Talk:Black Lives Matter

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, 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
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

BLM activists beating up white people[edit]

Do you have a more credible source? I looked at the front page of that one and... Arawn Emrys (talk)
They are just ignoring it because it doesn't fit within their agenda.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Anything else you want to add, or are you done? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

After I asked for sources that prove the claim that when it comes to the police, black lives don't always matter while white lives generally do, my edits were reverted by Reverend Black Percy. I was referred to the Obama quote at the beginning, but also he says simply that the data is supposed to show that black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents. I would like to know which data Obama meant.--Adorno (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It would be nice to have an statistics citation for this besides just taking a presidents word for it.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The 2nd result in Google resulting from use of the highly vetted keywords "police black". Yes, read the whole thing before commenting — not just the headline. Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What's up with the weird Palestine section?[edit]

Who put that there and how is that relevant? I'm a Zionist and this is the first time I hear of this. I think it's much more relevant how they affected the 2016 election or whether they are really as "thuggish" as Trump claims. — Unsigned, by: Zionist Goy / talk / contribs

Any objections to removing it? Zionist Goy (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
As nobody raised any objections, I removed the section. If you disagree with that move, this talk page is the place to do so. Zionist Goy (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Long story short. A nutjob a year or two back showed up and created all sorts of drama in the I-P sections, and inserted her screeds everywhere. Most people tried to avoid it, because the drama was too much. If you are doing anything involving I-P, well, just be warned; it's not going to end well. CorruptUser (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm cool with that. I believe it was added by an editor, who is no longer around (fingers crossed), who found a way to inject the Palestinian conflict into nearly every article, regardless of how on-mission or relevant. Petey Plane (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the section is gone now and at any rate it took up way too much of the article. If someone comes along and argues to put something to that effect back in, they can be my guest. Zionist Goy (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Arguments over the addition to this section occurred over a year or two ago, we aren't going to have those same arguments again even if you think the editor who put it there was a "nutjob".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You are the only one who disagrees with what it is otherwise a consensus. We can have this talk, but I'd like you to present arguments. Zionist Goy (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Two people and a concern troll is not a consensus. Regardless, BLM's general stance on BDS has been a topic of criticism by Zionists and conservatives who consider them anti-Israeli. Besides this section being well cited, that reason above is enough for it to be missional.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@ZG Having just disinterestedly glanced over the actual writing (I stay far way from Israel/Palestine), I will agree with Owlman that the segment appears to be fairly well sourced. I wonder, what's the harm in mentioning [whatever-the-segment-says-that-is-sourced]? Aren't the BLM people actually into the whole "free Palestine" thing, or what? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, should we have an equally long section on their stance on India/Pakistan or the European Union? I don't think the extracurricular activities regarding this one side-issue should take up a quarter of the article. Zionist Goy (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The good and the bad, people[edit]

As much as BLM's overall purpose is accepted to be progressive, the article is filled with anecdotes painting BLM in a highly victimized fashion. It also implies that BLM's only detractors are those of the extreme right.

However, nothing is stated of the damage done by their more violent protests, apparent inability to focus on more clear cut cases (Such as Phillando Castille instead of the apparently aggressive Michael Brown), and criticisms by older black generations.

Either have both types of anecdotes, or remove all anecdotes and focus solely on their position/philosophy. — Unsigned, by: Milo Dangerous the book / talk / contribs 14 August 2017 (UTC)

First: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.
Second: See balance fallacy and concern trolling. Oh, and this is not Wikipedia. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of the middle ground fallacy, and make my concerns despite of it. I don't object just for an arbitrary balance, but because the dearth of contrary evidence affects the rationality of the article as a whole. I'd say that the large difference between wikipedia and here is that RationalWiki attempts to make moral conclusions using logic with the facts presented, whereas wikipedia makes no such attempt. However, the conclusion needs to be free of egregious flaws, of course? This article attempts to paint the image, the conclusion, that criticisms against BLM are of the unprecedented nature and thus BLM is un-evidenced to be flawed (albeit implied than stated outright, but reasonably to that effect anyways), when mere contrary anecdotes that are not excessive to include undermine that entire conclusion.
Also, please don't assume 'concern trolling' at the mere suggestion that the nature of the matter isn't in fact one of two extremes. I do not enjoy my genuine concern being suggested to be otherwise.
Further, thank you for reminding me how to sign. (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of Force Policies[edit]

