Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Thread About [Black Lives Matter]

The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
edited August 2015 in Debate and/or Discourse
blm.jpg


What is Black Lives Matter (which henceforth will be abbreviated as 'BLM' in this OP)?

BLM is an explicitly non-partisan organization that encourages & schedules protests to build public awareness and attempt to apply pressure regarding police & public violence inflicted against black persons in the United States (and is expanding to cover international issues). The org primarily operates via public gatherings & social media; it was formed by Opal Tometi and Alicia Garza following a year of high profile slayings of black persons by police officers & consequential community backlash (both in terms of peaceful protest & vigils as well as violent rioting, arson & looting).


What are the goals & interests of BLM?

The current mission statement of BLM:
Black Lives Matters is an affirmation and embrace of the resistance & resilience of Black people.

And, to quote from their response to the DNC's pledge of support to their cause:
We demand freedom for Black bodies, justice for Black lives, safety for Black communities, and rights for Black people. We demand action, not words, from those who purport to stand with us.

I don't want to put words in their mouths, but I think it's reasonable to say that they wish for a very swift end to the brutal violence & distorted lens through which the legal system sees & judges black people. This seems like a more than fine goal to me.


BLM also provides a concrete platform that they wish to see implemented, which they call Campaign Zero. Full credit to @AngelHedgie for giving that topic it's own thread.


OP's opinions on BLM?

I am very torn on the organization right now. Just as one example: this is their response to the DNC expressing support & solidarity with them. On one hand, they're absolutely right: the Democratic party has been an absolute blight on the lives of black people in the south. They were the longest-standing allies of the KKK, for example. Talk is also cheap in politics, and everyone has heard the same tiresome promises over and over again about how we'll eventually get around to creating some sort of equal laying field for the PoC. When? Well we're not so sure about that.

On the other hand, rejecting an offer of solidarity from an entity as large as the DNC strikes me as having the wrong attitude, and while I can appreciate that patience is pretty spent by now, I'm afraid that more is always required in politics. I also disagree that True Change (TM) is strictly the domain of people marching in the street.


I dislike the cavalier stance that BLM has taken in the past when violence overruns a protest (re-publishing images of beaten & bloodied police officers as war trophies, for example), as I feel that this is totally counter-productive to their goals. At the same time, I honestly don't know what to say to a community of people that have been pushed far, far beyond any reasonable level of tolerance, who have repeatedly been told to just politely sit and wait for change to come drifting down from Heaven.


I agree that applying pressure mostly on the left is a good strategy, but I also feel that the implementation of that strategy so far (taking over speeches, mobbing camera crews, yelling website slogans) is, again, counter-productive. The Id that I think one might want to aim for is what Malcolm X captured in that famous exchange:
“Do you consider yourself ‘militant’?”

“No, I consider myself Malcolm.”


That aside, they're a good organization full of good people with a blunt message that hasn't been echoed nearly enough in a culture that does not at all currently appear to appreciate that Black Lives Matter every bit as much as anything else matters.


Things I hope the thread can be used to discuss:

Civil rights, both historical & contemporary; community organization; protest strategies; data about how ridiculously racist the systems in the U.S. are; arguments & data regarding means to make the system less racist;


Things I hope that the thread can perhaps avoid:

'White lives matter' rhetoric; demonizing or championing protests that devolve into riots; partisan rhetorical shots about which party is most racist (BLM seems to feel that this is a distraction, and that the systemic racism transcends the party system. I agree with that assessment).

With Love and Courage
The Ender on
TL DRCalica
«13456789

Posts

  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    I think BLM has the potential to be a Tea Party of the left, in an organizational/disruptional/electoral sense. Hopefully they can be a force for positive change unlike the Tea Party.

    Fuck Firearm Fetishism
    86 45
    AtomikaShadowhope
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    I think the Obama Administration has done more than any other in the past to take these issues to point, some before the BLM movement even really coalesced.

    The AG's office and Dept. of Justice continuing to pressure local and state governments into greater accountability, transparency, and standards of practice is probably the most helpful thing that the federal government can continue to do.


