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

[TravelingChris]

9 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I think that this is a fair question.  One of the ways that I address it is by absolutely not letting assumed complicity stay assumed.

But, I would invite you to consider—maybe those same people would preferentially rent to you or sell their home to you or help you get a mortgage because you are white.  Maybe you don’t have to worry about your husband or son being dragged out of the car and manhandled or worse during a traffic stop every single time they drive anywhere.  These are more hidden privileges that you and I both have.  

My husband is a from a decidedly working class white family of origin, and I think that his dad would have absolutely been infuriated by the idea that he had privilege, but he did—those ones I mentioned above.  That doesn’t make him at fault or complicit, but it does effect outcomes in the long run.

I have to worry about that one a lot actually and yes, my son is white but he has already had at least one very unpleasant experience with police and he was not acting impolite, etc.  He does have a beard.

[Pam in CT]

re how to "support" the principle that of course black lives matter

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

So this is why "support BLM" concerns people.  Because for many people and organizations, the main "support" they can or do give is monetary support.  Sounds like these very large monetary totals may not be spent in ways that actually improve black lives, justice for all blacks, etc.  So this goes back to my first comment on this topic.

Black lives matter and I would do anything I could to promote better police justice.  But donating money to "BLM" or buying a BLM t-shirt is not happening, at least given what I've learned so far.

Buy a shirt if you want the shirt!  Otherwise don't worry about who's making a merch margin. It's not feasible to track down every merch maker, and honestly who cares if even a purely opportunistic merch seller outsourcing to a Chinese factory is making a $2 margin on a shirt you otherwise want.

If you can't figure out, or don't have the time/inclination to figure out, the credibility of local affiliates near you and what local community work they may be supporting... send your donations elsewhere, to actually defined 501c3 organizations that DO have defined leadership and by-laws and submit disclosure filings and have Charity Navigator and GuideStar ratings you can look up. The Equal Justice Initiative, SPLC, Brennan Center, and many other well established actual organizations, with mission statements and leadership you can due-diligence on, are working  on different facets of justice issues of concern to people for whom black lives matter.  It doesn't need to be attached to the capitalized letters B, and L, and M to substantively support the work.

 

If that's where you are that is fine. 

And if seeing a football player silently kneel for a minute before a game begins rankles you a little bit... try just putting the rankle aside in arguendo, *as if* the kneeling might possibly "mean" something different to the person doing it, or to a kid watching it on TV, than it registers to you.

Consider the possibility that a person of good faith could adopt the posture of prayer in hopes that this nation actually achieve the ideals purported in flag and anthem.

Is it REALLY such a big honking deal if a player kneels?

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

But why is it distasteful? I know people have stopped watching, but I'm trying to understand why, given that it seems like an unambiguously good cause, requires no money, and honestly requires no time from you. 

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.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

 If that's where you are that is fine. 

And if seeing a football player silently kneel for a minute before a game begins rankles you a little bit... try just putting the rankle aside in arguendo, *as if* the kneeling might possibly "mean" something different to the person doing it, or to a kid watching it on TV, than it registers to you.

Consider the possibility that a person of good faith could adopt the posture of prayer in hopes that this nation actually achieve the ideals purported in flag and anthem.

Is it REALLY such a big honking deal if a player kneels?

 

FTR I said not one word about kneeling or football.

Edited November 10, 2020 by SKL

[Sneezyone]

Personally, I am more rankled by someone driving about with tattered, filthy flags flying behind a lifted truck, but that’s just me. 

[TravelingChris]

43 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Do you think Pelosi is a socialist? 

AOC is a socialist. I think she's admitted that outright. 

But I think you missed the point of my question. A

No, I don't think Pelosi is a socialist.  But AOC is and Bush, the new rep, may very well be since she has allied herself with that wing of the Dem party.

[Pam in CT]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

FTR I said not one word about kneeling or football.

