What can we, as individual US citizens do to improve the division (non-political)

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Let me summarize what we got here. We've gotten to the idea that people associate BLM with mayhem and violence, because that is what what they see on TV, or on social media, or online news sources. I think that is a correct analysis of WHY people might not support BLM. 

BLM is a large enough organization that it's probably impossible for them to control whether there's ever any violence at a protest. (That's before we get into the fact that the police have been caught on many videos provoking the protesters.) So, ANY such movement would run into some issues, especially since some of the protesters are going to come from really poor, dysfunctional neighborhoods and from backgrounds that will increase chances of violence. 

So then we are running into a situation where, as long as some news organizations decide to portray the protests as violent, a large subset of the population will be unable to support them. This is likely regardless of the actual slogans of the movement and the views of the local chapters. 

So, to recap, the people who decide how BLM will be viewed are the people who are choosing what images the protests will be associated with. They are not the protesters themselves. 

OK. Then you may very well start thinking about "Who does this benefit?" If it's the media that chooses how BLM will be seen and not BLM, what does it get out of painting them as violent? Attention, yes, but not everyone is portraying BLM in the same way. Is there something else they may be getting out of it? What is the motivation? 

No, please don't summarize what other people are trying to say, because you always seem to read things into other people's comments.

No, no, no, the reason people don't support BLM isn't only because of images on the news.  I said that is a reason why the slogan is provocative to SOME people.

Several other reasons were given upthread as to why some people don't support "BLM."  I won't rehash them here, but they are not about media nor racism.

Interesting to see you now talking about BLM as "a large enough organization that ..." when you earlier implied that people calling BLM an organization were stupid.

You started off saying that lack of support of BLM is clear evidence that a person is racist.  What followed was various attempts to educate you, which have all failed.  I should really stop responding.

[Carol in Cal.]

8 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm coming at this from the perspective that division is normal. Everything that we believe is completely obvious today was argued about in the past. 

There will always be division. It's not even true that there is more division today than in the past. Don't we all remember the story of Rep. Brooks bashing Rep. Sumner over the head with a cane in the US House of Representatives? There's a county in Georgia named after Brooks. 

There's also never been a time when everyone agreed about a set of facts. That does not mean that the facts aren't facts. 

Politics matter. They are life and death. It's okay to disagree over matters of life and death. 

Then it’s not clear to me why you are bothering with this thread, given the OP goal.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Look, we had boarded up windows near us. I am sure there was looting at some protests. But why are we going to decide every single person who supports the movement is a problem? They don't really get to decide who shows up. 

Nobody said this.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Then it’s not clear to me why you are bothering with this thread, given the OP goal.

I agree with OS on this ... and if the OP's actual goal was to stop people from having different opinions, then I am way off base.

I thought the point was more like how do we deal with each other in positive ways given that we come at things with different viewpoints.

[Carol in Cal.]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Look, we had boarded up windows near us. I am sure there was looting at some protests. But why are we going to decide every single person who supports the movement is a problem? They don't really get to decide who shows up. 

We had local cell phone video coverage of blocked freeways, really wide ones, 5-6 lanes each way, with cars with families in them having their windows bashed while they were stopped to avoid hitting protestors, and of looters mobbing stores on the East Side and stealing large electronics, all at the first demonstrations—which were organized via emails (among other ways, I assume, but the emails are what I saw personally).  I knew it would get violent here.  It was completely predictable.  YMMV with locale.

 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Interesting to see you now talking about BLM as "a large enough organization that ..." when you earlier implied that people calling BLM an organization were stupid.

I edited. I meant a movement. 

 

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

You started off saying that lack of support of BLM is clear evidence that a person is racist.  What followed was various attempts to educate you, which have all failed.  I should really stop responding.

You are... educating me? I hate that wording when it's used by progressive zealots, and I can't say it's any more pleasant here. I'd rather we all stick to educating our children and TALKING to each other. 

I'm saying that if you can't get behind BLM as a movement, it says something about your priorities, whether you like it to or not. It's a movement very broadly supported in the Black community. It feels like a slogan that's literally life and death for people. It's a response to genuine grievances. If you decide you can't support it because of the views of individual people, or because of the misbehavior of some protesters, then I don't think your priorities are aligned with the needs of the Black community. 

I don't think you're racist in the common sense of the word. It doesn't mean you wouldn't work tirelessly in your own community, or that you wouldn't have Black friends, or anything else that you think I may be ascribing to you. I am not calling you a bad person. I am sorry to call you racist, because I don't think it at all communicated what I meant. 

