Let me be clear though. Do I think there is a massive issue with Police training and culture? Yes.
Let's start here; the very term "virtue signaling" (ironically)
signals to me that you do not engage BLM in good faith because this term is an ideologically loaded buzzword which is weaponized to slander all who pursue justice as being disingenuous and only seeking self-aggrandizement, so they can be easily dismissed. Do disingenuous people exist? Of course. But using this kind of ideologically loaded language, to quote you, "is predominantly an exercise in either virtue signalling or good intentions from fairly ignorant people".
For example, I could very easily just dismiss your entire lengthy disclaimer as "virtue signaling". Do you see how antithetical to discourse that is? It's just shoving people into boxes you've already decided you don't need to engage with or listen to. It's far too often used to discredit any expression of genuine empathy.But to solve difficult problems we must be able to have uncomfortable, open discussions on topics like crime without the fear of being called a name ending with íst'. To avoid that would be intellectually cowardly and not everyone that brooches taboo topics has a malicious intent.
That sounds a lot like what I just said about your use of the term virtue signaling...
Did I call you racist? No.
But when you say "discussions on topics like crime without the fear of being called a name ending with íst'"... why is that so? If someone makes an objectively racist argument, they are not to be called out on their racism? Again, we come back to this tendency to censor speech. Nobody can call anybody racist in a discussion of racial protests no matter what they say? Nobody can stand up for any values without being shoved into the "virtue signaler" box?
Frankly, I think the obsessive focus on the people calling out racism instead of the people engaging in racism is the real problem here. Again, we come back to the MLK quote on negative peace vs positive peace. Negative peace would be the absence of friction due to accusations of racism, which allows racism to go unchecked. Positive peace would be engaging in the divisive, combative reality that is fighting against racism. This kind of pearl clutching over accusations of racism is precisely the kind of disingenuous tone policing I was talking about.
Nobody ever died from being called a racist. However, many people have died as a result of racism. Some of us just want to work out where the problems lay before looking at the causes and solutions. Not everything is about blame.
BLM is not claiming to be a panacea for black Americans. Asking why they aren't protesting other injustices faced by black Americans is disingenuous because that is not what this group was created to do. BLM is a direct response to police brutality. Asking why they aren't talking about black on black crime is as absurd as asking why they aren't talking about black home loan application rejections. They are not purporting to call out every problem faced by black America.
Who is blaming who? Have I blamed somebody?
Have you not agreed already that police violence is a problem? The problem has been identified. By BLM. Your injection of an entirely different issue does not address the issue at hand whatsoever.
Black on black crime does not cause police violence. So what was your purpose to even bring that up? I genuinely want to know.
BLM is simplistic tokenism where deeper discussions are required.
This is not an argument, this is a characterization. Do you understand that? You keep using characterizations as if they are evidence or arguments. Watch: "The tea party is a bunch of jobless losers". Is that an argument built on evidence or a meaningless characterization that represents nothing but my opinion?
My critique of the BLM protests is that it seems to me the noble concept of equality has been co-opted and that the movement is as much about virtue signaling fueled by a mildly radicalized left wing ideology (Authority is bad, white people are bad) than the stated intent of valuing everyone equally
So the closest you've come to making an argument is distilled succinctly to this: "BLM are disingenuous because they fly the banner of equality but oppose authority and white people." Correct?
Now, to actually back that claim up, you would need some form of evidence that they oppose authority (broadly, because you did not specify what authority, unless you would now like to) and white people.
I think the very fact of white people being welcomed as a part of the protests immediately disproves that second claim as absurd and incorrect. As far as opposing authority; in what way? Their argument is not that nobody should have the authority to enforce the law, but that those who do should be held to a higher standard of conduct. Even the "abolish the police" contingent of them do not want anarchy; they want the police replaced by social workers who will be given the
authority to enforce laws.
But that wasn't even the crux of your argument, which was that they are "hypocritical". Tell me, how would promoting equality conflict with opposing authority?
By its very definition, authority means having certain powers OVER other people. Authority creates a hierarchy. Equality demands hierarchies be abolished for being unfair. Did you really not even think through that argument at all? Because it falls flat on it's own face if you put even a modicum of critical thought into it.
In a country where 92 people are shot and 27 killed in Chicago on one weekend, in a world where black people are openly sold in slavery in Libya, where Muslim minorities are placed in concentration camps by the Chinese Govt, where in parts of the middle east the treatment of women and homosexuals is abhorrent etc etc etc etc. Are the worldwide protests in the middle of a pandemic truly a proportionate response to a horrific and disgusting murder of George Floyd and the publics perception of Police bias against black people? I would argue no.
What about this? What about that? What about this?
I've already addressed how your whataboutism fallacies are irrelevant to the discussion. Does slavery in Libya cause police shootings in America? No. Does BLM claim to be about solving problems across the entire globe? No. Again, BLM is a movement created after Ferguson to respond SPECIFICALLY TO POLICE VIOLENCE.
And if you think it's fair to play that little whataboutism game, then who are to you criticize BLM who are in the streets for police reform when YOU are not in the streets protesting slavery in Libya? Nor are you joining them to protest police violence. You are not in the streets for anything.
So who do you think you are to demand they must address every single conceivable injustice affecting their community before you will allow them to talk about any one specific issue, when you yourself are not meeting that standard? This claim of hypocrisy is beginning to look a lot like projection.
Not only because if you truly care about black lives then you also focus on where the most suffering is (as above)
Again, if you truly care about black lives why are you not protesting any of these issues you've brought up? Your very argument accusing them of hypocrisy reveals YOUR hypocrisy!
In reality, the reasons why people protest are not so cut and dry as a statistical analysis of where the most lives are being lost. Protests tend to form in response to local events because they hit the closest to home, literally. Someone suffering across the globe is not as tangible as your best friend being killed. Not to mention, Libya's government (what little there is of one) is not beholden to Americans citizens. Protests in America would do nothing, they are a sovereign nation. Don't be obtuse. There's a reason BLM formed in Ferguson and the Floyd protests started in Minneapolis. Protests are an expression of anger and anguish and other emotions. So it stands to reason that they are more likely to be inspired by tangible personal realities than statistical analysis. And of course, it's easy to have the privilege of stepping back and looking at it in a cold mathematical sense when you are not the one having your loved ones extrajudicially murdered by state sanctioned forces. If your son or daughter or wife is murdered, you tell me how you'd feel if I said "You're a hypocrite! There are way more people being killed in Siberia!" You would probably sock me in the fucking mouth for that comment. For all your talk of empathy, I see very little of it in action here.
Author