Talk:Black Lives Matter

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon race.svg

This Race related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

I just do not see what is wrong with saying "all lives matter"[edit]

Since all lives do matter and non-blacks can face persecution too. I just find it bad and hypocritical that you have no mercy for persecuted Christians. It is just unfair and unjust. I apologize if I sound like a "I was born in the wrong generation" dude, I may sound edgy, but that is not my goal. We should reform our thoughts and positions and get rid of our cliches instead of being caught up in all those labels. Labelling should go away, it just hurts people. (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

which christians are you speaking of that are being persecuted? BLM is largely american based for issues that are mostly localised to us. no persecution of christians in the a general sense all lives should matter, but the reality is that some peoples lives do matter so much. some peoples lives matter just a tad more than some. it is reflected in the equalities and discrimination faced by some groups and not others. here it is black people who have been mistreated and disadvantaged to such an appalling degree its need to be addressed. black lives matter has such a purpose. it is necessary to say black lives matter because for the longest time they did not and their treatment today tells they still do not matter. saying 'all lives matter' in response to this or to blm does nothing to correct injustices that do not effect all lives equally, and tells us not that 'all lives matter' but 'your lives do not matter' AMassiveGay (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I just wonder why everyone wants people to support this organization. It is just a government funded group and it would be dangerous to insist that there was no propaganda involved. I just see no need why I should be with the wave. It may be interesting for some people, but not for me. I care more about God than about BLM. You may laugh at me, but that is just how I roll. (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Government funded? I'd like to see a source for that claim. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I find it bad and wrong that 217 has no mercy for orphaned kittens. (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Joining to the above person's observation about all lives matter[edit]

When the father says everyone has to get his share, we do not mark the father an evil person whose existence the family can barely tolerate, at least not for this statement. BLM does exactly that. What BLM could do is find another statement that expresses the problem in an unbalanced way, because the balance in the BLM statement is obviously non-existent. This statement is a psychological trick stirring up emotions rather than anything else. It is good for creating/supporting ideologies, perfect to start a war between people, a great way to amplify feelings of unfairness without any proper definition of the problem. And this is the root of a lot of these emotions: the expression BLM does nothing to describe an exact, well defined problem that can be investigated and potentially solved. It is a phrase, and teh BLM organization puts varying content behind it depending on who their audience is at the moment. It is a summary of feelings, not problems. BLM has to stay around exactly for the purpose of causing anger, frustration, stress. That is the only thing that this phrase achieved so far, and this is exactly the purpose that it was created for. ALM is an expression that does not help this strategy so it must go. Without mercy. Hence the reasoning against ALM so complex, so painfully illogical. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Are you also going to object to Greenpeace on the grounds that its name is meant to evoke feelings rather than being a statement of specific problems? Or the Republican Party, or National Audubon Society? The rationale for Black Lives Matter has been stated repeatedly, so you can hardly say you are unware of it. --Annanoon (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I definitely disagree with the manipulative name Greenpeace. When a name tries to be nice instead of trying to be a good definition of the purpose, that is manipulation IMO. Same way I am totally upset about the complete lack of information, and an overwhelming amount of artificially generated feelings in most things today. That includes the deceptive and manipulative "science" whose only purpose is to fool masses of people more and more effectively, using every piece of weakness psychology finds in the human way of thinking and feeling. The name of the "science" is of course marketing. The application of marketing ideas determines a lot of names today. No wonder everyone is confused about everything.
About the organizations themselves, Greenpeace vs. BLM, I do not remember the same kind of hatred and violence going around because of Greenpeace. At the same time I do not remember Greenpeace making phrases like ALM taboo in our society. Can you remember such a (normally neutral) phrase that you do not dare to speak out in the presence of Greenpeace people? Because I have to admit that I am not a brave man, but I would not be courageous enough to say ALM in the middle of a BLM demonstration/riot/whatever. (Maybe I would not need to say anything, just my looks would get me into trouble with them.) While at the same time when a group wants to save whales, I'd be surely brave enough to say all animals matter. (I know what you're thinking now, I do not particularly care for mosquitoes either, but I accept their role and necessity in nature.) And if Greenpeace people starts treating people like the Catholic church in the middle ages, making them outcasts for using forbidden phrases, that to me will definitely mean that they have crossed a red line. And to me it will also suggest that they have no content, all they have is phrases, and they have no idea how to defend those phrases by reasoning, so they use force. Fortunately Greenpeace is not like that AFAIK.
One reason I know the Catholic Church was full of lies (could use a less polite word here) during the middle ages is exactly because it made statements, and it would not tolerate any arguments, any doubts about those statements. The equation is simple: if you say ALM, you need to be afraid even of a physical response, and you will be an outcast in a large portion of society. Best is not to say this. This phrase has become a taboo. This is the main problem with the ALM issue. Not that it conflicts with some organization's "message", the problem is the violent answer (physically and otherwise). This shows that whatever BLM says today cannot be questioned in their presence. No matter if they are wrong about some issues, arguments are not allowed. This is why ALM is a phrase that is not allowed. Think twice before you go against them. Any thought, phrase that questions anything the BLM organization says will get you in trouble. You might be happy about this, you might believe marking the father an outcast for that phrase is a good thing, I disagree. You might think the father should have forgotten about all his other children, and should have concentrated only on that one child, I disagree again. If the father finds a good solution to the problem he needs to consider every member of the family in his decision. You might disagree, I accept that. What I do not accept is the anger, the hatred and the violence. I wish people were a bit more liberal in their thinking. — Unsigned, by: / talk


Why is he quoted at the top of the page, I don't think he's exactly the best person and we shouldn't use quotes by him on most subjects considering his record and deeds.— Unsigned, by: 2607:FB90:8370:4BF9:0:5:6C6E:5401 / talk