I think you're onto something when you describe the media as being a big part of the reason people have the associations with BLM that they do. It's not the only reason, but if you follow polling, the media one consumes heavily predicts whether one supports BLM or not. So then I suggest that we think about why certain segments of the media may be invested in presenting BLM negatively.  

[Carol in Cal.]

4 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

What are you doing to repair divisions? 

Why are you here? 

 

I’ve already answered that.  And I’m here to discuss the OP issue because I think it is important from a civic continuation standpoint.  

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

We had local cell phone video coverage of blocked freeways, really wide ones, 5-6 lanes each way, with cars with families in them having their windows bashed while they were stopped to avoid hitting protestors, and of looters mobbing stores on the East Side and stealing large electronics, all at the first demonstrations—which were organized via emails (among other ways, I assume, but the emails are what I saw personally).  I knew it would get violent here.  It was completely predictable.  YMMV with locale.

I already said I knew some of them were violent. I think that's awful and totally wrong and they should arrest looters. I was pro-curfew, for what it's worth (although not pro-hurting people found out after curfew.) 

[annandatje]

My city has dynamic BLM movement for city our size.  We are not a major metropolitan area like NY, Chicago or LA.  Our metro area has about 1.35 million people.  With only a couple exceptions, the BLM marches are scheduled and coordinated by the black leaders of the movement and are coordinated with city to get any required permits etc.  White people of course do attend but they usually are not main speakers or do not speak at all.  When partner and I participate in marches, we stay near back. I noticed that other whites tend to do same by taking a position of support rather than leadership.  I do not understand maligning white people even when they are majority of march attendees or leader of marches. Police brutality toward fellow humans is an issue that we can all support (I hope).

As for how to participate in unity, frankly I have spent years structuring my life so it is relatively free of racists, fascists, and authoritarians; I am not referring to any particular political party here.  I simply slowly disengage myself from them without any conflict.  The more you let them talk as you nod your head, the more they reveal about their inner selves.  The community work I have done is the sort that would not appeal to the kind of people I do not want to be around even though they benefit from it.   So, Quill, I guess I do not feel an overriding duty to try to be a unifying force, especially at this time in my life.  My intent is to surround myself with people of inner beauty for remainder of my time.

Edited November 10, 2020 by annandatje

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

I thought the point was more like how do we deal with each other in positive ways given that we come at things with different viewpoints.

Well, I think one way we could deal with each other in a positive way is to let Black people tell us why they think it's important for people to support BLM. You don't even have to agree with them when they are done, but I would think hearing each other is an important part of healing divisions. 

As I've said, I'm not seeing a ton of listening to that perspective in this thread. You can see why BLM might feel more consequential to a Black person, right? I'd just... try to hear it out. 

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I edited. I meant a movement. 

 

You are... educating me? I hate that wording when it's used by progressive zealots, and I can't say it's any more pleasant here. I'd rather we all stick to educating our children and TALKING to each other. 

I'm saying that if you can't get behind BLM as a movement, it says something about your priorities, whether you like it to or not. It's a movement very broadly supported in the Black community. It feels like a slogan that's literally life and death for people. It's a response to genuine grievances. If you decide you can't support it because of the views of individual people, or because of the misbehavior of some protesters, then I don't think your priorities are aligned with the needs of the Black community. 

I don't think you're racist in the common sense of the word. It doesn't mean you wouldn't work tirelessly in your own community, or that you wouldn't have Black friends, or anything else that you think I may be ascribing to you. I am not calling you a bad person. I am sorry to call you racist, because I don't think it at all communicated what I meant. 

I think you're onto something when you describe the media as being a big part of the reason people have the associations with BLM that they do. It's not the only reason, but if you follow polling, the media one consumes heavily predicts whether one supports BLM or not. So then I suggest that we think about why certain segments of the media may be invested in presenting BLM negatively.  

You are entitled to your opinion of me, and I of you.

I did not know "educate" would be a trigger.  I will try to remember not to use it again.

To the bold, I would add "or positively."

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

You are entitled to your opinion of me, and I of you.

Always, lol. But I definitely don't think you're a racist in the way that you're reading it. 

 

Just now, SKL said:

I did not know "educate" would be a trigger.  I will try to remember not to use it again.

Thank you, I'd appreciate that. 

 

Just now, SKL said:

To the bold, I would add "or positively."

Yeah, of course. We should think about what the motivations of any profit-motivated organization are. 

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, I think one way we could deal with each other in a positive way is to let Black people tell us why they think it's important for people to support BLM. You don't even have to agree with them when they are done, but I would think hearing each other is an important part of healing divisions. 

