By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - $5,000 anti-racist dinner parties

KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

The idea is more insidious than the individual, and these ideas will continue to bear fruit unless we are able to grasp at the root to remove them. To that end, I believe education on racial injustice plays a fundamental role.

Okay, let's get educated! Tell me about this 'racial injustice'.

That is kind of a big question, and I am certainly no expert on the subject. You would be better off going to a local university and sitting in on a class or two (to understand, not to argue). A lot of universities let you walk in on classes for free if you aren't taking them for credit.

That said, if you have any more specific questions, I will see if I can answer them.



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:

"white people make up the majority of the population, most of the politicians, most of the rich people are white."

Very true. A shame this does not immunize whites against injustices.

Do white people become the victims of crimes for being white? Yeah that happens.

But that's not really what we're talking about, with regards to white supremacy.

KLAMarine said:

"White supremacy is advocated for, by and large by a subset of white people. 'China virus' isn't advocated in the same way. If millions of Chinese people were advocating for the virus, then yeah, it'd be pretty fair to blame them. Last I checked, there aren't any Chinese versions of the KKK intentionally spreading coronavirus towards non-chinese people."

>Can you define 'white supremacy' for me here? Is the majority of our political leaders being white part of this so-called 'white supremacy'?

>Is the majority of our political leaders being white part of this so-called 'white supremacy'?

It's a byproduct of it. White people voting in other white people to defend white people interests. Most of those people aren't white supremacists, but they aren't fixing the problem.

If you want a little run down of white supremacy:

- slavery up to 1865

- white people were given free land, when the midwest began to be settled.

- law enforcement looking the other way, when black people were killed, or when their houses were burned down.

- the US government had policies on their books to advocate for neighborhood level segregation. The government would back loans for white people in white neighborhoods, intentionally zoning black neighborhoods to only include cheaper housing.  You can read a lot more about it: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

>It was in something called the Underwriting Manual of the Federal Housing Administration, which said that "incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities." Meaning that loans to African-Americans could not be insured. In one development ... in Detroit ... the FHA would not go ahead, during World War II, with this development unless the developer built a 6-foot-high wall, cement wall, separating his development from a nearby African-American neighborhood to make sure that no African-Americans could even walk into that neighborhood.

To sum up, black people were enslaved to do labor for white people, in other words profiting off their labor. When black people started developing property, white people would burn it down. The US government intentionally invested in white neighborhoods, while cutting off black neighborhoods.

Ignoring the effects of hundreds of years of kicking down minorities, and then blaming them for not being as wealthy is another example of white supremacy.



sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

Okay, let's get educated! Tell me about this 'racial injustice'.

That is kind of a big question, and I am certainly no expert on the subject. You would be better off going to a local university and sitting in on a class or two (to understand, not to argue). A lot of universities let you walk in on classes for free if you aren't taking them for credit.

That said, if you have any more specific questions, I will see if I can answer them.

What do you make of the discrepancy of police shootings between the different racial groups?

Blacks are shoot at higher rates than their white, Asian, and Hispanic counterparts for example.

• People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2021 | Statista

"the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 36 fatal shootings per million of the population as of May 2021"

the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

"white people make up the majority of the population, most of the politicians, most of the rich people are white."

Very true. A shame this does not immunize whites against injustices.

Do white people become the victims of crimes for being white? Yeah that happens.

But that's not really what we're talking about, with regards to white supremacy.

KLAMarine said:

"White supremacy is advocated for, by and large by a subset of white people. 'China virus' isn't advocated in the same way. If millions of Chinese people were advocating for the virus, then yeah, it'd be pretty fair to blame them. Last I checked, there aren't any Chinese versions of the KKK intentionally spreading coronavirus towards non-chinese people."

>Can you define 'white supremacy' for me here? Is the majority of our political leaders being white part of this so-called 'white supremacy'?

>Is the majority of our political leaders being white part of this so-called 'white supremacy'?

It's a byproduct of it. White people voting in other white people to defend white people interests. Most of those people aren't white supremacists, but they aren't fixing the problem.

If you want a little run down of white supremacy:

- slavery up to 1865

- white people were given free land, when the midwest began to be settled.

