Fine, I'll bite.
Long-winded explanations of mathematical uncertainties of a group's dynamics are complicated enough with considering all possible cases.
That's the whole point though. You don't have to consider all possible answers because the 'true' answer is inherently unknowable. That's why you have to use the known actions and extrapolate from that. What you're doing by determining only the percentage of people directly involved in the 'bad' actions is basically ignoring the silent majority and anyone in them who do support those actions. I'm not so much putting words in your mouth as i'm explaining the consequence of your thought process.
I'm very much aware of this issue, and you're absolutely correct, but is there actually evidence that there isn't effort at doing good and denouncing bad?
Well people are still doing the 'bad' things, and the majority are still publicly supporting the movement. If they simply weren't being heard I'd expect to see splinter groups by now. Ignoring that though, do you really think the media (either pro- or anti- BLM) would ignore the chance to expose major internal strife either to reinforce BLM's moral superiority or crush it as a barely-functional collection of barely-related movements. Either they don't exist, or they're too scared to speak out publicly.
It's very possible that positive efforts are being buried beneath the mountain of attention being diverted toward these idiots. I'm not saying that this is the case, but that this is another case of uncertainty.
And if that was the case why would the 'good' side still call themselves a part of BLM? If, as you say, they were getting their efforts ignored by association with the extremists would they not be better returning to the multitude of other civil and black rights groups that have existed?
One person. One awful person who happens to hold a position of leadership. Anecdotes are generally frowned upon if you want to perform a proper analysis.
Anecdotes are fine if they're treated as just that. What I posted was a 'leader', someone chosen as a voice-piece of the movement, spreading this bile. It is both intended to show the opinion of a greater number than just the speaker and so that's how I used it. It's not like it was my only point anyway, more of an additional thing to note.
Refer to my point above about good being drowned out. Once again, this is an issue of uncertainty.
Refer to my point on willful association and lack of any media coverage (not even indie or microbloggers have covered dissent).
I'm not sure most people could name any positive figure of any group that has been associated with bad behavior.
Off the top of my head : Every popular pope, post-Scientology celebs, Rommel,
you realize I covered this point in my original comment, right?
You covered it sure, but you didn't expand upon what it actually meant. You only described allowing or condoning in the context of people actually witnessing the incident rather than all the people who remain silent after they learn of it.
My point here is that there is mathematical uncertainty regarding subsets.
Which you 'solve' either by assuming all unknowns are 'good' or by requiring information that literally can never exist because the silent majority is silent.
WORDS IN CAPS LOCK
You seem upset. Do you need an internet hug?
I'll state this ONE MORE TIME, in case somehow you or anyone esle failed to read it. I AM NOT DEFENDING BLM.
I'll state ONE MORE TIME, in case you or anyone else failed to understand. I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU BUT YOUR METHODOLOGY.
If you'd like to state where I suggested you were defending BLM I'd be interested to know. If not, to quote you, "Please avoid putting words in my mouth".
What I'm doing is making it explicitly clear that the criticisms put forward cannot be known to be accurate for the entire movement. I'm not stating that they ARE or ARE NOT accurate, but that WE CANNOT KNOW.
What I'm doing is making it explicitly clear that the criticisms put forwards are the public face these supporters choose to stand behind and support. I'm not stating that they DO or DO NOT agree with them, but that THEY DO SUPPORT THEM.
Look, I'll TL:DR this because I can see where we're disagreeing and you're really not putting your argument across well here. You're assuming the silent majority can be quantified and all those not actively supporting the 'bad' methods are good, whereas I'm doing the reverse and grouping the silent majority in with the vocal face of the movement and using their support of that public face without further comment or action as a form of support.