As I've said, I'm not seeing a ton of listening to that perspective in this thread. You can see why BLM might feel more consequential to a Black person, right? I'd just... try to hear it out. 

I don't know how many black people are participating in this thread, but the one person who stated she is black has also stated that the non-local organization collecting donations for "BLM" was "lining their own pockets with it." 

You seem to have really selective hearing.  Really selective.  I need to pull myself away from this.

[annandatje]

Only read last page of this thread, but I see part of it is about donations and how used.  If anyone is concerned that BLM will not wisely use donations, one option is to donate to a 501c3 who has bail fund set up specifically for BLM arrests.  Fortunately our community has a few organizations that support BLM.  You can also directly donate medic supplies, water and snacks at the marches.  

[Not_a_Number]

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

I don't know how many black people are participating in this thread, but the one person who stated she is black has also stated that the non-local organization collecting donations for "BLM" was "lining their own pockets with it." 

You seem to have really selective hearing.  Really selective.  I need to pull myself away from this.

I heard her say that. But she also said support for the movement was non-negotiable to her. I wasn’t suggesting you donate money to the people lining their pockets.

[TravelingChris]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Look, we had boarded up windows near us. I am sure there was looting at some protests. But why are we going to decide every single person who supports the movement is a problem? They don't really get to decide who shows up. 

Of course, I don't think that everyone who supports the movement is a problem.  But looters, rioters, etc are problem people and no, I do not like those people.

I respect people like Sneezyone and her opinions.  I respect and understand the views of black women I know IRL who are afraid for their sons and husbands.  I hope you understand that many white people are also afraid of police interactions with their sons/fathers/husbands/whoever.  At least some of the disputed killings were unbelievable overreaches of police --- like the Eric Garner case--- Why in the h are police even trying to arrest anyone selling single cigarettes????  Because NYC is a crazy taxing place and police were ordered to get illegal cigarette sellers.  I am quite liberaterian when it comes to such issues and  I think that case was very problematic and the problems started with the insane policy of harassing someone selling single cigarettes= isn't there enough real crime to investigate in NYC????  Other cases, like the most recent one in Philadelphia was suicide by cop=  an issue that transcends race for sure.  We currently have a police officer who will be facing murder charges in such a case ( he ran into a house where two superior officers were talking down a suicidal man with a gun and shot him).  That was a white man.  Then there was a very recent case, last month, of a Hispanic male who called for Police and met them at the door with a gun pointing at them.    We also have another case locally, that also involved mental illness and guns and family keeps protesting like it is a BLM type of matter and why can't police release the body cams ( why? Because the first reaction of the family was to sue and therefore the matter is in the courts and footage cannot be released before the court case occurs), and they did release a few photos of the person with the gun in his hand.

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I heard her say that. But she also said support for the movement was non-negotiable to her. I wasn’t suggesting you donate money to the people lining their pockets.

And I do support the movement that promotes better police treatment and justice for black people, as I have said repeatedly.

I have seen companies bullied into donating a lot of money to "BLM."  I have a problem with that, especially knowing that the funds are not used the way the donors thought they would be used.  So I will not personally support visibility for "BLM" as a slogan / organization that has exploited the problems of black people in order to get rich or to further other agendas that supporters did not intend to support.

Look, I don't care what you think of me.  I have 100% given up trying to communicate meaningfully with you.  Just stop talking about me, so that others, who don't know me, don't get the wrong impression.

Edited November 10, 2020 by SKL

[TravelingChris]

40 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

 

Andy Ngo? 

That still does not give you enough evidence to make a decision about all of the protestors. 

We keep going in circles. You saw what you wanted to see. 

 

Andy Ngo and many others in other cities or even in Portland.  I fully know that there is a different group who would protest peacefully in the day and agitators who riot at night.    I am not talking about all the protestors.  But you love to put words in my mouth.  

[TravelingChris]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

And I do support the movement that promotes better police treatment and justice for black people, as I have said repeatedly.

Look, I don't care what you think of me.  I have 100% given up trying to communicate meaningfully with you.  Just stop talking about me, so that others, who don't know me, don't get the wrong impression.

And same for me.  I am bowing out.  It appears that many of you do not want to close any divisiveness but rather encourage it.

