Would you expect white people who's children were killed by police to stand at the front of a 'black lives matter' event, or would you think they might not be there at all because the movement, by name and focus, ignores their 100% paralleling issues with police and makes them feel unwelcome?
I also think 'black lives matter' is losing out on a lot of support because they made it so racial, even if the target of MOST abuse is minorities. That is not the same as saying they can't call themselves that, or demeaning them for being part of the movement, or saying the movement is un-necessary, just that it's name is, to many, divisive, and that hurts them and their movement, and a more inclusive name for the movement would have been smarter, IMO.

I will say all my arguments apply equally to Masculisim/The men's rights movement, and while I might support many of their goals and might even work towards those goals, I would not call myself a part of that movement, as it by name ignores women's issues and focuses only on men's. Certainly those men's issues need attention, but that doesn't mean I should be so single mindedly focused on one part of equality that I put blinders on to better ignore other parts that also need work.

If the parenting issue had been solved by 'egalitarianists' the first time, there would likely have been joint custody, and fairly equal (1/2 with mom-1/2 with dad) full custody decrees LONG ago rather than have us continue to ride the pendulum, hitting 'fair' for an instant on each swing, then swinging back away from it.

Equality matters.
I think you don't ever get there by fighting for one side or the other. You get there by fighting for equality where ever that goal has yet to be reached.

You matter.
THAT would be the best, most inclusive name for a movement I've ever heard.

@Babymech , that is one brilliant analogy.

Black lives matter.

NO NO NO, all lives matter!

What? Who was saying that all lives don't matter??!!!!

I'm going to use that in the future,

Because that is it. Right there.

To restate it in a way that @newtboy might approve:

Women's lives matter.

Men's lives matter.

Feminist = women's lives matter.

Men's Right Movement = men's lives matter.

The Constitution = all lives matter. (In a perfect world.)

PS There are separatist, angry nutters in the Men's Rights Movement. Doesn't mean that their goal is wrong in concept. An example of that is parental rights. What a pendulum swing that topic has gone through over the decades. First men own the children and women have no rights. Then it was women were blindly seen as the "best" to take care of the kids and men had no rights. And after legal pushback, there are plenty of joint custody agreements out there.

Women's lives matter. Yep.

i wasn't entirely sure where this took place since it was from CBC manitoba but it was OPP that arrested her.

to your next point, this doesn't show anything extreme but the linked article makes me wonder why she had to go to the hospital and what she died of. it wouldn't be crazy if she was beaten in custody. there is severe racism for first nation in the police force canada wide. but obviously we don't know. there are a lot of pieces missing to this story.

i can't say for sure but it sounds like the "something else" that required her to go to the hospital was being in police custody, which would explain why she ran.

being first nations in manitoba is a very bad thing to be. i mean, being first nations in canada isn't great either, but manitoba is particularly bad.

Assange says he'll accept the outcome of tomorrow's ruling. So either he'll be taken into custody by the British police at noon tomorrow or... what? I don't see them returning his passport, no matter what the UN says.

Damn women trying to hog all the equality to themselves.

A lot of this seems like semantics but....

Many of the issues that men face are due to the same institionalised gender inequality that feminism seeks to rectify. The suicide rates, the custody bias etc is a product of 1000s of years of patriarchy. That strong silent stoic cliche of masculinity is a fantasy (with real damage) dreamed up by the same society that put women's place in the kitchen. Its all the same poison.

Feminism isn't oppositional to men's rights. I consider myself a feminist not just because I want women to be paid the same as me, but because I think its a movement that seeks to create a society that is better for men too. I'd call myself a masculist but I'm afraid that term has probably been tainted too much by those who see it as a sort of counter-movement to feminism.

So yeah. A lot of what she says is quite true but my experience of feminism has not been this bizzaro version where it is all about women getting what women want. Most of my friends are feminist, all of my close family are...none of them are like that. I guess a lot of it comes down to the fact that ideas that make you angry spread more, and that's why there is this twisted perception of feminism when I think the reality of the movement is quite different.

MY TWO CENTS
BY SOME GUY.

OK, that's a large change from your original post where you limit the death sentence to the mentally ill.

Wow. I'm certainly glad people like you don't make societies rules then. Death sentence for a simple threat?!? Sweet zombie Jesus! That's EVERYONE at some point.
What if you threaten to stab someone who's trying to stab you? You threatened, so you die?
What if I claim you threatened me to get the state to kill you? You can't prove you didn't, so you die?
What if you just hit them with a stick? You still get executed, right?
What if you turn a corner and accidentally stab someone? You still get executed for being unsafe, right?
What if you just push someone? You still get executed because that's also violence, right?
Or is it ONLY if you use a knife? Your position is so odd and illogical to me that that's a reasonable question to ask. Exactly where is your line where violence is met with death? At what age do you implement it?
I don't think you thought through the full implications of your 'idea'.