I apologize.  This thread is flying and it's hard to keep straight.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 minute ago, Pam in CT said:

re how to "support" the principle that of course black lives matter

Buy a shirt if you want the shirt!  Otherwise don't worry about who's making a merch margin. It's not feasible to track down every merch maker, and honestly who cares if even a purely opportunistic merch seller outsourcing to a Chinese factory is making a $2 margin on a shirt you otherwise want.

If you can't figure out, or don't have the time/inclination to figure out, the credibility of local affiliates near you and what local community work they may be supporting... send your donations elsewhere, to actually defined 501c3 organizations that DO have defined leadership and by-laws and submit disclosure filings and have Charity Navigator and GuideStar ratings you can look up. The Equal Justice Initiative, SPLC, Brennan Center, and many other well established actual organizations, with mission statements and leadership you can due-diligence on, are working  on different facets of justice issues of concern to people for whom black lives matter.  It doesn't need to be attached to the capitalized letters B, and L, and M to substantively support the work.

 

If that's where you are that is fine. 

 

Well, it’s not fine with activists in my neighborhood.  (Largely white ones.  Our neighborhood is mostly white and Hispanic, and the BLM demonstrations are mostly white women here.)

A group of them went from little store to little store to little restaurant a couple of months ago, asking for donations to BLM.  These donations are not tax deductible charitable contributions, and these little businesses are barely hanging on because of Covid.  Some donated, some donated and put up signs, and some declined.  No problem.

Then the organizers went on local social media groups and listed the ones that did not donate and called them racist because of that.  They started a buzz of accusations of racism to try to tank these places sales.  That was pretty OTT in my view, particularly right now.

 

 

[TravelingChris]

30 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

and not because I see a black person being disrespected but just kind of the way some people seem to talk makes me suspect (there are no blacks around at those times)

What exactly is wrong with what I said-  people I assume are at least mildly racist make non overtly racist, but slightly tinged remarks while only white people are present- is that preferable?????? I am not understanding the difference here.

[Pen]

 

This thread about trying to “improve division” is interesting in how not only divided, but also how divisive it is.  

 

ETA: I feel very sad reading it.

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Pen

[TravelingChris]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

Well, it’s not fine with activists in my neighborhood.  (Largely white ones.  Our neighborhood is mostly white and Hispanic, and the BLM demonstrations are mostly white women here.)

A group of them went from little store to little store to little restaurant a couple of months ago, asking for donations to BLM.  These donations are not tax deductible charitable contributions, and these little businesses are barely hanging on because of Covid.  Some donated, some donated and put up signs, and some declined.  No problem.

Then the organizers went on local social media groups and listed the ones that did not donate and called them racist because of that.  They started a buzz of accusations of racism to try to tank these places sales.  That was pretty OTT in my view, particularly right now.

 

 

Yeah, I have seen so-called BLM riots where there do not seem to be any black people just white people who are rioting, throwing Molotov cocktails, etc.  

A lot of the BLM protestors are rich, upper class, lefty whites who feel very justified in being morally superior and looking down on all the other whites who aren't lefty or rich or upper class and calling them racists.  

and then we get the people on the left who think we on the right all need a re-education too.

[TravelingChris]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Personally, I am more rankled by someone driving about with tattered, filthy flags flying behind a lifted truck, but that’s just me. 

That bothers me a lot too.

[Pam in CT]

27 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well first of all, I am the person who said I am skeptical about ANY slogan-name because it can be misleading as to what is actually happening.

Secondly, your own posts explain why monetary support for "BLM" is in question.  Questioning support for an organization (which is naturally going to be associated with local movements that use the exact same name and slogans) does not mean questioning a moral or ideal.  The moral/ideal does not depend on the name or who gets rich off of it.

 

Right. It's NOT a centralized top down organization. I'm definitely NOT defending a bunch of apparent con men who evidently decided to grift off the goodwill of well meaning people.  Definitely Team Letitia James on this issue.

Why is it hard to believe Black Lives Matter is an idea/slogan that animates real people on a grass roots person-to-person basis, rather than a centralized organization with a shadowy mastermind doling out funds and coordinating messaging? 