[SKL]

dp

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by SKL

[HeartString]

I probably shouldn’t jump in, but I think I see a nuance that I’d like to be looked at.   Let me start with saying, I am ideologically inclines to support BLM.  I supported Kappernack’s kneeling, I understand the message behind Defund the Police.  
But I find everything surrounding BLM to be very confusing. It’s a movement, not an organization. But there is an organization, but it’s corrupted and doesn’t really represent the movement. The founders of the movement are farther left than the protesters, so they either do or do not speak for the movement?  There’s a website, but it’s not real?  I can only learn about it properly from people within it, but I have no way to really identify those people it seems, bc some of those within the movement don’t understand it properly. It’s confusing.  I’m confused about it.  I support the idea, I support the movement, but I find it hard to follow.  Every time I try to learn about, it goes in these same circles.   It feels like super secret knowledge that I’m not cool enough to understand.  
 

If I find it confusing and I’m a liberal, progressive democrat who has never been inclined toward the Republican Party, I imagine people who don’t pay attention are even worse off. 
 

For example, I have a podcast queued up with an interview with one of the women who founded BLM to discuss the important role of black women in the election. From this thread I’m now confused on if she speaks for the movement she co-founded and I’m unsure on if she is one of those lining her pockets instead of helping the movement. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Cnew02

[Not_a_Number]

19 minutes ago, SKL said:

Look, I don't care what you think of me.  I have 100% given up trying to communicate meaningfully with you.  Just stop talking about me, so that others, who don't know me, don't get the wrong impression.

I don’t think badly of you and I hope you don’t stop trying to communicate with me 😕 . I haven’t been impolite to you and I’m not sure why you’re acting like I’m judging you.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, kand said:

I think the people who for some reason refuse to say black lives matter when I asked – – so obviously not you – – are the ones who have made it so that when someone says they don’t suppport Black lives matter, it certainly makes it sound like they don’t think they do. At least not enough to say it. It’s made worse by the strong association between prominent people who refuse to say that also being people with clearly racist backgrounds. 

So far, in my "real life," the only people whom I've heard saying they aren't with BLM were people of color, including black people.  They feel BLM does not represent them and only makes their lives more toxic.

As far as white people, I could see people feeling like, why the need to state the obvious?  Black lives matter, the sky is blue, and the grass is green.  Being asked to say the slogan feels like an agenda.

I think messaging to people not in the black community has been done very poorly.  The slogan is also poor IMO as far as communicating with non-black people what they are actually trying to accomplish.  Why not something more specific to the actual trends and policies being protested?  But it's not my business what they choose to call their movement.

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, kand said:

I would say I have a hard time understanding this viewpoint at all, because it strikes me as bizarre reading it now, but then I think back to when it first happened with Colin Kaepernick, and I recall that I was hearing the conservative narrative of those events at the time, and at the time I also thought his actions were disrespectful and it was the not the time. I was totally wrong. 

The problem with this idea is that it’s not clear when the right time IS. Protests, yes, but only if they don’t have any mayhem, and also don’t block the road or annoy anyone. So, practically speaking, not protests. Definitely not TV shows. Definitely not how we vote, because that’s not the way we should pick our politicians. 

I see that people are advocating local action and outreach, and that seems very commendable. I just don’t know if that’s enough.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

As far as white people, I could see people feeling like, why the need to state the obvious?  Black lives matter, the sky is blue, and the grass is green.  Being asked to say the slogan feels like an agenda.

So it’s perhaps tragic how important this slogan has become to lots of people. Because it means that a large fraction of the Black population feel like their lives don’t matter to most of the population. At least, that’s what I’m hearing.

[SKL]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

So it’s perhaps tragic how important this slogan has become to lots of people. Because it means that a large fraction of the Black population feel like their lives don’t matter to most of the population. At least, that’s what I’m hearing.

You need to stop quoting me, and especially stop attempting to paraphrase what I didn't say.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

You need to stop quoting me, and especially stop attempting to paraphrase what I didn't say.

You’ve been quite rude to me. I don’t feel the need to stop quoting you if you won’t bother to be polite.

[Terabith]

So, what would people consider legitimate forms of protest?  

Marches with signs and slogans are apparently out, because they might lead to violence or mayhem, even if by outside provocateurs.  

Kneeling while the Anthem is played before an athletic event is unacceptable.  

Apparently even years ago boycotting Coca-Cola products was infuriating.  

Shutting down roads is unacceptable.  

So, what, pray tell, IS an acceptable, reasonable form of protest for the fact that people are BEING KILLED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THEM?  

Because it seems to me, as a white woman who isn't particularly woke but who has witnessed a whole heck of a lot of acts of injustice towards friends of color, that the truth is that there is absolutely no way to protest that is acceptable to white people.  It seems to me that what people want is for people of color to just shut up and meekly take it and not complain.  

Please, show me how I'm wrong.  