- law enforcement looking the other way, when black people were killed, or when their houses were burned down.

- the US government had policies on their books to advocate for neighborhood level segregation. The government would back loans for white people in white neighborhoods, intentionally zoning black neighborhoods to only include cheaper housing.  You can read a lot more about it: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

>It was in something called the Underwriting Manual of the Federal Housing Administration, which said that "incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities." Meaning that loans to African-Americans could not be insured. In one development ... in Detroit ... the FHA would not go ahead, during World War II, with this development unless the developer built a 6-foot-high wall, cement wall, separating his development from a nearby African-American neighborhood to make sure that no African-Americans could even walk into that neighborhood.

To sum up, black people were enslaved to do labor for white people, in other words profiting off their labor. When black people started developing property, white people would burn it down. The US government intentionally invested in white neighborhoods, while cutting off black neighborhoods.

Ignoring the effects of hundreds of years of kicking down minorities, and then blaming them for not being as wealthy is another example of white supremacy.

Truly horrible!

Would you call the LA riots black supremacy? What about the Reginald Oliver Denny beating? Was this black supremacy in action?

Attack on Reginald Denny - Wikipedia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY&ab_channel=WolfXCIXWolfXCIX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3V5UNUbM7k&ab_channel=A%26EA%26E



KLAMarine said:

the-pi-guy said:

Do white people become the victims of crimes for being white? Yeah that happens.

But that's not really what we're talking about, with regards to white supremacy.

KLAMarine said:

"White supremacy is advocated for, by and large by a subset of white people. 'China virus' isn't advocated in the same way. If millions of Chinese people were advocating for the virus, then yeah, it'd be pretty fair to blame them. Last I checked, there aren't any Chinese versions of the KKK intentionally spreading coronavirus towards non-chinese people."

>Can you define 'white supremacy' for me here? Is the majority of our political leaders being white part of this so-called 'white supremacy'?

>Is the majority of our political leaders being white part of this so-called 'white supremacy'?

It's a byproduct of it. White people voting in other white people to defend white people interests. Most of those people aren't white supremacists, but they aren't fixing the problem.

If you want a little run down of white supremacy:

- slavery up to 1865

- white people were given free land, when the midwest began to be settled.

- law enforcement looking the other way, when black people were killed, or when their houses were burned down.

- the US government had policies on their books to advocate for neighborhood level segregation. The government would back loans for white people in white neighborhoods, intentionally zoning black neighborhoods to only include cheaper housing.  You can read a lot more about it: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

>It was in something called the Underwriting Manual of the Federal Housing Administration, which said that "incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities." Meaning that loans to African-Americans could not be insured. In one development ... in Detroit ... the FHA would not go ahead, during World War II, with this development unless the developer built a 6-foot-high wall, cement wall, separating his development from a nearby African-American neighborhood to make sure that no African-Americans could even walk into that neighborhood.

To sum up, black people were enslaved to do labor for white people, in other words profiting off their labor. When black people started developing property, white people would burn it down. The US government intentionally invested in white neighborhoods, while cutting off black neighborhoods.

Ignoring the effects of hundreds of years of kicking down minorities, and then blaming them for not being as wealthy is another example of white supremacy.

Truly horrible!

Would you call the LA riots black supremacy? What about the Reginald Oliver Denny beating? Was this black supremacy in action?

Attack on Reginald Denny - Wikipedia


You can't be serious.

I refuse to believe you read any part of my post and thought this was a response.  

There is no comparison between 250+ years of government level oppression and a couple of random riots by people upset about that oppression.  



KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

That is kind of a big question, and I am certainly no expert on the subject. You would be better off going to a local university and sitting in on a class or two (to understand, not to argue). A lot of universities let you walk in on classes for free if you aren't taking them for credit.

That said, if you have any more specific questions, I will see if I can answer them.

What do you make of the discrepancy of police shootings between the different racial groups?

Blacks are shoot at higher rates than their white, Asian, and Hispanic counterparts for example.

• People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2021 | Statista

"the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 36 fatal shootings per million of the population as of May 2021"

There is a lot to make of it. I'm not really sure what you are looking for with that question, so I'll just run through a few brief(ish) thoughts.

