Is Black Lives Matter a Joke?

[Kirran]

However, no matter how wealthy, white women were not treated very nicely. Better than local women I guess, but not as well as white men. So gender absolutely lent privilege, for all that I wouldn't generally discuss it in such terms.

I think this is an important point. People are often resistant to using the language of 'privilege', which I suppose is alright as long as they acknowledge the reality of what's under discussion. You highlight here a good example of the intersections of male privilege and white privilege, as I'd refer to it.

I should add that my "model" is really only for America, as that's the only society that I truly know. While I've lived in Europe, I was too young to truly grasp the politics of everything. America is what I know, and where I frequently see this argument being staged.

I once spent a couple layovers in Atlanta Airport - does that count as my having visited the USA?

 

[omega2xx]

Any time liberals and conservative are present, I would expect nothing less.

 

[omega2xx]

Were either of you (or anyone else who uses the slogans "all lives matter" or "blue lives matter") saying them - or something to the same effect - before Black Lives Matter?

Black live do not matter any more than any other life. Not to accept All Lives matter, is raciest. It divides and what America need is unity.

The need Rodney King as their leader.

 

[Kirran]

Black live do not matter any more than any other life. Not to accept All Lives matter, is raciest. It divides and what America need is unity.

The need Rodney King as their leader.

Society was ignoring the widespread racially-motivated killings of black people. Black Lives Matter is a response to the widespread feeling that they didn't matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any time liberals and conservative are present, I would expect nothing less.

What? Frustration at goalpost-moving by conservatives? Yeah, I've kinda come to expect that, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Black live do not matter any more than any other life. Not to accept All Lives matter, is raciest. It divides and what America need is unity.

No - it calls attention to existing divisions and demands that something be done about them.

The "All Lives Matter" slogan isn't about building respect for all lives; it's about silencing Black Lives Matter's expressions of concern. It's about responding with platitudes and apathy in the face of real problems.

I see people's reaction to the slogan as an interesting litmus test for their worldview. It's a glimpse into their views on how prevalent racism is: some people take it to mean "Black Lives Matter (but so far they haven't mattered in a number of ways, and that has to change)." Other people take it to mean "Black Lives Matter (but they've mattered all along, so what we really want is special treatment)."

The movement itself intends the first meaning. "All Lives Matter" is a response to the second meaning, so when you throw it around in response to Black Lives Matter, what you're really saying is that BLM's concerns aren't legitimate and racism isn't a problem.

 

[omega2xx]

Society was ignoring the widespread racially-motivated killings of black people. Black Lives Matter is a response to the widespread feeling that they didn't matter.

Then let them address blacks killing blacks, which is a bigger problems.

To reject All Lives Matter puts them in a raciest position. To portray the police as pigs and to shout fry them like bacon is despicable and no one should support that kind of anarchy.

 

[omega2xx]

What? Frustration at goalpost-moving by conservatives? Yeah, I've kinda come to expect that, too.

It is not frustration or moving the goal post, unless you are describing the left. Open discussion are healthy. That is one basic reason the liberal universities are doing a disservice to their students. They would live up to their own motto--acceptance of all views

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

New York, 2016 "Dead Cops" chant:

White people are "the devil" and only white people can be racist:

"Hands up, don't shoot" - the mantra after incidents in Ferguson - has been proven to be a lie. Yet the narrative continues because it serves their agenda.

This young man says what many here have been trying to get at (WARNING: Strong language)

Even former members of Black Lives Matter recognize that the group has major issues:

While there may be "good eggs" in with the group, their organization is rotten. Those who aren't violently racist don't excuse all the harm that BLM has done.

I notice that neither clip actually showed what you claimed and what I asked you to back up.

 

[Kirran]

Then let them address blacks killing blacks, which is a bigger problems.

To reject All Lives Matter puts them in a raciest position. To portray the police as pigs and to shout fry them like bacon is despicable and no one should support that kind of anarchy.

Whataboutery is not an acceptable response to people raising legitimate concerns.

This is a great explanation.

Also, I'm not sure you know what anarchy is, speaking as someone who supports the political ideals of anarchism, in particular anarcho-syndicalism and green anarchism.

It's very easy to condemn this kind of thing when you don't understand the context in which African-Americans relate to the police, and the degree to which police have been enemies of African-American people for generations.

 

[omega2xx]

No - it calls attention to existing divisions and demands that something be done about them.