Edited November 10, 2020 by Terabith

[Carol in Cal.]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

The problem with this idea is that it’s not clear when the right time IS. Protests, yes, but only if they don’t have any mayhem, and also don’t block the road or annoy anyone. So, practically speaking, not protests. Definitely not TV shows. Definitely not how we vote, because that’s not the way we should pick our politicians. 

 

Always with the put downs and sarcasm.  If you just want to shut down conversation, that’s pretty unfortunate for the OP, who actually wants to figure out what to do, and to discuss it thoughtfully.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Terabith said:

Because it seems to me, as a white woman who isn't particularly woke but who has witnessed a whole heck of a lot of acts of injustice towards friends of color, that the truth is that there is absolutely no way to protest that is acceptable to people.  It seems to me that what people want is for people of color to just shut up and meekly take it and not complain.  

Please, show me how I'm wrong.  

That’s what I’m seeing as well. And I’m not seeing any engagement with that fact.

[Carol in Cal.]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

That’s what I’m seeing as well. And I’m not seeing any engagement with that fact.

You’ve read 11 pages of this conversation and you say that?  That is patently false.  There has been tons of engagement with that fact, as well there should be.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

Always with the put downs and sarcasm.  If you just want to shut down conversation, that’s pretty unfortunate for the OP, who actually wants to figure out what to do, and to discuss it thoughtfully.  

I’m not putting anyone down!! I’m just not understanding. How do we signal that we care about this issue in the public sphere? 

I don’t feel angry, or contemptuous,  or sarcastic. I am sorry if it’s reading that way, genuinely sorry. I just feel bewildered. I am not understanding.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

You’ve read 11 pages of this conversation and you say that?  That is patently false.  There has been tons of engagement with that fact, as well there should be.

I’ve seen people state that they think this is an important issue. I’m really really glad about that. I’m also not seeing what a permissible way of signaling support for the issue in the public sphere would be. 

I’m genuinely not understanding. I’m honestly not trying to put anyone down. Is the idea that only local actions are worthwhile? I’m sorry if my guesses are off, I’m just not following.

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

That is what you say.  I do not agree and one big reason I do not agree is because I am disabled and getting more so rapidly and it is very hard to think of one as privileged in any way when that is happening.

Maybe you could understand it as a person of color, who is also disabled, might have worse access to health care, be treated differently by doctors, etc, compared to you. 

3 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

The only white privilege I get is not one I want at all.  It is one I detest.  That is that some people probably treat me better because I am white.

Yes, that is white privilege. 

What did you think people mean by the phrase?

3 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I’ve never been much of a sports watcher, but there is a specific sequence, almost at the level of communal/semi-religious ritual, that is involved with watching big sports on TV or in person.   Whether you like it or not, traditionally this has included a singing of the national anthem in a relatively reverent way.  To have that dissed as the beginning of the entire event is jarring.  If the event wasn’t so consistent and ritualized to start with, it wouldn’t have been so jarring to do this.  I can see why that would bother people, and frankly to me it seems like just a cheap shot.

It seems cheap to me to be more concerned about the football game ritual than about the people concerned with police brutality. 

Not wanting politics to upset ones entertainment is like not wanting sit ins to disrupt one's dining, or not wanting bus boycots to disrupt one's daily life, etc. Saying you don't want your entertainment ruined by civil rights is like saying you don't want your lunch ruined by a sit in. 

A protest is, by design, supposed to be jarring. That's the whole point. 

To think one's right to be unbothered by it is more important than other people's right not to be harassed or killed by police is...not something I'd want to admit to. 

 

[annandatje]

13 minutes ago, Terabith said:

So, what would people consider legitimate forms of protest?  

Marches with signs and slogans are apparently out, because they might lead to violence or mayhem, even if by outside provocateurs.  

Kneeling while the Anthem is played before an athletic event is unacceptable.  

Apparently even years ago boycotting Coca-Cola products was infuriating.  

Shutting down roads is unacceptable.  

So, what, pray tell, IS an acceptable, reasonable form of protest for the fact that people are BEING KILLED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THEM?  

Because it seems to me, as a white woman who isn't particularly woke but who has witnessed a whole heck of a lot of acts of injustice towards friends of color, that the truth is that there is absolutely no way to protest that is acceptable to white people.  It seems to me that what people want is for people of color to just shut up and meekly take it and not complain.  

Please, show me how I'm wrong.  

Bingo.  Your list applies to virtually every social justice movement.  Funny how once the goal is somewhat attained, no one in their right mind wants to go back to the old ways.  I heard some of these objections as a child during Civil Rights Movement. By the way, I admired Kapernick taking a stand against police brutality regardless of what song being performed.  If I recall correctly, Kapernick received a lukewarm apology about three years too late.

