#BLACKLIVESMATTER

[dead_soft]

It's not black people who need to be told their lives matter - it's white people. That should be the whole point, to strive for equality by emphasising a widespread understanding of the cause.

Just singing that tune to blacks is the very definition of "preaching to the choir". And it's interesting - but not surprising - that you immediately throw the racist card at me when on the back foot. Again, therein lies the problem.

It's not condescending; it's common sense. Anger gets things like this nowhere. I've already said the name goes beyond semantics, as it goes to the very core of what they're doing, and what they are doing isn't going to achieve anything except make blacks happy for a year or whatever.

If they were smart, they'd take the spring in support they have, and mould it into something long term - and that means not fighting white people in a populist movement; rather, they need to be working with them.

It's both. many white people are okay understanding the cause as it is.

I didn't throw the racist card I said it doesn't seem like it's much of a big deal to you, as you are concentrating on a name rather than a movement which is actually doing pretty well at highlighting injustice and lack of equality. It doesn't go down to the very core of what they are doing in the way you suggest. This isn't about overthrowing and pushing ahead of white people

It's not fighting white people, it's fighting a society and structure that favours white people over them.

 

[dead_soft]

In what universe is that the case?

I'm discussing this with someone who thinks a black movement can achieve social parity by not getting white people to agree with their aims - at this point it's a debate version of kicking a puppy by talking about this with someone of that mindset.

That's not what I said at any point. I said it's not up for black people to change their opinions or their style of campaigning just because white people keep complaining.

 

[terry nodder]

In what universe is that the case?

I'm discussing this with someone who thinks a black movement can achieve social parity by not getting white people to agree with their aims - at this point it's a debate version of kicking a puppy by talking about this with someone of that mindset.

Well actually I've changed my mind now.

You're winning.

CHeers, Terry.

 

[Tubey]

It's both. many white people are okay understanding the cause as it is.

I didn't throw the racist card I said it doesn't seem like it's much of a big deal to you, as you are concentrating on a name rather than a movement which is actually doing pretty well at highlighting injustice and lack of equality. It doesn't go down to the very core of what they are doing in the way you suggest. This isn't about overthrowing and pushing ahead of white people

It's not fighting white people, it's fighting a society and structure that favours white people over them.

Indeed. So how do they go about fixing that society and structure so everyone has equal access mate? By not opening a discourse with white people so that the debate switches to how intrinsically unfair society is and so that everyone understands and sympathises with the need to change it?

Because that's the way forward to me you see. So if anything, I'm far more for equal rights than this movement, as I'm accepting the reason such a movement exists, but looking beyond the core anger for actual solutions.

And the name, whether people like it or not, is part of the problem - it is militant by definition, and a cause like this can't be militant, it just can't, because the aim is negotiation over concrete facts about inequality, not screaming and blaming.

 

[dholliday]

That's a different point to mine but it's okay for people to say that. It's okay for them to be wrong, and for that not to be the total judgement on a movement

You said in reply to Tubey's "get everyone to accept BLM" that Tubey meant "everyone" = white people. This is inflammatory, divisive and plain wrong. When this is pointed out to you, you claim you were actually making a different point.

What point are you making then?

Rights was poorly chosen. But there is less availability of upward social mobility, higher chance of being incarcerated, higher chance of getting longer prison sentences, black people get worse schooling, more likely to live in areas with drug problems. They have less access to opportunity.

Yes, "rights" was indeed poorly chosen. The rest is broadly true and there are a number of independent reasons for why this is, one of them is institutionalised racism, and others are more self-inflicted within the community.

There is a lot of suggestion of needing to get white people to support them or agree with them and that they should be acting within their group to enable this. The group isn't to make white people feel better.

The group isn't to make white people feel better? What a ridiculous thing to even point out.

The group exists for one reason: to highlight the genuine problem of institutionalised violence against black people. How the group is doing it is where a lot of the criticism comes in.

 

[dead_soft]

Indeed. So how do they go about fixing that society and structure so everyone has equal access mate? By not opening a discourse with white people so that the debate switches to how intrinsically unfair society is and so that everyone understands and sympathises with the need to change it?

Because that's the way forward to me you see. So if anything, I'm far more for equal rights than this movement, as I'm accepting the reason such a movement exists, but looking beyond the core anger for actual solutions.

And the name, whether people like it or not, is part of the problem - it is militant by definition, and a cause like this can't be militant, it just can't, because the aim is negotiation over concrete facts about inequality, not screaming and blaming.

This isn't about sitting down and asking for concessions. This isn't asking for Jim Crow Laws to be repealed. This should be an angry movement. It should be an incredibly angry movement because black people are still getting killed by cops. What negotiation do you think they can get outside of anger and bringing attention to it? Police close ranks around stuff like this and we end up with nonsense like 'Blue Lives Matter'. I'm really okay with this being an angry movement because it should be. Even if that anger just gives people the belief they have some level of control and ability to stand up

 

[Tubey]

That's not what I said at any point. I said it's not up for black people to change their opinions or their style of campaigning just because white people keep complaining.

It really is though. You said this:

There is a lot of suggestion of needing to get white people to support them or agree with them and that they should be acting within their group to enable this.

If their goal is to win social equality, they have to get whites on side en masse, because to change the way things are, you need everyone in society recognising the superiority of the argument to the point where it simply makes sense to endorse it. Look at shifting attitudes towards homosexuality and race since the 1970s and you will see it has been achieved by an overwhelmingly positive discourse that has shifted societal views.

Again, negotiation wins through with this stuff, not war.

 

[Tubey]

This isn't about sitting down and asking for concessions. This isn't asking for Jim Crow Laws to be repealed. This should be an angry movement. It should be an incredibly angry movement because black people are still getting killed by cops.

Then you alienate people by associating the police with white people overall, the people who are in positions to make changes for the better are alienated alongside the population as a whole, and nothing changes beyond making angry black people feel happy about themselves for a year or so until it fizzles out Blue Union style with no momentum left.

If you and any other social rights campaigners are happy with that, then you aren't thinking geopolitically and have no long term ambition.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

Tubey hates Lukaku and now this... it's all making sense now.

 

[dead_soft]

You said in reply to Tubey's "get everyone to accept BLM" that Tubey meant "everyone" = white people. This is inflammatory, divisive and plain wrong. When this is pointed out to you, you claim you were actually making a different point.

What point are you making then?

I as making the point that people seem hung up on white people being keen on this movement or not, it doesn't matter.

Yes, "rights" was indeed poorly chosen. The rest is broadly true and there are a number of independent reasons for why this is, one of them is institutionalised racism, and others are more self-inflicted within the community.




The group isn't to make white people feel better? What a ridiculous thing to even point out.

The group exists for one reason: to highlight the genuine problem of institutionalised violence against black people. How the group is doing it is where a lot of the criticism comes in.

There seems an awful lot of white people annoyed that this movement is standing against them and not going about it in the way they'd like.

 

[terry nodder]

Dholliday making even less sense than usual, Tubey still ahead on points but only just.

CHeers,

 

[dholliday]

I as making the point that people seem hung up on white people being keen on this movement or not, it doesn't matter.

There seems an awful lot of white people annoyed that this movement is standing against them and not going about it in the way they'd like.

You seem quite hung up on what white people think about this movement. I thought they didn't matter?

 

[dholliday]

Dholliday making even less sense than usual

*drinks more wine*

 

[Groucho]

It isn't knowledge, it's humility we lack.

As a human race.

 

[terry nodder]

It isn't knowledge, it's humility we lack.

As a human race.

that and fins