Why is harder to believe that people might organically support justice for black people, than that people might come to support homeschooling or veganism or opposition to abortion or other issues?

 

[Carol in Cal.]

12 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I have to worry about that one a lot actually and yes, my son is white but he has already had at least one very unpleasant experience with police and he was not acting impolite, etc.  He does have a beard.

Truly sorry to hear that.  That kind of treatment does fall differently depending on perceptions (looks like a trouble maker) or locale (my white Texan friends were raised to fear the police just in general) (and Chicago police are notorious for abusing civilians, for instance).  It is true that it is not all racial.  But I do think that the racial OTT stuff is more widespread and more invisible to a lot of white people, based on what I have seen out here.

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Well, it’s not fine with activists in my neighborhood.  (Largely white ones.  Our neighborhood is mostly white and Hispanic, and the BLM demonstrations are mostly white women here.)

A group of them went from little store to little store to little restaurant a couple of months ago, asking for donations to BLM.  These donations are not tax deductible charitable contributions, and these little businesses are barely hanging on because of Covid.  Some donated, some donated and put up signs, and some declined.  No problem.

Then the organizers went on local social media groups and listed the ones that did not donate and called them racist because of that.  They started a buzz of accusations of racism to try to tank these places sales.  That was pretty OTT in my view, particularly right now.

 

 

And this, quite frankly, is a major pet peeve of mine. White folk doing a circle jerk about what they think BLM is about based on the statements, behaviors and antics of ppl who 1) aren’t affiliated with the movement and/or 2) have zero connection to or desire to amplify the needs of those individuals/communities that are most affected. The closer your ear is to the ground to hear what is bubbling up, the more accurate your info. Rather than listen to those voices, folks substitute third hand hearsay from their preferred sources. That’s your right of course, but it’s not an accurate representation of the movement. Period.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Sneezyone

[TravelingChris]

11 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

And here you again. You know what motivated Kaepernick. How do you know this? Do you now him personally? Have you spoken to him? 

You object to people here thinking you are racist but you think that Kaepernick is a con artist. 

Really? 

You don't need something distasteful before a game? 

Do you see how this sounds like "let them eat cake!" 

This is why SneezyOne wants you to keep on talking. You're doing a lot of her work for her here. 

NM OFcourse you are right---OH I need so much re-education.  And as AOC said, I can be expecting payback too- cause they are putting me on a a list.  Don't you see how you are acting just like brownshirts?

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Pam in CT said:

Why is harder to believe that people might organically support justice for black people, than that people might come to support homeschooling or veganism or opposition to abortion or other issues?

 

It isn't hard to believe at all.

I am certain that most of the people who don't "support BLM" do believe that black lives matter.

I am not sure why some people here don't see the difference.

[TravelingChris]

3 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Truly sorry to hear that.  That kind of treatment does fall differently depending on perceptions (looks like a trouble maker) or locale (my white Texan friends were raised to fear the police just in general) (and Chicago police are notorious for abusing civilians, for instance).  It is true that it is not all racial.  But I do think that the racial OTT stuff is more widespread and more invisible to a lot of white people, based on what I have seen out here.

 

Yes, I do think it was but that was shocking to me---- why are people so uninformed?????

[Not_a_Number]

20 minutes ago, SKL said:

Aside from how the heck did they know within 40 days whether it was a male or female fetus ....

Hah. No clue. This was two seconds of Googling. They might have had superstitions about it. Do you have any idea if this has evidence behind it or not, though? 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Hah. No clue. This was two seconds of Googling. They might have had superstitions about it. Do you have any idea if this has evidence behind it or not, though? 

No, that is not something I plan to spend time researching.

But you seemed disposed to believe it, even in spite of a rather obvious flaw.  Maybe contemplate why.