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by annandatje

[TravelingChris]

33 minutes ago, kand said:

The pastor wearing it I can guarantee is promoting the concept, not any particular group or organization. I know him well, and racial  justice and healing are important to him, but he is not in anyway socialist or even far left. I think he’s probably more conservative than I am, fwiw, and I am pretty in the middle politically. It’s absolutely a values statement, and not a political statement. 

I would say I have a hard time understanding this viewpoint at all, because it strikes me as bizarre reading it now, but then I think back to when it first happened with Colin Kaepernick, and I recall that I was hearing the conservative narrative of those events at the time, and at the time I also thought his actions were disrespectful and it was the not the time. I was totally wrong. 

I don’t think donating is anywhere near the main support that people can give to the Black lives matter movement.  The simplest thing people can do is to just agree with the statement that Black lives matter. Unfortunately, many prominent figures have made all kinds of verbal contortions to avoid having to say that.  My contribution involved pieces of printer paper glued to cardboard from Amazon boxes and written on with markers to make signs.  It was similar for all those I saw around me. The merchandise I have seen if I wanted to buy something with the slogan is primarily from sellers on places like Etsy who are producing them. 

I think the people who for some reason refuse to say black lives matter when asked – – so obviously not you – – are the ones who have made it so that when someone says they don’t suppport Black lives matter, it certainly makes it sound like they don’t think they do. At least not enough to say it. It’s made worse by the strong association between prominent people who refuse to say that also being people with clearly racist backgrounds. 

Candace Owens is not a racist.  Neither is Thomas Sowell or many others who are not part of the Black Lives Matter movement but are, in fact, black.  

[TravelingChris]

19 minutes ago, Terabith said:

So, what would people consider legitimate forms of protest?  

Marches with signs and slogans are apparently out, because they might lead to violence or mayhem, even if by outside provocateurs.  

Kneeling while the Anthem is played before an athletic event is unacceptable.  

Apparently even years ago boycotting Coca-Cola products was infuriating.  

Shutting down roads is unacceptable.  

So, what, pray tell, IS an acceptable, reasonable form of protest for the fact that people are BEING KILLED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THEM?  

Because it seems to me, as a white woman who isn't particularly woke but who has witnessed a whole heck of a lot of acts of injustice towards friends of color, that the truth is that there is absolutely no way to protest that is acceptable to white people.  It seems to me that what people want is for people of color to just shut up and meekly take it and not complain.  

Please, show me how I'm wrong.  

People can protest,  I can also think it is stupid,.  Both of us have that right.  I am much more interested in actual actions to improve lives.  Protests don;t do that.

[Carol in Cal.]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I’ve seen people state that they think this is an important issue. I’m really really glad about that. I’m also not seeing what a permissible way of signaling support for the issue in the public sphere would be. 

I’m genuinely not understanding. I’m honestly not trying to put anyone down. Is the idea that only local actions are worthwhile? I’m sorry if my guesses are off, I’m just not following.

OK, sorry.

There are people who have talked about what is worthwhile and effective, and there are people who have described things that threw shade on the BLM reputation in response to a couple of people asking why anyone would not support it—remember?  That was the genesis of this, and my sense is that everyone involved was pretty much just saying, OK, I might not feel this way but here is why someone else might.  

Regarding acceptable protests—to me protests don’t really accomplish much but they can be very satisfying.  Blocking freeways is extremely dangerous for everyone—the protesters, the traffic, first responders (a very serious issue here in CA where we have Big Fast Fires because we literally have no rain half the year), and law enforcement, and frankly it seems pretty self-indulgent to me and awfully big risk/little payoff.  I think that peaceful marches are just great, and to the extent that they are large and show a demonstrable preponderance of views, they can send a really good signal.  I don’t care all that much whether they are permitted or not unless they block freeways or major thoroughfares, but if they do, they need more prep and occupants need more warning.  I went to Berkeley and I saw shit get coopted constantly so I tend to assume that that’s where things land after the first one or two incidents, because I have seen it so often, but hey, whatever, and sometimes you just want to speak out and that’s your right as an American.

Looting being defended?  Give me a break.   We are not talking about food for the starving here.  Not defensible, and throws shade on the rest.  Attacking cars of bystanders just trying to get home?  Not good.  Burning down buildings?  Totally counterproductive.  

I get why the sports thing bothers people, and described that before.

I think local organizing, speaking out about actual facts to people who genuinely don’t know them, and political organizing are more effective than anything else except prayer, charity, reconciliation, and other church related Christian things that have an outsized result when they are done right with the right spirit.  