    This is is so strongly intertwined with the culture of police corruption and abuse that it's hard to say they're even really separate issues.

    ShadowhopeHacksawEdith UpwardsNSDFRand
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I worry about a movement like this because it seems to be headless. Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube and while the other groups would no doubt condemn an action like that, everyone speaks equally since it's just a hashtag. Movement as identity instead of a leader as identity seems like a recipe for failure to me.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
    PriestmcdermottSolomaxwell6CaptainNemoNSDFRand
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    As a very liberal, very white person, I support this movement wholeheartedly. The problem isn't whether or not I support them. The problem is short of donating money I don't really have right now, I'm not sure how I can support them. A lot of minority groups (both ethnicity-oriented and gender/sexual identity-oriented) are (rightly) very distrustful of allies, and I don't know if my place is to show up at rallies, to argue with people on social media, or what.

    One thing I know is not my place is to tell BLM how they should be demonstrating.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    Jeep-EepAlanF5
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    I think BLM has the potential to be a Tea Party of the left, in an organizational/disruptional/electoral sense. Hopefully they can be a force for positive change unlike the Tea Party.

    If they won't rally voters for a party ,which you know is how you enact change then they're just as worthless as Occupy.

    I wonder sometimes if most people understand that the civil rights movement was an uncanny political player and PR machine not just protesters.

    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube...

    Okay, so this is perhaps not the best thing to be doing: cooking-up the most extreme hypothetical to negatively paint with the What If brush. Is there precedent for BLM members murdering police officers and making al Qaeda esque videos of the act? No. Not even remotely close.

    So maybe let's stick to hypotheticals, if we use them, that aren't bent to the furthest possible extreme.

    With Love and Courage
    KaputaCalicaKristmas Kthulhu
  • PriestPriest Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube...

    Okay, so this is perhaps not the best thing to be doing: cooking-up the most extreme hypothetical to negatively paint with the What If brush. Is there precedent for BLM members murdering police officers and making al Qaeda esque videos of the act? No. Not even remotely close.

    So maybe let's stick to hypotheticals, if we use them, that aren't bent to the furthest possible extreme.

    While not nearly as bad, there's that thing they did at the Medicaid / Social Security event in Seattle a couple of weeks ago, at which Bernie Sanders was to speak.

    That... wasn't great PR, for BLM. Made them look like a bunch of crazies. So while @spacekungfuman cites an extreme example, I feel that he is on the mark, without a defined leadership structure, I absolutely agree that it will turn into OWS.

    AtomikaspacekungfumanNSDFRandAntinumeric
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    I worry about a movement like this because it seems to be headless. Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube and while the other groups would no doubt condemn an action like that, everyone speaks equally since it's just a hashtag. Movement as identity instead of a leader as identity seems like a recipe for failure to me.

    Leaderless movements are the new normal. If BLM or OWS had a leader you would be making the conversation about an individual instead of the issues at hand. If someone acting badly using the same hashtag as those fighting for social justice is enough to turn you off social justice, then you were never going to support social justice to begin with.

    ArchdescEdith Upwards
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    As a very liberal, very white person, I support this movement wholeheartedly. The problem isn't whether or not I support them. The problem is short of donating money I don't really have right now, I'm not sure how I can support them. A lot of minority groups (both ethnicity-oriented and gender/sexual identity-oriented) are (rightly) very distrustful of allies, and I don't know if my place is to show up at rallies, to argue with people on social media, or what.

    One thing I know is not my place is to tell BLM how they should be demonstrating.

    This is a productive conversation to be having; how to be a good ally. If I had to hazard a guess, our step one ought to always be Shut up and listen. PoC/queer/other minority groups have a unique perspective and are in the best position to state their own needs. A well-intentioned reframing of the issues in more comfortable classist terms, for example, is a good way to be a Bad Ally *cough*Bernie*cough*.

    Read up on intersectionality, ableism, tone policing, derailing, white feminism, cultural appropriation, and what it means to check your privilege.