Mapping Police Violence is an interesting and informative web site concerning the incidences of police killings of Americans. "Black people were 23% (216) of those killed despite being only 13% of the population." How racism affects the statistics is uncertain. Repeated reports of the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police is discouraging and very often the attempt to apologize for the responsible parties is sickening. But the path to improvement, according to MPV (, is independent of racial considerations. MPV maintains that there are proven solutions with respect to Use of Force Policies. For example, Buffalo, NY and Orlando FL have similar populations, have 50% and 42% minority populations (resp); Buffalo has had a higher violent crime rate than Orlando, but no police killings between 2013 and 2016. Orlando has had 16 such killings. The point is, nearly all of police killings could be eliminated with proper Use of Force Policies. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


Does anyone know if the percent difference for the amount of African Americans vs white people living in the US makes up for this? Doublethink (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You should be able to find the info online e.g. US Census or Race and ethnicity in the United StatesWikipedia. Complications exist although they're probably not very significant: there are various definitions of race, particularly re Hispanic status and bi/mixed. Rates change with time, of course. Also, I've no idea if differences in race or age would matter, so you may want to try and find the percentages of adult males rather than all people - I'd assume they're very similar to the totals but probably not identical (e.g. adult male Hispanics come here to work). --Annanoon (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I actually disagree with[edit]

Tactics. Laying down or standing in the middle of roads would only change traffic laws, not social change. Outside that, their message is fine. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


I reckon that we should use the Social Justice portal in stead of the Racialism template.—Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Censorship of words in software[edit]

Please add something about words like "slave", "master" (even in the sense of "original" - see git), "blacklist" and "whitelist" being mass-replaced in software code made in the US. (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Has it been mass replaced? I've heard some chatter but nothing about a concerted campaign--Hastur! (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
From articles at a collaborative news site, without checking every source:
  • master/slave and whitelist/blacklist: Google's Go.
  • master/slave: BIND (left as synonyms), Django, Drupal, MediaWiki, PostgreSQL, Python, Redis, Salt.
  • master (main branch): Microsoft's GitHub.
  • slave: OpenZFS
  • blacklist/whitelist: Google's Android and Chromium; Curl; proposed in Node.js
  • Some people have been making noise about "blacklist" for years. IETF had a recommendation proposal about avoiding the words.
  • Some of those probably haven't been approved yet, OpenSSL developers are having fun talking about "black magic", "white space" and "parent". (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll point out that most of the stuff from technology seems to mostly come from white techbros, and most black folks I've seen talk about this really don't quite give a shit about the usage of these terms. Whilst this is no doubt harmless for most of the entries on this list (since synonyms), the most notable in this list is probably the GitHub one. Git is as a tool a bit of a pain to learn and the change from master to more ambigious terms (main ones that are being floated are main and trunk) make it the only change on the list that is important due to the impact it will cause and from my perspective being the only major case where it will cause problems. OpenSSL outright rejected the changes, which... certainly is a stance to take. I just don't know if all things considered we should mention this on our page, given the opener about this mostly seeming to have been a thing that white techbros gave a shit about rather than something BLM activists worked to achieve. (Especially given the sheer other amounts of issues in tech that are far more pressing, such as say... GitHubs ICE contract still being there, which makes this kinda stuff feel a bit lukewarm). The Crow (row row fight the power) 11:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is why I believe BLM does not speak for black people[edit]

It tries to divide people instead of bringing them together. They really said blacks should boycott non-black businesses. I myself believe there is no difference between black and white. Skin color should not be the issue. Also, both BLM and the KKK are from the Democrats. (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I some questions before I get into it with you. Are you black? How well off are you? Do you think Liberals are left-wingers? And are you a right-winger? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
"the KKK are from the Democrats"
Why not try finishing history class first before you start to even offer commentary on present issues? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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)