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Candace Owens is not a racist.  Neither is Thomas Sowell or many others who are not part of the Black Lives Matter movement but are, in fact, black.  

I think the point was lots of racists do associate themselves with anti-BLM thought. Obviously, not everyone who doesn’t support the movement is an old school racist (like, thinks Black people are inferior.) I would guess that not a single person on this thread is racist in that sense, which is a lovely thing about this community 🙂 .

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I think local organizing, speaking out about actual facts to people who genuinely don’t know them, and political organizing are more effective than anything else except prayer, charity, reconciliation, and other church related Christian things that have an outsized result when they are done right with the right spirit.  

So, let me make sure I understand. You like the idea of local organizing and political organizing. I would actually agree with that 🙂 . What would you like the local and political organizations to focus on as a goal? I’d make some suggestions for what I’ve gathered from the thread, but I’m afraid that I’ll get it wrong and that I’ve misunderstood. Would police reform be a reasonable goal?

[TravelingChris]

11 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Maybe you could understand it as a person of color, who is also disabled, might have worse access to health care, be treated differently by doctors, etc, compared to you. 

Yes, that is white privilege. 

What did you think people mean by the phrase?

It seems cheap to me to be more concerned about the football game ritual than about the people concerned with police brutality. 

Not wanting politics to upset ones entertainment is like not wanting sit ins to disrupt one's dining, or not wanting bus boycots to disrupt one's daily life, etc. Saying you don't want your entertainment ruined by civil rights is like saying you don't want your lunch ruined by a sit in. 

A protest is, by design, supposed to be jarring. That's the whole point. 

To think one's right to be unbothered by it is more important than other people's right not to be harassed or killed by police is...not something I'd want to admit to. 

 

You care about what you care about and I care about what I care about?  How about I want to reserve a time to destress???? Sports was for that.  News and reading articles and twitter is for becoming informed.  And I think it is super rich for multimillionaire athletes to be telling the rest of us what we should care about--- how about I actually put my money where my mouth is- i.e. I support all sorts of iniatives and actual donations to help underprivileged with education, with health, etc.  I can want to reserve my free entertainment time to be protest free and that doesn't make me insensitive or racist or uncaring or anything.  It just means I want protest free entertainment.  And apparently, so do most people.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, kand said:

Just to make abundantly clear, I was saying my initial thoughts about it were dead wrong.  I don’t watch football at all, so when I first heard some commentary on it that was negative, I agreed with that.  I’m learning more about how it came about and what the purpose was, my thoughts are entirely different. And I especially agree now that if we go with this idea that protest should never be disruptive or uncomfortable or inconvenient, things will never change. Like it or not, doing police ride-alongs, or meeting privately with community leaders, or any of the other suggested things are highly unlikely to effect any systemic change. These discussions the past few years always bring me back to MLK Jr’s letter from Birmingham Jail. It’s as timely now as it was when it was written: https://letterfromjail.com

I have actually personally found the nationwide movement eye-opening. I didn’t realize how entrenched the racism was until I heard people speaking out and saw the videos. Ignorant of me, I know. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, TravelingChris said:

You care about what you care about and I care about what I care about?  How about I want to reserve a time to destress???? Sports was for that.  News and reading articles and twitter is for becoming informed.  And I think it is super rich for multimillionaire athletes to be telling the rest of us what we should care about--- how about I actually put my money where my mouth is- i.e. I support all sorts of iniatives and actual donations to help underprivileged with education, with health, etc.  I can want to reserve my free entertainment time to be protest free and that doesn't make me insensitive or racist or uncaring or anything.  It just means I want protest free entertainment.  And apparently, so do most people.

And how is that different from a person during the civil rights era saying they just want to enjoy their lunch in peace, and destress, and not have to deal with a sit in? Or is it?

And can't one just turn on the game 5 minutes later, if the sight of someone kneeling is so upsetting? 

For me, the issue is that there is police brutality, not that I'm being reminded of it for a few minutes during a 4 hour entertainment event. But if it was that upsetting why not just skip that part?

 

[TravelingChris]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think the point was lots of racists do associate themselves with anti-BLM thought. Obviously, not everyone who doesn’t support the movement is an old school racist (like, thinks Black people are inferior.) I would guess that not a single person on this thread is racist in that sense, which is a lovely thing about this community 🙂 .

well I don't follow racists on twitter or have friends who are racists or follow white supremacists or habit those types of forums, etc so I have no idea which racists are associating themselves with anti-BLM.  I hardly know the names of any racists- Richard Spencer, I believe is one, and David Dukes, if he is still alive and we had or maybe still have some legislator here in my state that seems to be one but I haven't heard anything of what any of them feel about BLM nor would I care what they have to say because I do not associate with racists, as much as possible.