    AtomikaAngelHedgieArchHarry DresdenRhesus PositiveEdith Upwards
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Leftist movements in America are largely leaderless, even historically. Just look at how many different organizations were formed during the civil rights movement; that's not what centralized leadership looks like.

    Another good example is gay rights. Trying to pick one or two people who were the face and brains of that movement doesn't work.

    Occupy Wall Street was limited by the scope of their actions, not by the nature of the movement.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    The EnderArchEdith Upwards
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    I worry about a movement like this because it seems to be headless. Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube and while the other groups would no doubt condemn an action like that, everyone speaks equally since it's just a hashtag. Movement as identity instead of a leader as identity seems like a recipe for failure to me.
    They've already been effective in some contexts. Their disruption of Bernie Sanders' speeches, for instance, pressured him into releasing a platform on racial justice, which went farther than any policies espoused by his rivals thus far. The disruption itself was controversial, both for Sanders supporters and other BLM members - Sanders already had a better record on race than his rivals, so the logic of singling him out instead of Hillary, Bush, or, most of all, Trump initially seemed questionable to me. But his rhetoric is largely focused on economic/class issues and had generally avoided directly addressing race in his campaign. Sanders responded by releasing a better platform on racial justice than any other mainstream candidate - the activists' disruption had a clear and positive effect. Hell, trying to disrupt a Trump speech would most likely have just gotten them physically forced out before they ever reached the podium, and its not like Trump's base would be remotely receptive to their message.

    And I'm not convinced that a relatively non-hierarchical movement/organization is always less effective or powerful than a more hierarchical one. I think it depends on the context.

    Kaputa on
    shrykeqwer12descEdith Upwards
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Also, the conversation they had with Hillary backstage (she has secret service there is no way they could disrupt her the same as Bernie) was really good stuff, and I am glad it was filmed.

    They are playing a role in our politics right now, despite being ideal-driven instead of leader-driven.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    AtomikaFencingsaxHarry DresdenshrykeHacksawqwer12Andy JoeEdith Upwards
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Priest wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube...

    Okay, so this is perhaps not the best thing to be doing: cooking-up the most extreme hypothetical to negatively paint with the What If brush. Is there precedent for BLM members murdering police officers and making al Qaeda esque videos of the act? No. Not even remotely close.

    So maybe let's stick to hypotheticals, if we use them, that aren't bent to the furthest possible extreme.

    While not nearly as bad, there's that thing they did at the Medicaid / Social Security event in Seattle a couple of weeks ago, at which Bernie Sanders was to speak.

    That... wasn't great PR, for BLM. Made them look like a bunch of crazies. So while @spacekungfuman cites an extreme example, I feel that he is on the mark, without a defined leadership structure, I absolutely agree that it will turn into OWS.

    I think there are trade-offs between movements without figureheads vs movements with them.


    To keep this tangential: MLK was both a boon to and an impediment to civil rights, for example. While his command of language & organizational skills were excellent, his faults as a human (and arguably things that weren't even really faults, like the fact that he really digged girls) were used to blackmail him into submissive posture on some issues (he knew that anything used to smear him would also rub off on the movement as a whole).

    Malcolm X provides an even clearer example of some of the trouble one can run into with a figurehead.


    Distributed leadership, with no clear human icon, lacks the single vector for attack & criticism. Of course, it also lacks the singular voice & organizational talent; but to say it's just weaker is, in my opinion, incorrect.

    With Love and Courage
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Hey, I saw a couple of them at the state fair on Friday. Heard the real action was on Saturday though. I bet they're more effective in states where there is something to disrupt, didn't have a lot of impact doing the roadblock here

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    As a very liberal, very white person, I support this movement wholeheartedly. The problem isn't whether or not I support them. The problem is short of donating money I don't really have right now, I'm not sure how I can support them. A lot of minority groups (both ethnicity-oriented and gender/sexual identity-oriented) are (rightly) very distrustful of allies, and I don't know if my place is to show up at rallies, to argue with people on social media, or what.