Edited November 10, 2020 by SKL

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Truly sorry to hear that.  That kind of treatment does fall differently depending on perceptions (looks like a trouble maker) or locale (my white Texan friends were raised to fear the police just in general) (and Chicago police are notorious for abusing civilians, for instance).  It is true that it is not all racial.  But I do think that the racial OTT stuff is more widespread and more invisible to a lot of white people, based on what I have seen out here.

My DH had bad interactions with police as a teen, and he's a white nerd, lol. He said that the racial stuff he saw (in Chicago specifically, but also other places) was much worse than anything he'd ever had happen to him, though. 

 

4 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

NM OFcourse you are right---OH I need so much re-education.  And as AOC said, I can be expecting payback too- cause they are putting me on a a list.  Don't you see how you are acting just like brownshirts?

Luckily, AOC has no way to punish you. She has no power. 

[Frances]

32 minutes ago, SKL said:

You can look up what some people are stating as facts.  But if you really want to know "facts," you need to know whom to trust to tell you those facts - whose fact reporting isn't tainted by bias and prejudice.  Looked-up "facts" are not worth much if the source is tainted ... and most easy look-ups are very tainted.

So which media sources, of any type, do you think are the most centrist (unbiased) and reliable?
 

What are your main media sources? 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

No, that is not something I plan to spend time researching.

But you seemed disposed to believe it, even in spite of a rather obvious flaw.  Maybe contemplate why.

... I have no idea if it's true, which is why I posted it on a thread and asked if anyone had heard of it before. I gave it with the disclaimer that I didn't know if it was true. I'm very capable of suspending disbelief. 

I have the prior that the church's abortion stance has changed from other things I have read, but no prior about these specific numbers. If anyone would have a source for either this or the opposite, that would be helpful for me. 

[Moonhawk]

23 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, I Googled this, and found the following: 

"In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment." 

I didn't fact-check this: do you know if this is true? 

I believe incorrect?

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. Link to Catechism. (scroll to 2270 for full reading)

Regardless of history, which I'm sure is very interesting, just sticking to the facts of the Catholic Church teaches today which is relevant.

Procuring or having an abortion is subject to ex-communication. I do not think supporting abortion in a political sphere is automatic ex-communication, but I would leave that to someone in the actual hierarchy to correct me. It is not in line Catholic teaching, however. 

---

Just handing you an answer to a specific question.

I refuse to start talking about "good" and "bad" Catholics. That whole judge not lest ye be judged and OMG I have so much to be judged for. Just because what is "obviously" wrong with one Catholic does not mean that the assumed-good Catholic has no moral stain just as bad so it's a fruitless discussion. 

Don't want to further derail the thread. Let's leave abortion out of this discussion (she says ironically) so that we can talk civilly about civil talking.

 

[Not_a_Number]

OK, more Googling: 

"The Church’s longest held belief on this matter is one of “delayed hominization,” or that a fetus could not gain a soul until it was “formed.” St. Thomas Aquinas, a major heavyweight in the Catholic Church in the 13th century, took after Aristotle and believed that being formed enough for ensoulment happened at around 40 days for males and about 80 days for females. More commonly, ensoulment was deemed to happen at the “quickening,” the moment when a pregnant woman first feels her child move, normally around 18 weeks into a pregnancy. While Catholic law frowned upon abortion, it ruled that it was only homicide if it occured after the fetus gained a human soul." 

So, this seems to be citing St. Thomas Aquinas. I'm asking people if they've ever heard of it because I expect people to have more nuanced views on church history than me, because I'm not even Christian and I certainly haven't studied church history. But I don't have strong priors about it and if someone explained to me why I was wrong, I would listen.

One of my main defenses against being wrong is to not have strong priors about things I don't have sufficient information about. Therefore, my prior about something I found with two seconds of Googling and didn't check is extremely weak. I don't know why you'd assume that it's strong. 

This one ought to be a matter of fact, right? Either the Catholic church has changed its stance on abortion or it has not... 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Moonhawk said:

I believe incorrect?