A lot of people see this as a reflection of the direct racism and racial biases among the police, and it often seems to be the idea that gets the most press, I don't think it is the most important (though that isn't to say that it doesn't play any role). I think there are two things which need to be spoken about here:

-The first relates to the historical reaction to police violence. The reason why change has not occurred is because historically society has not asked for change to occur. The people have the power to change the police, so why haven't they? To give my personal summary, I think there are two reasons: Because "they deserved it" and because "it was necessary". That is to say, when these shootings occur, often we react by excusing it. We see this in the wake of almost every police shooting, with the media pointing out every mistake that the person made. Maybe they had a dimebag of weed in their pocket, or they were had previously been to prison for shoplifting. Second, there is the idea that this type of thing is a byproduct of a necessary action. We need police in this form and this is the price that must be paid for it. Both of these are essentially different ways of weighing the value of a life. Historically, the value society polices on the life of a black man has been low enough that we have been willing to pay that price. Fortunately, from my view, this disparity is shrinking. While we can excuse many deaths, the cost is higher and there are people who are no longer willing to accept the price and are thus demanding change. 

-The second point relates to the greater question of "why". When we speak about these statistics, it is almost inevitable that someone will posit that the reason black men are killed at such a higher rate is that they commit more crime and as such they interact more with police, so this type of statistic is inevitable. While this hypothesis is generally poorly supported by data (the correlation between crime rate and police shootings is surprisingly weak), it begs another question: why do black men commit crimes at higher rates? This is a big question, so understand that I'm barely scratching the surface here. It is no coincidence that black Americans have been put in positions which are known to increase crime. Education, wealth, housing, employment, opportunity, health- these are all things that black Americans have historically been deprived of, while being met with laws specifically designed to criminalize them (from higher penalties on crack vs powder cocaine, to marijuana criminalization, to laws against wearing your pants low (seriously)). White power has created this disparity in criminality and now it seeks to use this disparity to justify itself. 

Like I said at the top, I've no idea what you are looking for from me, but hopefully I did at least a little to answer your curiosity.  



Around the Network

the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

Truly horrible!

Would you call the LA riots black supremacy? What about the Reginald Oliver Denny beating? Was this black supremacy in action?

Attack on Reginald Denny - Wikipedia


You can't be serious.

I refuse to believe you read any part of my post and thought this was a response.  

There is no comparison between 250+ years of government level oppression and a couple of random riots by people upset about that oppression.  

Never considered them the same but Reginald Oliver Denny certainly endured an overwhelming amount of harm for seemingly nothing. People can be upset all they want about 250+ years of oppression (no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense), ROD had nothing to do with that.

Now answer the question: if a lynching is white supremacy, was the Reginald Oliver Denny beating black supremacy?

sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

What do you make of the discrepancy of police shootings between the different racial groups?

Blacks are shoot at higher rates than their white, Asian, and Hispanic counterparts for example.

• People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2021 | Statista

"the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 36 fatal shootings per million of the population as of May 2021"

There is a lot to make of it. I'm not really sure what you are looking for with that question, so I'll just run through a few brief(ish) thoughts.

A lot of people see this as a reflection of the direct racism and racial biases among the police, and it often seems to be the idea that gets the most press, I don't think it is the most important (though that isn't to say that it doesn't play any role). I think there are two things which need to be spoken about here:

-The first relates to the historical reaction to police violence. The reason why change has not occurred is because historically society has not asked for change to occur. The people have the power to change the police, so why haven't they? To give my personal summary, I think there are two reasons: Because "they deserved it" and because "it was necessary". That is to say, when these shootings occur, often we react by excusing it. We see this in the wake of almost every police shooting, with the media pointing out every mistake that the person made. Maybe they had a dimebag of weed in their pocket, or they were had previously been to prison for shoplifting. Second, there is the idea that this type of thing is a byproduct of a necessary action. We need police in this form and this is the price that must be paid for it. Both of these are essentially different ways of weighing the value of a life. Historically, the value society polices on the life of a black man has been low enough that we have been willing to pay that price. Fortunately, from my view, this disparity is shrinking. While we can excuse many deaths, the cost is higher and there are people who are no longer willing to accept the price and are thus demanding change. 