    One thing I know is not my place is to tell BLM how they should be demonstrating.

    Well, that may not be strictly true - the end goal of BLM is to change white minds, and you have one of those! Your support and insight may be more valuable than you might think, but it's important to be sensitive in how you may express those.

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    So at its most simple, isn't the BLM movement mostly about raising awareness of privilege and institutionalized disenfranchisement?

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    So at its most simple, isn't the BLM movement mostly about raising awareness of privilege and institutionalized disenfranchisement?

    There is a list of 8-9 demands somewhere that were for the most part completely agreeable and things we should be doing as a country.

    http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

    This should absolutely be in the OP if it isnt.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    Atomika
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I worry about a movement like this because it seems to be headless. Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube and while the other groups would no doubt condemn an action like that, everyone speaks equally since it's just a hashtag. Movement as identity instead of a leader as identity seems like a recipe for failure to me.
    They've already been effective in some contexts. Their disruption of Bernie Sanders' speeches, for instance, pressured him into releasing a platform on racial justice, which went farther than any policies espoused by his rivals thus far. The disruption itself was controversial, both for Sanders supporters and other BLM members - Sanders already had a better record on race than his rivals, so the logic of singling him out instead of Hillary, Bush, or, most of all, Trump initially seemed questionable to me. But his rhetoric is largely focused on economic/class issues and had generally avoided directly addressing race in his campaign. Sanders responded by releasing a better platform on racial justice than any other mainstream candidate - the activists' disruption had a clear and positive effect. Hell, trying to disrupt a Trump speech would most likely have just gotten them physically forced out before they ever reached the podium, and its not like Trump's base would be remotely receptive to their message.

    And I'm not convinced that a relatively non-hierarchical movement/organization is always less effective or powerful than a more hierarchical one. I think it depends on the context.

    Sanders was working on that platform before the distribution. Most of the material was already on his site, just without its own section. All they did was make him release it a few days earlier. And in exchange, a whole group of his supporters missed the chance to see him speak and BLM picked up bad publicity.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
    LoisLane
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    So at its most simple, isn't the BLM movement mostly about raising awareness of privilege and institutionalized disenfranchisement?

    There is a list of 8-9 demands somewhere that were for the most part completely agreeable and things we should be doing as a country.

    http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

    This should absolutely be in the OP if it isnt.

    Those 10 points are exceptionally not all that demanding, and there's no real good reason I can think of to not implement them. They're not even particularly cost-intensive.

    MrMister
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If a movement doesn't have someone who hat can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
    LoisLane
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    TL DR wrote: »
    I worry about a movement like this because it seems to be headless. Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube and while the other groups would no doubt condemn an action like that, everyone speaks equally since it's just a hashtag. Movement as identity instead of a leader as identity seems like a recipe for failure to me.

    Leaderless movements are the new normal. If BLM or OWS had a leader you would be making the conversation about an individual instead of the issues at hand. If someone acting badly using the same hashtag as those fighting for social justice is enough to turn you off social justice, then you were never going to support social justice to begin with.

    I don't agree with this. It's not uncommon nor inadvisable to be turned off on a movement when said movement does something completely out of line. It breeds copycats and not all new movements who imitate them are going to be ones you support or even want to exist. Can you imagine some traditionalist storming a pro-LGBTQ+ rally? Not cool, right? It's why I, as a black person, was so turned off when they silenced Bernie. It sets a dangerous precedent and communicates ideas I'm not comfortable with. I still support BLM but that's more out of self-interest than any belief in their rightness. If an alternative appeared to be as successful then I'd jump ship in a heartbeat.

    LoisLane on
    The Endershryke
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    If a movement doesn't have someone who hat can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?

    Riots.
    People already in power taking up the cause.
    Corporate pressure upon private interests.
    Community action and policy.

    Edith Upwards
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    If a movement doesn't have someone who hat can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?

    Vote for representatives that will... represent their interests

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    If a movement doesn't have someone who hat can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?

    Riding buses through segregationist southern states & getting beat-up while not resisting attackers.