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. Link to Catechism. (scroll to 2270 for full reading)

But this says nothing about the history of the stance. Really, nothing at all. There's no reason to assume that because we currently interpret the Bible this way, we must have always done so. 

[SKL]

Just now, Frances said:

So which media sources, of any type, do you think are the most centrist (unbiased) and reliable?
 

What are your main media sources? 

I really don't believe anything unless I've seen the underlying primary documentation.  For example, when all the news sources are talking about what Document X said, I will go and read Document X from beginning to end, and I'll also check to make sure it's the same Document X on all the links, because people can doctor Document X.

If I see an iffy video clip, I will try to find the original whole video and get as close as I can to the entire statement without cuts.  But even then, there could be cuts that I'm not aware of.

I check a variety of news sources, especially if something flags my BS filter, which has been developing over 54 years.  If none of the other sources conflicts and something still seems hard to believe, I will ask on a board with a large mix of people.  For example, months ago, I heard that a certain Gov had decided that Covid-positive patients must be put back into the nursing homes they lived in, resulting in many additional infections and deaths.  This sounded too outrageous to be true, so I checked around, and found nothing to dispute it.  Then I came on this board and posted it with the question:  "is this true?"  Turns out it was true.

Hope that helps.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

For example, months ago, I heard that a certain Gov had decided that Covid-positive patients must be put back into the nursing homes they lived in, resulting in many additional infections and deaths.  This sounded too outrageous to be true, so I checked around, and found nothing to dispute it.  Then I came on this board and posted it with the question:  "is this true?"  Turns out it was true.

This was the policy in a number of states, I believe. They are still wrangling about whether this caused additional infections and deaths, because it's extremely hard to figure that out -- it's hard to know who introduces COVID into a setting, and if a patient has COVID and has gone into the hospital, there was already COVID in the facility. 

I was very interested in the truth of this matter myself, and while it's indisputably true that they put patients back into nursing homes (although Cuomo himself didn't order it; this was done by his medical officer), it's not clear whether that had an outsize impact. They did a study afterwards, and concluded that it didn't, but given that they did it themselves, it's obviously not impartial. (And a politically motivated study from the other side would also not be impartial.) 

So, this one needs to be split into things we can know and things we can't. We can know that patients WERE supposed to be put back into nursing homes. It is going to be hard to disentangle how many deaths it caused without some number crunching. You can certainly argue it was a bad policy, and overall, I probably agree with that, although I understand why they did it. 

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

... I have no idea if it's true, which is why I posted it on a thread and asked if anyone had heard of it before. I gave it with the disclaimer that I didn't know if it was true. I'm very capable of suspending disbelief. 

I have the prior that the church's abortion stance has changed from other things I have read, but no prior about these specific numbers. If anyone would have a source for either this or the opposite, that would be helpful for me. 

Like many other things in the Catholic Church or any other large, long-standing organization, there has always been conflict between the Christian ideal and the actual practice.

As far as abortions, from all the things I've read and seen over the years, I do believe that there were abortions performed in cases where, for example, a priest impregnated a novice.  Actually there are lots of baby bone remains in old church properties that support that belief. 

I think the reason you posted the results of your few-seconds google search was to weaken another poster's assertion that abortion is against Catholic beliefs.  I just want you to notice how quick you were to jump on that when your intent was to weaken another's argument when you really weren't sure of the facts yourself.  It is a good illustration of what this whole thread is about.

[Pam in CT]

re of course black lives matter

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

It isn't hard to believe at all.

I am certain that most of the people who don't "support BLM" do believe that black lives matter.

I am not sure why some people here don't see the difference.

The difference I truly don't understand is:

If of course black lives matter...

... why is the slogan, capitalized, so provocative?

 

Autism Speaks is a slogan, with capitalized letters. There is no tetchy counter-response backlash, But what about Downs Syndrome?

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month. There is no tetchy counter-response backlash, But what about heart disease?

The disability rights movement did not evoke a tetchy counter-repsonse backlash, But what about people without disability?

