Hillary Clinton removes BLM activist from speech after asking question

[hakujinbakasama]

I guess here's a video that explains what the fuck they're talking about, but it doesn't include the Hillary comment even in part. Still looking for more than a soundbite.

I've never seen a better video which highlights WHY statistics can not be reliably used to define nor predict social issues.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd just like to question you a little bit on that.

I mean, given the current political climate where many black leaders are giving their support to Hillary, and how she seems to be sitting on the majority of the black vote in the south, this woman did call to attention how the mass incarceration of minorities arguably began with the Clinton administration as part of a bill Hillary personally lobbied heavily for.

She moved that conversation to the national stage, at least briefly. Isn't that directly related to the original point of the Black Lives Matter movement?

Well that's simple, because the intention of a Law is always weighed more heavily than the application or effect of a Law. Haven't you learned that by now?

[Xires]

A BLM activist questioned Hillary Clinton about her calling blacks "Super Predators" in the 90s and questioned her about the mass black incarceration.

I think Hillary was in the wrong for not explaining herself and ignoring the question as a whole.

What did you want her to say? STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

If Bernie gets the black vote I would be pleased.

Me too because after Hillary beats him by sheer amount of delegates and Hillary goes up for election on the D ticket- it means the Dems will lose the white house.

[nextormento]

I think her quote clearly refers to a narrow sub-section -gangs-.
There's room to discuss how that intersects with racial demographics, and even explore causation links that put those demographics as more likely to belong to the narrow sub-section.
Interpreting her words as referring to an entire demographic rings hollow to me. Furthermore, trying to pass that rhetoric suggests that this specific BLM supporter sees gangs as an inherent trait of her demographic.

Pretending that the target of your activist denunciation supports your narrative fabrication. It's self-sustaining: pointing out the fallacy can be construed as a means to silence. An old time favorite of radicalism. The point is not to solve issues but to keep the struggle alive.
This strategy is effective. Some argue necessary. Some argue unavoidable, and implicitly support it through apathy.

I'm sympathetic to their cause. But, as is always the case, they run into perception issues through the action of the most ardent defenders.
They won't get shit done until they deconstruct their own narrative.