    With Love and Courage
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    I worry about a movement like this because it seems to be headless. Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube and while the other groups would no doubt condemn an action like that, everyone speaks equally since it's just a hashtag. Movement as identity instead of a leader as identity seems like a recipe for failure to me.

    Leaderless movements are the new normal. If BLM or OWS had a leader you would be making the conversation about an individual instead of the issues at hand. If someone acting badly using the same hashtag as those fighting for social justice is enough to turn you off social justice, then you were never going to support social justice to begin with.

    I don't agree with this. It's not uncommon nor inadvisable to be turned off on a movement when said movement does something completely out of line. It breeds copycats and not all new movements who imitate them are going to be ones you support or even want to exist. Can you imagine some traditionalist storming a pro-LGBTQ+ rally? Not cool, right? It's why I, as a black person, was so turned off when they silenced Bernie. It sets a dangerous precedent and communicates ideas I'm not comfortable with. I still support BLM but that's more out of self-interest than any belief in their rightness. If an alternative appeared to be as successful then I'd jump ship.

    This would be uncool not because disruption is an inherently uncool tactic but because the cause of the interrupters in this case is uncool and, more importantly, the established power dynamics do not create a need for such a tactic when people have a voice already.

    If Bernie Sanders showed up somewhere and stormed the stage, everyone would rightfully say "Dude, you literally have the ability to broadcast your views on TV whenever you want". BLM activists are responding to being ignored or silenced in the ways that they are able.

    Furthermore, it is fallacious to attribute to a movement the actions of everyone claiming to be on the side of that movement. If I was to start claiming association with the hate group Stormfront and also working as a volunteer feeding the homeless, that doesn't mean that it would suddenly be sensible to ascribe a "charitable volunteers" label to Stormfront. It is necessary to divorce the merits of an idea from the proponents of the idea.

  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    I worry about a movement like this because it seems to be headless. Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube and while the other groups would no doubt condemn an action like that, everyone speaks equally since it's just a hashtag. Movement as identity instead of a leader as identity seems like a recipe for failure to me.

    Leaderless movements are the new normal. If BLM or OWS had a leader you would be making the conversation about an individual instead of the issues at hand. If someone acting badly using the same hashtag as those fighting for social justice is enough to turn you off social justice, then you were never going to support social justice to begin with.

    I don't agree with this. It's not uncommon nor inadvisable to be turned off on a movement when said movement does something completely out of line. It breeds copycats and not all new movements who imitate them are going to be ones you support or even want to exist. Can you imagine some traditionalist storming a pro-LGBTQ+ rally? Not cool, right? It's why I, as a black person, was so turned off when they silenced Bernie. It sets a dangerous precedent and communicates ideas I'm not comfortable with. I still support BLM but that's more out of self-interest than any belief in their rightness. If an alternative appeared to be as successful then I'd jump ship.

    This would be uncool not because disruption is an inherently uncool tactic but because the cause of the interrupters in this case is uncool and, more importantly, the established power dynamics do not create a need for such a tactic when people have a voice already.

    If Bernie Sanders showed up somewhere and stormed the stage, everyone would rightfully say "Dude, you literally have the ability to broadcast your views on TV whenever you want". BLM activists are responding to being ignored or silenced in the ways that they are able.

    Furthermore, it is fallacious to attribute to a movement the actions of everyone claiming to be on the side of that movement. If I was to start claiming association with the hate group Stormfront and also working as a volunteer feeding the homeless, that doesn't mean that it would suddenly be sensible to ascribe a "charitable volunteers" label to Stormfront. It is necessary to divorce the merits of an idea from the proponents of the idea.

    I want to reply but I don't know how to separate quotes while still keeping the attributions in tact. Can someone tell me how to do it?

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    I worry about a movement like this because it seems to be headless. Sort of like an electronic OWS. I suspect it will be equally ineffective. One group can be doing good work like putting out the list of police reforms they want, but another group that speaks equally for the movement could murder a police officer on YouTube and while the other groups would no doubt condemn an action like that, everyone speaks equally since it's just a hashtag. Movement as identity instead of a leader as identity seems like a recipe for failure to me.