When organizers for issues specific to seniors put together actual 501cs/4 organizations, with bylaws, in AARP, there was no tetchy counter-response backlash, but what about middle aged people?

What about the black justice movement t different from all the other movements?

 

Here's the difference I genuinely don't understand: If it really is true that All Lives Matter, why is it provocative to claim, in capital letters, that Black Lives do?

If I went out right now with a sign that proclaimed, in capital letters, that Children's Lives Matter... there would be no backlash. Why does it so rankle if the claim is made about Black Lives?

 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think the reason you posted the results of your few-seconds google search was to weaken another poster's assertion that abortion is against Catholic beliefs.  I just want you to notice how quick you were to jump on that when your intent was to weaken another's argument when you really weren't sure of the facts yourself.  It is a good illustration of what this whole thread is about.

I had the impression that the church has not always been that rigid. I was almost certain that the stance has become more rigid, and I'm finding nothing to disabuse me of that notion. But I wasn't sure about any of the specifics I cited. 

You could argue that this has nothing to do with what was stated, and that currently, anyone who supports abortion rights is not a good Catholic, though. That's definitely a valid stance.

[Pam in CT]

[Godwin's Law, but abortion]

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re of course black lives matter

The difference I truly don't understand is:

If of course black lives matter...

... why is the slogan, capitalized, so provocative?

Probably because BLM slogans are shown on the news with arson and mayhem in the background.  And this is most people's only real association with the slogan.

There is no question the media creates and benefits from these associations.

ETA - the above statements are not my reasons for what I wrote about BLM above.  I was responding here to the question "why so provocative."

Edited November 10, 2020 by SKL

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Pam in CT said:

[Godwin's Law, but abortion]

Hah. OK, enough abortion. I apologize. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Probably because BLM slogans are shown on the news with arson and mayhem in the background.  And this is most people's only real association with the slogan.

Maybe this is just because I don't watch any cable news, but I have none of those associations with those words. I associate BLM with the movement started after police killings and with Black people fighting for their rights. I'm aware that there has been looting at some protests (I live in Manhattan, you know), but I had the impression that was NOT the majority of the protests, and while I haven't gone to a protest (COVID, darn it -- I'm too nervous), I've seen some and they've been entirely peaceful. 

Since it's a decentralized movement, I don't see how I could blame BLM for the looting, since they don't control who comes to the protest. You could argue that's a weakness of a decentralized movement, but it's also its strength, because it means anyone can get involved. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Moonhawk]

Nevermind, moving on with everyone else, lol

 

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Not_a_Number]

No more Godwin's law, lol. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Maybe this is just because I don't watch any cable news, but I have none of those associations with those words. I associate BLM with the movement started after police killings and with Black people fighting for their rights. I'm aware that there has been looting at some protests (I live in Manhattan, you know), but I had the impression that was NOT the majority of the protests, and while I haven't gone to a protest (COVID, darn it -- I'm too nervous), I've seen some and they've been entirely peaceful. 

Since it's a decentralized movement, I don't see how I could blame BLM for the looting, since they don't control who comes to the protest. You could argue that's a weakness of a decentralized movement, but it's also its strength, because it means anyone can get involved. 

The question was why is the slogan so provocative.  That's what I was answering.

You can't expect every American to know how every organization works on the local level.  They see a slogan used across geographies, they are going to assume there is some meaningful connection.

Actually I think most Americans believe bad people infiltrate good protests, rather than that every protest related to justice for blacks is violent.  Most such protests are peaceful ... but the peaceful protests aren't the ones that usually make the national news.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

Actually I think most Americans believe bad people infiltrate good protests, rather than that every protest related to justice for blacks is violent.  Most such protests are peaceful ... but the peaceful protests aren't the ones that usually make the national news.

Is that true across all news networks? Genuine question: I watch zero cable news. None of at all. They all annoy me. 

[SKL]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Is that true across all news networks? Genuine question: I watch zero cable news. None of at all. They all annoy me. 

I don't watch TV.  But online news does the same.  Also, I see what people tune into by what they choose to post on social media etc.