-The second point relates to the greater question of "why". When we speak about these statistics, it is almost inevitable that someone will posit that the reason black men are killed at such a higher rate is that they commit more crime and as such they interact more with police, so this type of statistic is inevitable. While this hypothesis is generally poorly supported by data (the correlation between crime rate and police shootings is surprisingly weak), it begs another question: why do black men commit crimes at higher rates? This is a big question, so understand that I'm barely scratching the surface here. It is no coincidence that black Americans have been put in positions which are known to increase crime. Education, wealth, housing, employment, opportunity, health- these are all things that black Americans have historically been deprived of, while being met with laws specifically designed to criminalize them (from higher penalties on crack vs powder cocaine, to marijuana criminalization, to laws against wearing your pants low (seriously)). White power has created this disparity in criminality and now it seeks to use this disparity to justify itself. 

Like I said at the top, I've no idea what you are looking for from me, but hopefully I did at least a little to answer your curiosity.  

What I draw from this is actually very simple:

We can't draw anything from these statistics. Some will conclude blacks are more criminal, others will conclude police are biased.

These numbers give almost no insight into circumstance hence I find them to be largely useless. It won't stop some from referring to them however for political gain. Some may slap them under their 'white supremacy in action' social sciences project for that delicious 'A' grade.



KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

There is a lot to make of it. I'm not really sure what you are looking for with that question, so I'll just run through a few brief(ish) thoughts.

A lot of people see this as a reflection of the direct racism and racial biases among the police, and it often seems to be the idea that gets the most press, I don't think it is the most important (though that isn't to say that it doesn't play any role). I think there are two things which need to be spoken about here:

-The first relates to the historical reaction to police violence. The reason why change has not occurred is because historically society has not asked for change to occur. The people have the power to change the police, so why haven't they? To give my personal summary, I think there are two reasons: Because "they deserved it" and because "it was necessary". That is to say, when these shootings occur, often we react by excusing it. We see this in the wake of almost every police shooting, with the media pointing out every mistake that the person made. Maybe they had a dimebag of weed in their pocket, or they were had previously been to prison for shoplifting. Second, there is the idea that this type of thing is a byproduct of a necessary action. We need police in this form and this is the price that must be paid for it. Both of these are essentially different ways of weighing the value of a life. Historically, the value society polices on the life of a black man has been low enough that we have been willing to pay that price. Fortunately, from my view, this disparity is shrinking. While we can excuse many deaths, the cost is higher and there are people who are no longer willing to accept the price and are thus demanding change. 

-The second point relates to the greater question of "why". When we speak about these statistics, it is almost inevitable that someone will posit that the reason black men are killed at such a higher rate is that they commit more crime and as such they interact more with police, so this type of statistic is inevitable. While this hypothesis is generally poorly supported by data (the correlation between crime rate and police shootings is surprisingly weak), it begs another question: why do black men commit crimes at higher rates? This is a big question, so understand that I'm barely scratching the surface here. It is no coincidence that black Americans have been put in positions which are known to increase crime. Education, wealth, housing, employment, opportunity, health- these are all things that black Americans have historically been deprived of, while being met with laws specifically designed to criminalize them (from higher penalties on crack vs powder cocaine, to marijuana criminalization, to laws against wearing your pants low (seriously)). White power has created this disparity in criminality and now it seeks to use this disparity to justify itself. 

Like I said at the top, I've no idea what you are looking for from me, but hopefully I did at least a little to answer your curiosity.  

What I draw from this is actually very simple:

We can't draw anything from these statistics. Some will conclude blacks are more criminal, others will conclude police are biased.

These numbers give almost no insight into circumstance hence I find them to be largely useless. It won't stop some from referring to them however for political gain. Some may slap them under their 'white supremacy in action' social sciences project for that delicious 'A' grade.

"Some will conclude blacks are more criminal, others will conclude police are biased."

Yes, and as I stated, all roads lead to Rome, so to speak. The fact that different points can be drawn from a single number doesn't make the number meaningless, when all points lead to the same conclusion.