    Leaderless movements are the new normal. If BLM or OWS had a leader you would be making the conversation about an individual instead of the issues at hand. If someone acting badly using the same hashtag as those fighting for social justice is enough to turn you off social justice, then you were never going to support social justice to begin with.

    I don't agree with this. It's not uncommon nor inadvisable to be turned off on a movement when said movement does something completely out of line. It breeds copycats and not all new movements who imitate them are going to be ones you support or even want to exist. Can you imagine some traditionalist storming a pro-LGBTQ+ rally? Not cool, right? It's why I, as a black person, was so turned off when they silenced Bernie. It sets a dangerous precedent and communicates ideas I'm not comfortable with. I still support BLM but that's more out of self-interest than any belief in their rightness. If an alternative appeared to be as successful then I'd jump ship.

    This would be uncool not because disruption is an inherently uncool tactic but because the cause of the interrupters in this case is uncool and, more importantly, the established power dynamics do not create a need for such a tactic when people have a voice already.

    If Bernie Sanders showed up somewhere and stormed the stage, everyone would rightfully say "Dude, you literally have the ability to broadcast your views on TV whenever you want". BLM activists are responding to being ignored or silenced in the ways that they are able.

    Furthermore, it is fallacious to attribute to a movement the actions of everyone claiming to be on the side of that movement. If I was to start claiming association with the hate group Stormfront and also working as a volunteer feeding the homeless, that doesn't mean that it would suddenly be sensible to ascribe a "charitable volunteers" label to Stormfront. It is necessary to divorce the merits of an idea from the proponents of the idea.

    I want to reply but I don't know how to separate quotes while still keeping the attributions in tact. Can someone tell me how to do it?

    1: Click the paragraphs symbol above and select quote from the dropdown.
    2: Edit the first part to have =Postername beside quote.
    3: paste the part you want to reply to between the two quote boxes.

    Should look like this
    [quote=syndalis]should look like this[/quote]
    

    typing what I put above looks like this:
    syndalis wrote:
    should look like this

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    LoisLane
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    [quote=NAME GOES HERE] TEXT OF THE QUOTE[/quote]
    and then a second quote
    [quote=NAME GOES HERE] MORE TEXT[/quote]
    

    LoisLane
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    Thanks syndalis and TL D R. Here's my first try.
    TL DR wrote:
    If Bernie Sanders showed up somewhere and stormed the stage, everyone would rightfully say "Dude, you literally have the ability to broadcast your views on TV whenever you want". BLM activists are responding to being ignored or silenced in the ways that they are able.

    The thing is I suspect the assholes wouldn't see it that way and will be apt to push their advantage. The Average American is sadly prone to a simplistic view of things which is why everyone thinks Rachel Dolezal= Caitlyn Jenner when she really, really doesn't.
    TL DR wrote:
    Furthermore, it is fallacious to attribute to a movement the actions of everyone claiming to be on the side of that movement. If I was to start claiming association with the hate group Stormfront and also working as a volunteer feeding the homeless, that doesn't mean that it would suddenly be sensible to ascribe a "charitable volunteers" label to Stormfront. It is necessary to divorce the merits of an idea from the proponents of the idea.

    If you were a faceless volunteer then fine but if you were a CEO of a nonprofit devoted to helping the homeless then you'd come under serious fire and so would your organization. A real life example of this is what happened to the Chik-fil-A CEO and the resulting boycott of Chik-fil-A restersaunts for his antigay views.


    This all turns back to the fact that we frequently have and continue to attribute the actions of a movements proponents to the movement itself. Its why seeding rabble-rousers among a group of peaceful protesters has been an effective tact to destroy causes for centuries. BLM, no matter how leaderless, is going to get blamed when there 'members' fuckup.