[Terabith]

16 minutes ago, annandatje said:

Bingo.  Your list applies to virtually every social justice movement.  Funny how once the goal is somewhat attained, no one in their right mind wants to go back to the old ways.  I heard some of these objections as a child during Civil Rights Movement. By the way, I admired Kapernick taking a stand against police brutality regardless of what song being performed.  If I recall correctly, Kapernick received a lukewarm apology about three years too late.

 

It reminds me of a passage in the book Cheaper By the Dozen.  The mother doesn't believe in spanking, but at that time and place, saying that would have been seen as radical and unreasonable.  So every time the father went to spank one of their children, she objected to the part of the body he was spanking.  "Not at the tip of the spine!  I don't know where, but definitely not at the tip of the spine!"

[TravelingChris]

Just now, ktgrok said:

And how is that different from a person during the civil rights era saying they just want to enjoy their lunch in peace, and destress, and not have to deal with a sit in? Or is it?

And can't one just turn on the game 5 minutes later, if the sight of someone kneeling is so upsetting? 

For me, the issue is that there is police brutality, not that I'm being reminded of it for a few minutes during a 4 hour entertainment event. But if it was that upsetting why not just skip that part?

 

I don't know about everyone else, since there are millions who have turned out.  I find the   NFL organization to be one that I do not support for a number of reasons, including their cowtowing to BLM, but not limited to that issue alone.  There are other sports, with less commercials and no politics----- I prefer those.

And I do not understand why you keep insisting that I want segregation like there was at the time of the lunch counter protests?????  No, I am not a segregationist at all.  No, I had no issue with lunch counter protests, etc in the original civil rights protests.  I just do not think that kneeling or raising fists or what have you in protest at a football game does anything to stop any police haraassment or brutality or whatever.  I think it is a idiotic protest, with a whole lot of posturing and divisiveness---- like what about the players who don't want to kneel??? Some want to support veterans or active duty or law enforcement (who are under great fire and have been assassinated all too frequently in the last year)  Who do you think actually suffers from police defunding???? It isn\'t people with money- who hire guards, build expensive fences, buy expensive weapons, buy the increasingly expensive ammo, etc..   It is the poor- who are much more likely to be crime victims.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

And I do not understand why you keep insisting that I want segregation like there was at the time of the lunch counter protests????? 

She is not saying that. She’s saying that if you don’t want your life disrupted by protests, you would have probably disapproved of the tactics from back then. It’s easy enough to approve now that your life isn’t being affected.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[TravelingChris]

16 minutes ago, kand said:

Just to make abundantly clear, I was saying my initial thoughts about it were dead wrong.  I don’t watch football at all, so when I first heard some commentary on it that was negative, I agreed with that.  In learning more about how it came about and what the purpose was, my thoughts are entirely different. And I especially agree that if we go with this idea that protest should never be disruptive or uncomfortable or inconvenient, things will never change. Like it or not, doing police ride-alongs, or meeting privately with community leaders, or any of the other suggested things are highly unlikely to effect any systemic change. These discussions the past few years always bring me back to MLK Jr’s letter from Birmingham Jail. It’s as timely now as it was when it was written: https://letterfromjail.com

I say first do a ride along,  Then find out your local pd procedures, etc.  If you disagree with them, lobby your representatives to change what you don't like, if this is your issue.  Run for office, do petitions, etc.  Get involved in the syste,;     There is no Ch

[TravelingChris]

Just now, TravelingChris said:

I say first do a ride along,  Then find out your local pd procedures, etc.  If you disagree with them, lobby your representatives to change what you don't like, if this is your issue.  Run for office, do petitions, etc.  Get involved in the syste,;    

 

[TravelingChris]

17 minutes ago, kand said:

This goes back again to Letter from Birmingham Jail. Truly, I encourage  anyone who hasn’t read it in the last year or two to do so. It’s worthwhile. https://letterfromjail.com

I’m trying to remember the name of this technique. The holding up of those who are outlying members of a group as if they were representatives of it. White folks love to trot out Candace Owens. She doesn’t get to represent all Black people just because she’s Black. 

Of course she doesn't represent all black people.  No one does.  And all blacks aren't Democrats either.  As tge recent election showed, 16 % voted for the R candidate.  But then, I am not like the racist D candidate who declared that "you ain't black" if you don't vote Dem..

But BLM doesn't represent all blacks either.  Not black police nor many non police too.