Records and deeds? Please elaborate. Most of the left adores Obama. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Correction, most of the center left adores him. Most of the left proper is politely critical at best. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I fear the center left as you call it comprises the lion's share of the left: 55% of Americans have a positive opinion, 33% negative. That 33% must include Trump Supporters and the proper left. 38% of Americans support Trump, presumably none are proper left. Trump voters who also voted for Obama ran around 13% of Trump voters or about 5% of voters. The proper left seems very small indeed.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, that does not necessarily mean he is adored. If that poll differentiated degrees of approval("merely competent" to "fucking awesome") I would find that more reliable. To address the original point raised, yes Obama does have a rough record on criminal justice related issues, but this particular quote is valid by itself so I think it should stay.-Flandres (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I admit approval is weaker than adoration. I plead guilty to abuse of language.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

All lives matter criticism isn't totally fair[edit]

The analogy isn't very accurate. What the reddit guy is talking about is individual fairness. Ok. Cool. What BLM wants is to distribute justice to a massive arbitrary group. I think there's a difference there. ShirouIsMyBae (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildas if you are registered. If you are not registered. please do so if you intend to comment further.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Done ShirouIsMyBae (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, BLM is saying "help Black people", but they are not saying "stop helping White people until we are helped". Barring some fringe loon, no one is advocating that we stop seeking justice for, say, Daniel Shaver. What BLM is asking for is justice for Black people too. The "all lives matter" BS doesn't seem to get that at all. CoryUsar (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The quote from the BLM placard makes the point as clear as it can be made, I think. Some people like the Reddit quote I guess. It's a parable, and not everyone likes parables.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
My house is on fire. Do we A) ignore it, B) equivocate about other houses mattering, or C) solve the problem? I would think the correct answer would be obvious, and anyone choosing otherwise is either naive to the point of farce or dishonest as all fuck. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Through its brevity, yours is the clearer statement of the underlying demand.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I think we're missing each other here. If four or five houses suddenly burst on fire then yeah, just stop the fire. But I think the answer is more nuanced in real life. Would you suggest that Obama is somehow oppressed? Do we need to desperately save him or something? What BLM suggests is that all houses that have a prime number are all being equally oppressed. What about asian americans? what about short people? I'm sure we could pull some statistic out that proves they are somehow oppressed. (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
We aren't talking past each other. I understand exactly what your argument is, it's just that your argument is stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The point isn't that black people are more oppressed than others, it's that black people are oppressed, period. Does that mean all black people are oppressed equally? Of course not, don't be daft. Many of the black rich and powerful aren't oppressed in the slightest, except for the bland, casual racism. Your conception of "nuance" is fairly idiotic; how would you divide it up further than not wealthy or powerful, and black? IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Time to explain the sociological concept of "privilege" to people again... To quote myself ""Privilege" is an umbrella term denoting set of social norms within a given society, norms which directly or indirectly benefit a certain group or groups (usually the most politically powerful with a sort of downward gradient) at the expense or exclusion of others. Here in America, that would be a white Protestant cisgender heterosexual male of an upper middle class to upper class background, who engages in monogamy and traditional social norms. The more "like" this someone is, the more "privileged" they are. (again, this exists as a gradient for social norms, there will of course be exceptions.) This is part of why you'll see some level of overlap in certain bigoted stereotypes. "Camp gay" being an extension of Toxic Masculinity (I really hope I don't have to explain Toxic Masculinity as well), and arguments against Trans people using the bathroom that they align with borrowing from older scares concerning gay people. This is because these people exist in a sort of perceived inverse of that social ideal, which our culture pushes as "what success looks like"". See also: this handy diagram. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
First of all I have to give you credit on better defining privilege and what would be considered a privileged person. When I talk to people, they usually don't have much of an argument beyond "Look at these statistics!" Second of all, I'm not denying that privilege doesn't exist. I'm not denying that white Protestants wouldn't generally receive better treatment from the rest of society. What I'm trying to get at is that you could say the above about literally any group at any time in any way. Asian, african, short, tall, male, female, red-haired, black-haired or whatever. We have all been elevated in status through zero effort in our part by no other reason then luck of the draw. At some time and in some manner we could all be justly targeted as oppressors and victims in some way when you view the world through the lens of group identity. I think that's all I'm going to say on this. This argument is already causing me stress lol ShirouIsMyBae (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have incorporated your statement in the privilege article. That's just the kind of guy I am.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

CP troll[edit]

inappropriate statements[edit]

This statement seems inappropriate for the 'Spreading the Message' section, and it reeks of Whataboutism:

In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte's police can carry out bulk extrajudicial executions without much international outcry, because it can become difficult to frame such killings in the terms of a familiar debate about racism.

There are abuses perpetrated by governments all over the world and while I agree the situation with Duterte is as despicable as any other, the fact that BLM maybe gets more media coverage in America than Duterte's killings is irrelevant because so do a lot of other extra-judicial murders. Russia's get plenty of coverage, and not because there is a 'racial' narrative to exploit, which is what this statement is claiming and blaming BLM for in the process. I'm all for the appropriate criticism of BLM, but this is not appropriate at all.

And this in the See Also section does not make a whole lot of sense:

If BLM inspires violence, then you've obviously never seen that video where someone from one of these groups punched Richard Spencer in the face.

Does that mean that if I haven't seen that video (I have), then BLM doesn't inspire violence? How could whether I (or you) have seen a video have any bearing on whether BLM inspires violence? It makes no sense, bad form for RW.FairDinkum (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

the philippines statement is both irrelevant and false - there has been plenty of international outcry. ive amended it to something relevant.
the inspiring violence line is poorly worded that i cant quite grasp the point being made. there is not much of what i think it might actually be implying that isnt pointless nonsense, so ive removed. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)