    LoisLane on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I understand the idea that it isn't fair to attribute the actions of one group to the movement, but who is to say which groups "really" represent it. I think that this is a major weakness of headless groups. There is no one who can go on record as speaking for the movement and condemning the actions of the group.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
    LoisLaneAntinumeric
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    I'm not sure you need a single leader, but you do need some sort of coordination. The Freedom Riders weren't just 20 randos who decided to rent a bus and head south, same with the lunch counter sit-ins and the bus boycott.

    The risk with being leaderless is that some BLM group could decide to crash the stage at another Bernie event, something that at this point would probably be counterproductive since he's now dialed up the racial justice messaging and hired new peeps to help with that.

    I think the biggest issue for BLM is that a lot of what they want done needs to be done at the local and state level. In some ways that's a harder slog because instead of a single target (the federal government) there's 50 different states and an ungodly number of municipalities and counties that need to have pressure put on them.

    LoisLanespacekungfumanshryke
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    I'm not sure you need a single leader, but you do need some sort of coordination. The Freedom Riders weren't just 20 randos who decided to rent a bus and head south, same with the lunch counter sit-ins and the bus boycott.

    The risk with being leaderless is that some BLM group could decide to crash the stage at another Bernie event, something that at this point would probably be counterproductive since he's now dialed up the racial justice messaging and hired new peeps to help with that.

    I think the biggest issue for BLM is that a lot of what they want done needs to be done at the local and state level. In some ways that's a harder slog because instead of a single target (the federal government) there's 50 different states and an ungodly number of municipalities and counties that need to have pressure put on them.

    It's also hard for a headless group to have w strategy at all. Who is going to direct BLM to work at the state level when no one can direct BLM at all?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • YallYall Registered User regular
    They need leadership so that they can disassociate/condemn actions done in the name of the movement that don't align with their goals.

    My band: https://youtu.be/rw2ersccCsQ[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    spacekungfumanDisruptedCapitalistshrykeLoisLaneAndy JoeAntinumeric
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Yall wrote: »
    They need leadership so that they can disassociate/condemn actions done in the name of the movement that don't align with their goals.

    That is a conversation that can happen internally. Opponents of the movement want a leader to point to in order to easily condemn the movement without having to talk about substantive issues.

    MegaMek
  • YallYall Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    They need leadership so that they can disassociate/condemn actions done in the name of the movement that don't align with their goals.

    That is a conversation that can happen internally. Opponents of the movement want a leader to point to in order to easily condemn the movement without having to talk about substantive issues.

    I dunno, I think it very much can cut both ways. Take the "chant" that happened at some state fair protest over the weekend that implied they were advocating for violence against police. That isn't going to help anything and will likely further entrench opponents. A strong leader can come out and say "knock it off, we don't support that kind of rhetoric and you're hurting the cause".

    My band: https://youtu.be/rw2ersccCsQ[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    So at its most simple, isn't the BLM movement mostly about raising awareness of privilege and institutionalized disenfranchisement?

    There is a list of 8-9 demands somewhere that were for the most part completely agreeable and things we should be doing as a country.

    http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

    This should absolutely be in the OP if it isnt.

    What is meant by the Broken Window laws proposal with regard to trespassing or disturbing the peace (for example)?

    I'm not sure how one addresses these without the police, without its worst-case-scenario devolving into a similar shit-show?

    (See also Treyvon Martin, or any of the shit that came up when I Googled 'trespassing shooting death' expecting to find articles about cops pulling the trigger)

    It seems to me that Body Cameras (6) and Training (7) would be a better policy focus. If you need an active legal situation defused, you should be able to rely on trained professionals. I think the real problem is that the police, our designated point-of-contacts in these matters, cannot always be relied on to be both trained and professional.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    So at its most simple, isn't the BLM movement mostly about raising awareness of privilege and institutionalized disenfranchisement?

    There is a list of 8-9 demands somewhere that were for the most part completely agreeable and things we should be doing as a country.

    http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

    This should absolutely be in the OP if it isnt.

    What is meant by the Broken Window laws proposal with regard to trespassing or disturbing the peace (for example)?

    I'm not sure how one addresses these without the police, without its worst-case-scenario devolving into a similar shit-show?

