with people from all political spectrums because it's a fluid movement. It's a-political, because it's focusing on human rights and social issues. The only people going out of their way to make it political are Republicans and other Right-wing groups with a vetted interest in keeping the movement down. When neo-nazis, white supremacists, and other racist groups are agreeing with or parrot your points you need to take a step back and figure out what side you are on. You keep bringing up this idea of intolerance but what is it? What is BLM actually intolerant of. Everyone keeps saying it, but nobody can give an actual example. Same with the Marxist argument. A few co-leaders of the movement said they are Marxist, but the movement itself hasn't done anything Marxist at all. In fact scholars and people who either are or study Marxism say the movement does many things that not label it Marxist. Such as showing support for women's and individual rights. You know, something that is one of the core foundations of Marxism. The removal of individual rights. So until someone can give an example of BLM being Marxist or having intolerance outside of not tolerating racists and racist systems then stop citing them as such. If the organization is Marxist. Show Proof! If they are intolerant of valid ideas: Show Proof! The only thing in your list that you are allowed the right of is not being attacked or killed. That's assault. However, you are perfectly within your rights to be denigrated because of an opinion. People speak the 1st amendment like they know what it is, but keep leaving out the part where it's explicitly geared towards the government, not the citizens. If you don't want to support a movement whose goal is to see racial bias end in the justice system, bringing about better changes for everyone, but are totally willing to support a president who is practicing Facism. Then don't worry the government won't arrest you, but other people have every right to call you out or insult you for it. That is freedom of speech. It's not one way, it's both ways. And it still isn't even universally applicable (go ahead and yell fire in a crowded room and watch your butt get arrested). The reason I asked for closing the thread is because the two other people who are on this thread arguing in favor of the topic, don't want to debate. HeyYou expressly said he doesn't want to, and doesn't want to do any more research into it. He has his opinion, brought about by easily debunked sources, and doesn't want to research any further. JJb54 just keeps repeating the same debunked argument over and over again, and already insinuated from the post he doesn't want to debate because if you don't agree with him you're a liar. This thread is just going to become an endless circular argument, with people who don't want to research more into things because they don't want their opinions challenged. That's the polar opposite of a debate. Now onto your only point that actually talked about the topic at hand. Why do people conflate what the Media does with BLM. We don't control the media, like even you said, we don't have the power. So which is it? Do we have this unfettered control of how narratives are spread or don't we? Pick one. Again. I ask you to show where BLM doesn't care about black lives. Where? The guy you linked to, wasn't killed because he was black (at least until further information is provided, they haven't found the killer). The point of BLM is to support black lives killed, for being black. Not for being black and democrat, or being black and republican. For being black. And even so, BLM supporters still made a vigil for the man and called him an elder in the community. That's a higher honor. And completely goes against what you were trying to imply. Only conservatives and known liars like Lauram Ingramm, are going out of their way to make this man's death political without even getting all the information. And still, BLM supports him. But not every death is going to be covered equally, because there are so many of them, and not all of them are racially carried out by Law Enforcement or racists. The whole point of BLM's founding. Which is something that is always conveniently ignored.

Yes this has been happening since black people were brought over as slaves. Why do you think we are fighting so hard for change. And while it isn't Trumps fault, his policy changes and rhetoric has emboldened White Supremacy in America and in the last 4 years we've seen definite increases in crimes against minorities/immigrants. So while he didn't start it, he's definitely helped spread the fear-mongering about minorities/immigrants and has been a boon for racists and those with racial bias/bigotry since he's been in office. You keep saying you disagree with stuff that BLM stands for and their solutions. So tell me what exactly do you disagree with? Because as far as what they do and stand for is concerned it's: I'd start with basically anything? Because as far as I can tell, you haven't done much actual research into what BLM does or stands for. It sounds more like you got you information from biased sources and then formed your own opinions off of that. Or have your own opinions already and aren't willing to look further into what they stand for. Because everything they are calling for will help everyone because what affects black people affects white people (particularly poor whites) as well. Alright. I'm sorry HeyYou, but this is some racist bull. You don't know anything about are culture yet you act like you do. No. You don't know anything about black culture, just what the media portrays black people as. We don't glorify killing, violence, and hurting cops. Do we have prejudices against them? Yes. And valid ones too. But do we tell our kids or people to go out and kill, hurt, or injure cops? No. I feel like all you are talking about rap music. But most rap doesn't glorify violence, it talks about violence. And makes you no more violent that playing violent video games makes you more likely to perform school shootings. If you have the opinion that because black people listen to rap about violence and poverty, and sex, and drugs (also common in rock btw) that the culture is one of violence and thus deserving of their mistreatment by police; then you should hold the same opinion that playing violent video games makes you a violent person and more likely to commit crimes. It's just a deflection tactic to take the conversation away from racist systems that are still in place.