I'd like to pose to you the same question you posed to me: What do you make of these police shooting statistics? You seem to be implying here that you wish to play some sort of middle ground, but you haven't really demonstrated that there is a solid footing for that ground.



KLAMarine said:

Never considered them the same but Reginald Oliver Denny certainly endured an overwhelming amount of harm for seemingly nothing. People can be upset all they want about 250+ years of oppression (no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense), ROD had nothing to do with that.

Now answer the question: if a lynching is white supremacy, was the Reginald Oliver Denny beating black supremacy?

>no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense

>if a lynching is white supremacy

No one said either of these things.  Why don't you go back and read what was actually said?

White people attacking black people by itself doesnt constitute white supremacy. White people being backed by a white government while attacking black people constitutes as white supremacy.  

Conversely black supremacy would require black people being backed by a black government. 

And back to this:

>no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense

What's nonsense is that no one claimed this.

We are talking about historical inequality on a racial basis.  

When the slave owners died who inherited their wealth?  The slave owner's children did not own any slaves, and yet they were the ones to inherit the plantation.  Their children were even further removed from owning any slaves, yet the only reason they have the money from the plantation is because their grandparents owned slaves. Is this starting to make any sense?  

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 04 June 2021

sundin13 said:

[2] Again, I find it hard to comprehend the idea that the literal lawmaking bodies in this country aren't considered by you to be something that "governs society overall", when that is literally their job, but I digress...

[3] First of all, I am not blaming white people for hate crimes (and I am certainly not blaming white people for "literally all of the worlds problems"). I am tracing the lineage of the ideas that inspire these crimes. I've laid this out several times in a way which, to me, seems pretty simple and intuitive and as of yet, you (or anyone else) hasn't really demonstrated that I have been out of line in my line of logic. I don't see what is so hard to understand that if someone acts on a white supremacist idea, we can point to the white supremacist origins of this idea as an important contributor regardless of the race of the individual who acted upon the idea. 

I have to say, of all people on this forum, I am surprised to see you raising such an issue with what I am saying, when at its core, it is virtually indistinguishable from feminist theory... I would very much like to have a conversation about what Feminism means to you at some point, but this likely isn't the place.

[4] We are clearly not speaking on the same terms here, so I'll outline the logic of the point I was making real quick:

-Cops take inappropriate action
-Individuals/groups call out this inappropriate action, bringing attention which reduces trust in police
-Victim of crime does not report to the police due to a lack of trust
-Individual who committed crime is not caught and is able to commit additional crime

I am not stating that an individual committing crime is a "criticism of the cops", I am saying that criticism of the cops like the rallies we saw last summer have led to a decrease in trust in police which should be seen as the fault of the police taking inappropriate action, not the fault of the people complaining about it. 

[3] I comprehend the idea of 'white supremacy' as it is construed in critical race theory, which is what you have explained. Where we disagree lies in what constitutes a "white supremacist idea". In your mind, all reactionary ideas come from white people and only once we accept this premise can progress toward racial justice be made. This contention is the heart and soul of critical race theory and it is where we're not about to agree. It's not that white racism isn't a real thing that's more commonplace and often institutionalized than frankly most white people might like to concede, it's the reductionism here that I find objectionable.

And it would indeed be interesting to have that conversation about feminism sometime because I think our conceptions thereof are very different.

[4] I don't disagree with the chronology of developments you list for the most part, but would point out a major wrinkle: crime reports have increased year-on-year, not decreased. In other words, it's obvious that there's more than just reduced trust in the police at hand here. I mean if violent crime was rising simply because people weren't reporting crimes anymore, then how is it that we've seen a sustained uptick in crime reports to the police over the last year? In reality, one additional item that might be added to your suggested chronology of developments might be this:

-Cops become demoralized and quit in record numbers, leaving fewer police officers available to respond to crime reports.

And it's for reasons like these that I think all forces involved have contributed to the current situation on different levels and in their own ways. No one should be immune from criticism here. Not the cops. Not Black Lives Matter.



Jaicee said:
sundin13 said:

[2] Again, I find it hard to comprehend the idea that the literal lawmaking bodies in this country aren't considered by you to be something that "governs society overall", when that is literally their job, but I digress...