    (See also Treyvon Martin, or any of the shit that came up when I Googled 'trespassing shooting death' expecting to find articles about cops pulling the trigger)

    It seems to me that Body Cameras (6) and Training (7) would be a better policy focus. If you need an active legal situation defused, you should be able to rely on trained professionals. I think the real problem is that the police, our designated point-of-contacts in these matters, cannot always be relied on to be both trained and professional.
    This is being thoroughly discussed in the other thread about Campaign Zero:
    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/200184/campaign-zero-a-ten-point-plan-against-police-brutality

    tl;dr - You are rehashing SKFM's argument in that thread.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Yall wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    They need leadership so that they can disassociate/condemn actions done in the name of the movement that don't align with their goals.

    That is a conversation that can happen internally. Opponents of the movement want a leader to point to in order to easily condemn the movement without having to talk about substantive issues.

    I dunno, I think it very much can cut both ways. Take the "chant" that happened at some state fair protest over the weekend that implied they were advocating for violence against police. That isn't going to help anything and will likely further entrench opponents. A strong leader can come out and say "knock it off, we don't support that kind of rhetoric and you're hurting the cause".

    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. My position is that your vision of political organization and placing priority on figureheads would serve primarily to enable the opposition and that there will always be a fringe element of any movement to serve as a convenient scapegoat for already-calcified prejudice.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    As a very liberal, very white person, I support this movement wholeheartedly. The problem isn't whether or not I support them. The problem is short of donating money I don't really have right now, I'm not sure how I can support them. A lot of minority groups (both ethnicity-oriented and gender/sexual identity-oriented) are (rightly) very distrustful of allies, and I don't know if my place is to show up at rallies, to argue with people on social media, or what.

    One thing I know is not my place is to tell BLM how they should be demonstrating.

    This is a productive conversation to be having; how to be a good ally. If I had to hazard a guess, our step one ought to always be Shut up and listen. PoC/queer/other minority groups have a unique perspective and are in the best position to state their own needs. A well-intentioned reframing of the issues in more comfortable classist terms, for example, is a good way to be a Bad Ally *cough*Bernie*cough*.

    Read up on intersectionality, ableism, tone policing, derailing, white feminism, cultural appropriation, and what it means to check your privilege.

    You are basically outlining an approach that only works for true believers. How can you expect to convince people to support a cause by telling them to shut up and to only support the cause in ways that some subset of its supporters like? It is incredibly alienating and dismissive of anyone who is not a member of the minority group. In my view, and group that is literally not interested in my views is not a group that is interested in my support. Isn't part of inclusion giving everyone the opportunity to be heard?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
    gjaustinLoisLaneFrankiedarlingAgahnimSquidget0Apothe0sisLeitnerAntinumeric
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    So at its most simple, isn't the BLM movement mostly about raising awareness of privilege and institutionalized disenfranchisement?

    There is a list of 8-9 demands somewhere that were for the most part completely agreeable and things we should be doing as a country.

    http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

    This should absolutely be in the OP if it isnt.

    What is meant by the Broken Window laws proposal with regard to trespassing or disturbing the peace (for example)?

    I'm not sure how one addresses these without the police, without its worst-case-scenario devolving into a similar shit-show?

    (See also Treyvon Martin, or any of the shit that came up when I Googled 'trespassing shooting death' expecting to find articles about cops pulling the trigger)

    It seems to me that Body Cameras (6) and Training (7) would be a better policy focus. If you need an active legal situation defused, you should be able to rely on trained professionals. I think the real problem is that the police, our designated point-of-contacts in these matters, cannot always be relied on to be both trained and professional.

    The notion is that currently police place high priority on 'petty crime' under the assumption that to do otherwise would enable an area to deteriorate (one graffiti tag leads to more, etc) but in so doing they have effectively taken a position of hassling people for non-crimes. Viewed in light of the fact that any interaction with the police has the potential to turn deadly and especially so for black people, this is a very relevant bone to pick.

This discussion has been closed.