People in general are unpredictable. Period. Those that are assumed to not be mentally ill, yet are still prone to violence are MORE dangerous and unpredictable than those we know to be wary of, not less.

I don't think you've actually ever deigned to speak with a custodian, considering your assumptions about them. I would counter that most take great pride in their work, work that's a necessity, that pays well, and does not require extensive training or school, only a willingness to work hard and an ability to be conscientious about your work.
Your idea, to ask if they would like a cushier job with the same pay, is patently ridiculous and applies to ANY job....'Would you like to work much less in a far cleaner environment with less stress for the same money?'...DUH...who's not going to say "yes" to that deal? If you asked them would they quit their job for another job they might actually GET at it's pay rate, I would suggest you'll likely find 99% would say "no fucking way, are you stupid?!? I would need to work 3 fast food jobs to equal one custodial job". That goes for those with and without degrees, BTW. A diploma is no guarantee of a job in your field, and a job in your field is no guarantee of happiness.

Do you not see that, while you likely do greatly appreciate their work, you are denigrating them and the job they do? It's like you think only 'untouchables' should do that kind of work, and they're all really sub-humans so that's OK, but a real person would/should never stoop to 'cleaning' after others.
Just wow.

EDIT: In a way, your mindset is the reason why custodial work pays so well, so I guess I should really thank you.

Using that 'logic', does it not make MORE sense then to start by killing all non-mentally ill violent people, because they pose the same threat to others and the same obstacles to success in life (or even more, since medical records are private but criminal records are not) but have NO chance of being 'cured' since they aren't 'sick', while the mentally ill might just need the right dose of medication to be cured?

How might you possibly know the potential rewards of a 'cured' psychotic? Once cured, they have the same opportunities as anyone else with the same skill sets.

And to address something that I tried to ignore from your earlier post, what's your problem with the custodial field? It's a great job with fairly good pay for good honest work, often on a flexible schedule with good benefits. The best job I ever had was as a janitor at a doctors office, I made around $25-$30 an hour (which, where I live, is over double the average pay rate) for a part time job I could do any time between 9pm and 6am, but usually took only 2 hours (4 when I took over a second office). Not only that, it's a necessary position in any business with over 5 people. I don't agree at all with your insinuation that the lives of people with that job are "mediocre" and they are really better off dead, and instead I just find it insulting in the extreme.

The driver of the Hyundai, identified as 22-year-old Jasmine Lacey of San Bernardino, was taken to a hospital for “a non injury-related reason” before CHP officers arrived on scene, the CHP said.

“(Lacey) was later contacted and identified at St. Jude Medical Center facility and, after investigation of the traffic collision, was arrested for DUI,” a CHP officer said.

But Lacey was released from custody early Saturday due to insufficient evidence to support a criminal complaint, according to Los Angeles County booking records.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20150905/bizarre-crash-caught-on-camera-in-rowland-heights-driver-suspected-of-dui

Your video, "Black Lives Matter" Activist Dead In Police Custody, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The only thing I'll say is: Hey, stupid people. Don't even feign a strike in a police officer's direction. You're very likely going to get your shit fucked up because the officer has all the power and is probably not able to wield that power as anything more than a lowly animal.

Such officers so incapable of restraining their superiority/god complex should not be in a position of total physical control over suspected criminals who, by virtue of the fact that they've been taken into custody, may be likely to be disobedient little shits.

While I think that's a good point, aren't child custody issues kinda orthogonal to the marriage question?

As you say, most jurisdictions don't have a law banning polygamous relationships, and there's no reason a child can't arise out of such a relationship. We already deal with issues of child custody where there are multiple partners involved.

I would agree polygamous relationships should be legal (technically they already are in most states) but I would argue that we should keep marriage between just two people. Divorce proceedings/child custody battles/tax filing are already messy enough without adding yet another dimension to the mix. For me it's more a matter of practicality and ease of legal proceedings than any sort of moral objection.

http://www.twcc.com/video.518881863

in custody

Does american police training consist of 3 months of reading judge dredd comics? It's been a while since i've seen police academy, so i've forgotten what their training is really like.

You need to stop people in your custody from trying to hurt you or others, but you have a duty of care to the person you have restrained whether you like that person or not. This isn't judge dredd, and the first person to apprehend someone doesn't get to decide who deserves what punishment.