The "All Lives Matter" slogan isn't about building respect for all lives; it's about silencing Black Lives Matter's expressions of concern. It's about responding with platitudes and apathy in the face of real problems.

I see people's reaction to the slogan as an interesting litmus test for their worldview. It's a glimpse into their views on how prevalent racism is: some people take it to mean "Black Lives Matter (but so far they haven't mattered in a number of ways, and that has to change)." Other people take it to mean "Black Lives Matter (but they've mattered all along, so what we really want is special treatment)."

The movement itself intends the first meaning. "All Lives Matter" is a response to the second meaning, so when you throw it around in response to Black Lives Matter, what you're really saying is that BLM's concerns aren't legitimate and racism isn't a problem.

That's bolony. If they reject ALM and destroy and loot private business and march yelling "fry them like bacon," They are no better than the KKK and the skin heads.

 

[Kirran]

That's bolony. If they reject ALM and destroy and loot private business and march yelling "fry them like bacon," They are no better than the KKK and the skin heads.

I notice you addressed none of the points in the post.

 

[omega2xx]

Whataboutery is not an acceptable response to people raising legitimate concerns.

It is not raising the concerns that is the problem, it is how they do it.

This

is a great explanation.

Not for everyone.

Also, I'm not sure you know what anarchy is, speaking as someone who supports the political ideals of anarchism, in particular anarcho-syndicalism and green anarchism.[/QUOTE]

I know what anarchy is and I am surprised any intelligent person would support it.

It's very easy to condemn this kind of thing when you don't understand the context in which African-Americans relate to the police, and the degree to which police have been enemies of African-American people for generations.

I understand the context and I understand their brush is way o wide. Until they agree all live matter and protest peacefully, like MLK did, that are just a bunch of racial anarchist.

 

[Kirran]

I know what anarchy is and I am surprised any intelligent person would support it.

Tell me then. What is it, politically speaking?

I understand the context and I understand their brush is way o wide. Until they agree all live matter and protest peacefully, like MLK did, that are just a bunch of racial anarchist.

MLK supported riots. He said riots were a natural expression of people's frustration at their oppression. They don't emerge in a vacuum.

 

[omega2xx]

I notice you addressed none of the points in the post.

No need to. My comments are not about their reasons, it is about their methods. MLK was successful without anarchy. The need to take a lesson from probably their most respected leader. His methods changed more minds than the BLM group ever will. Americans know when something is unjust and they will respond positively when it is brought to the attention.

 

[Kirran]

No need to. My comments are not about their reasons, it is about their methods. MLK was successful without anarchy. The need to take a lesson from probably their most respected leader. His methods changed more minds than the BLM group ever will. Americans know when something is unjust and they will respond positively when it is brought to the attention.

MLK wasn't an anarchist, he was a socialist.

Really, you think that? Then how do you explain almost all of American history? Every single civil rights development in the United States has been a struggle, has taken people fighting for it, has brought on widespread public condemnation before becoming accepted.

 

[omega2xx]

Tell me then. What is it, politically speaking?

It is basically civil disorder.

MLK supported riots. He said riots were a natural expression of people's frustration at their oppression. They don't emerge in a vacuum.

Saying "a riot is the language of the unheard.” does not meant he supported riots.

 

[Kirran]

It is basically civil disorder.

While that's how the term 'anarchy' is often used, that is not what anarchism is about at all. The system which is promoted by anarchism is actually a profoundly ordered society. It is a society in which there is no central state, but only total democracy operating at the local level, in governance, in the economy, in every sphere of life. All governing power then flows from the bottom-up, being totally democratic at every level.

Saying "a riot is the language of the unheard.” does not meant he supported riots.

True enough. But he sympathised with them anyway.

"But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?...It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity."

 

[omega2xx]

MLK wasn't an anarchist, he was a socialist.

I didn't say he was.

Really, you think that? Then how do you explain almost all of American history? Every single civil rights development in the United States has been a struggle, has taken people fighting for it, has brought on widespread public condemnation before becoming accepted.

The way change is brought about does not make it right. IMO peaceful protests get more sympathy than those that break the law.

 

[Kirran]

The way change is brought about does not make it right. IMO peaceful protests get more sympathy than those that break the law.

If a law is bad, change it. And it's all very well to think that nice, quiet, unprovocative protests would bring about change, but in reality pulling stunts like this is often he only way marginalised groups can get any attention. So what choice do we have?