I'm not here to compare which news outlets do more or less of this.  They all exist because people come to them to see "newsworthy" stories.  Violence is newsworthy.  Fear is newsworthy.  Division is newsworthy.

[Moonhawk]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'd be curious if anyone had a well-sourced answer. I'll put this into my "I don't know what's true" pile. 

I'll ask around if you're actually interested.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

I don't watch TV.  But online news does the same.  Also, I see what people tune into by what they choose to post on social media etc.

But I haven't found that in my sources. That's what I'm saying. Nothing I read online has presented the protests as largely violent. I KNOW there's been violence, of course, because it's mentioned, and when I was watching Cuomo's pressers, it came up (hence the curfew), but nothing I read paints them as violent on average or signals that the sporadic issues ought to mean lack of support. 

 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I'll ask around if you're actually interested.

I'm ALWAYS interested. No, really, I care about facts more than about other things, lol. This mostly gets me piled on everywhere, because I don't tend to toe the line. (Try stating that COVID case number records are totally meaningless in the comments on a left-wing site. You get BURIED. And they really are meaningless.) 

ETA: anyway, if you figure this out, I'd love to hear. It's a common talking point, and if it's wrong, I would like to know. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

But I haven't found that in my sources. That's what I'm saying. Nothing I read online has presented the protests as largely violent. I KNOW there's been violence, of course, because it's mentioned, and when I was watching Cuomo's pressers, it came up (hence the curfew), but nothing I read paints them as violent on average or signals that the sporadic issues ought to mean lack of support.

Once again you are pulling words out of the air.  Words that nobody said or thought.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Once again you are pulling words out of the air.  Words that nobody said or thought.

OK, I apologize. All I'm saying is that I haven't gotten any such associations from my reading. And I'm wondering whether it's globally true that everyone gets those associations, or does it depend heavily on WHAT you read. 

[SKL]

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, I apologize. All I'm saying is that I haven't gotten any such associations from my reading. And I'm wondering whether it's globally true that everyone gets those associations, or does it depend heavily on WHAT you read. 

Nobody said that though.

Someone asked why the slogan is so provocative, and I gave a reason why.  I never said "everyone" bla bla bla. 

Images of violence shown on the news will be remembered, often subliminally.  A picture is worth a thousand words; a video clip probably 100,000 words.

The media knows exactly what it is doing.  That is how they make their money.  That is why I don't trust the media.

[Not_a_Number]

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 and decentralized enough movement 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? 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Ordinary Shoes said:

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. 

Thank you. Just because there are divisions doesn't mean we need to abandon politics. Just because it's hard to find out the truth doesn't mean we need to give up on looking. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we should stop talking. 

[TravelingChris]

26 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Where you seen these "riots?" Were you present in person or did you see it on TV? 

How do you know who the BLM protestors are? Do you know all of them personally? Some of them personally? 

How do you know what they think about other white people? Did you talk to them? 

We're not talking about facts here. We're discussing how you feel. You feel that these BLM protestors are "rich, upper class, lefty whites." It's not based on your personal interactions with BLM protestors. 

I'll repeat again - can't you see what you're doing here? 

 

How do I know?  Because I actually investigated.  I saw court records of arrests and I saw live footage of riots and no, it wasn;t on tv.  It was actual on the scene reporting...by independent reporters.  

https://nypost.com/2020/09/05/wealthy-nyc-woman-busted-in-blm-rampage/

And this is not the only story but I have other things to do than to keep looking up old arrest records again.  This was just the easiest one to look up.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, TravelingChris said:

How do I know?  Because I actually investigated.  I saw court records of arrests and I saw live footage of riots and no, it wasn;t on tv.  It was actual on the scene reporting...by independent reporters.  

https://nypost.com/2020/09/05/wealthy-nyc-woman-busted-in-blm-rampage/

And this is not the only story but I have other things to do than to keep looking up old arrest records again.  This was just the easiest one to look up.

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.