Talk:Black Lives Matter

	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 It contains unsourced statements Tagged since July 2016

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)

Obama

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

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. 207.138.104.130 (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)

inappropriate statements

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)

Embezzlement

Why aren't you covering anything about the leaders of BLM embezzling money to pay for a mansion for themselves, where they live? 2607:FEA8:869D:A140:70AF:FA21:B832:2D50 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can cite your sources, we might. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)