[3] First of all, I am not blaming white people for hate crimes (and I am certainly not blaming white people for "literally all of the worlds problems"). I am tracing the lineage of the ideas that inspire these crimes. I've laid this out several times in a way which, to me, seems pretty simple and intuitive and as of yet, you (or anyone else) hasn't really demonstrated that I have been out of line in my line of logic. I don't see what is so hard to understand that if someone acts on a white supremacist idea, we can point to the white supremacist origins of this idea as an important contributor regardless of the race of the individual who acted upon the idea. 

I have to say, of all people on this forum, I am surprised to see you raising such an issue with what I am saying, when at its core, it is virtually indistinguishable from feminist theory... I would very much like to have a conversation about what Feminism means to you at some point, but this likely isn't the place.

[4] We are clearly not speaking on the same terms here, so I'll outline the logic of the point I was making real quick:

-Cops take inappropriate action
-Individuals/groups call out this inappropriate action, bringing attention which reduces trust in police
-Victim of crime does not report to the police due to a lack of trust
-Individual who committed crime is not caught and is able to commit additional crime

I am not stating that an individual committing crime is a "criticism of the cops", I am saying that criticism of the cops like the rallies we saw last summer have led to a decrease in trust in police which should be seen as the fault of the police taking inappropriate action, not the fault of the people complaining about it. 

[3] I comprehend the idea of 'white supremacy' as it is construed in critical race theory, which is what you have explained. Where we disagree lies in what constitutes a "white supremacist idea". In your mind, all reactionary ideas come from white people and only once we accept this premise can progress toward racial justice be made. This contention is the heart and soul of critical race theory and it is where we're not about to agree. It's not that white racism isn't a real thing that's more commonplace and often institutionalized than frankly most white people might like to concede, it's the reductionism here that I find objectionable.

And it would indeed be interesting to have that conversation about feminism sometime because I think our conceptions thereof are very different.

[4] I don't disagree with the chronology of developments you list for the most part, but would point out a major wrinkle: crime reports have increased year-on-year, not decreased. In other words, it's obvious that there's more than just reduced trust in the police at hand here. I mean if violent crime was rising simply because people weren't reporting crimes anymore, then how is it that we've seen a sustained uptick in crime reports to the police over the last year? In reality, one additional item that might be added to your suggested chronology of developments might be this:

-Cops become demoralized and quit in record numbers, leaving fewer police officers available to respond to crime reports.

And it's for reasons like these that I think all forces involved have contributed to the current situation on different levels and in their own ways. No one should be immune from criticism here. Not the cops. Not Black Lives Matter.

[3] I don't believe that all such ideas come from white people, but as the USA is a country which has historically been dominated by white people and white culture, it is most common for such ideas to have white origins. You seem to disagree with me on this point, but you didn't really provide an alternate explanation which fits the data, so, what is the alternative you are proposing here?

[4] Is it accurate to state that crime reports have increased year on year? According to the preliminary UCR for the first six months of 2020, rape reports decreased, robbery reports decreased, larceny decreased, burglaries decreased and overall violent crime decreased. However, homicides increased significantly. The divergence of these statistics could be explained by the idea that many smaller crimes are not being reported, but it is somewhat difficult to not report homicides. This could indicate that individuals are not being caught when they commit smaller scale crimes, which causes an uptick in larger scale crimes. 

I agree however that this is unlikely to explain everything, I only posit that it may be a significant contributing cause. As you stated, the rapid changes in police forces may very well be causing additional problems. As I stated to someone earlier in this thread (I don't believe it was you), I believe that police departments could handle adequately planned decreases in budget. Changes as a result of Covid and mass exodus of officers aren't really "adequately planned" so they could impair police function, causing issues. However, again, I believe blame is somewhat misplaced if you attempt to place it on BLM here. The police have grown accustomed to some degree of immunity that I don't believe they should have. Losing this immunity is something that should happen, however it very well may cause short term problems with police staffing for the people who don't wish to be held accountable. I mentioned earlier that I think that police pay should increase. One of the ways to attract better officers is by increasing pay and similarly increasing the standards of officers (however, an appetite must first be shown by police forces to increase their standards, otherwise you are just burning money).