Does SJW-reated stuff get helled because the term is pejorative?

Tarnsman said:

Yes it helped you. It clearly doesn't help a very large chunk of people who immediately derail the conversation the second it comes up. It only seems to be really effective against people who were already in the ballpark (aka the people you don't need to convince to change) and it's heavily split among class lines with, the "check your privilege" white people tending to be from middle class to upper middle class backgrounds while the "I'm not privileged" white people tending to be from the working class.

I'm surprised to hear this as your experience. Granted, I'm a middle class adult who grew up poor, so I've seen a lot of both strata. Generally, my experience is that middle class whites respond negatively to the concept of privilege while poorer whites have an easier time understanding it if approached in the right way, though you get all types. There are white people who understand economic privilege but deny racial or gender privilege, and so and so forth.

What surprises me is when poor whites respond to the idea of structural racism and sexism with skepticism, while many of the same systems are used to punish poor people. My experiences being poor relate to the experiences faced by non-whites in many ways. Granted, having wealth/power is no guarantee of freedom from racism, and being white is no guarantee of being free from structural oppression of the poor.

Membrain said:

if approached in the right way

This is my point. I'm pretty sure that most people in the last couple of pages more or less agrees on some reforms that need to happen in say the criminal justice system. Like I'm pretty sure Doomkid isn't some racist who believes the war on drugs is a just and fair thing and black people just need to stop doing so much crack.

Membrain said:

What surprises me is when poor whites respond to the idea of structural racism and sexism with skepticism, while many of the same systems are used to punish poor people. My experiences being poor relate to the experiences faced by non-whites in many ways. Granted, having wealth/power is no guarantee of freedom from racism, and being white is no guarantee of being free from structural oppression of the poor.

Those things get viewed with skepticism because we filter things through our own perspectives. Most people have dealt with pretty much any issue anyone else is dealing with. What matters is the level of severity. Most people have not dealt with these issues on the same severity as someone suffering from them on a systemic level but because they have the experience of dealing with (and mostly over coming) the minor version they then view everyone else's problems as their own and wonder why they can't just "get over it".

Let's say you were bullied in school and then one day you just stopped letting it get to you and then your bullying problem went away. That perspective can give someone empathy but it can just as easily result in them looking at someone else getting bullied and thinking that they too just need to learn to not let it bother them and if they can't they're not trying hard enough.

Has anybody else read Baudrillard? This entire thread is not only simply nonsense, in every way, but nonsense which would support his theory of hyperreality. The discussion we have here is not a discussion about events or their meaning, or even the ripples after their meaning, but even further - the pondering of far-end metaphysical counterparts. In a way this is a discussion which is so useless that it becomes useful in its uselessness; hence the creation of the post-modern discussion. This is one where nothing is really real, and we do not pay regard to real events, because the real has been lost already, thus cannot be regarded. What really holds value in these discussions is the meta-real. So therefore we must find our joy in the hyper-real argument: one where there is no point, no real reality, but an endless seeking of a nonsensical metanarrative.

Membrain said:

There are white people who understand economic privilege but deny racial or gender privilege, and so and so forth.

I'm one of those people because I've yet to see a good argument that demonstrates the majority of privileged white people are privileged because they're white or have had been given privileges for being white, and not being born in the class they're in. I don't see it as systemic or inherent in the west, and I'm waiting for an argument other than "look at all the privileged white people" or some argument about oppression in the past. I agree that non-whites face issues that whites generally don't face, but it needs to be demonstrated that these cases are not isolated to certain locations that have a lot of racist a-holes there. What I'm asking is, if white privilege exists, then demonstrate it's universality to the west.

Tarnsman said:

This is my point. I'm pretty sure that most people in the last couple of pages more or less agrees on some reforms that need to happen in say the criminal justice system. Like I'm pretty sure Doomkid isn't some racist who believes the war on drugs is a just and fair thing and black people just need to stop doing so much crack.

Sure, absolutely. I believe, though, that the people who aren't being pressured by that systemic racism have a responsibility to the people who are. It's hard, for sure. You can't please everyone and, since we are all human and no demographic is a monolith, it can incur some massive cognitive dissonance when one person says that whites should do one thing and another says they should do something else entirely.

And when it comes to things like #AllLivesMatter, the people who started BLM and are being shot are saying that ALM is harmful. And really, it makes sense to me. The only time you hear #AllLivesMatter is as a response to BLM, and it's almost exclusively used to distort or minimize BLM. Whatever you think about the group itself, that is a racist act. BLM is a social justice movement for the black community, so marginalizing what they are saying and centering white people is just taking advantage of the status quo to shut them down.

Tarnsman said:

Those things get viewed with skepticism because we filter things through our own perspectives. Most people have dealt with pretty much any issue anyone else is dealing with. What matters is the level of severity. Most people have not dealt with these issues on the same severity as someone suffering from them on a systemic level but because they have the experience of dealing with (and mostly over coming) the minor version they then view everyone else's problems as their own and wonder why they can't just "get over it".

Let's say you were bullied in school and then one day you just stopped letting it get to you and then your bullying problem went away. That perspective can give someone empathy but it can just as easily result in them looking at someone else getting bullied and thinking that they too just need to learn to not let it bother them and if they can't they're not trying hard enough.

Again, I agree with you. Bullying is actually a great example, since oppressive systems usually contribute to social strata in schools. It's very rare that you see groups of poor kids tormenting the rich kids, after all. (Not saying that this doesn't happen, of course, only that one is systemic and one is not.) Making fun of someone because they are rich is... well, not really that effective.

Same thing goes for race. That's why someone saying "cracker" is a metric fuckton less fucked up than using the n-word. "Cracker" is aimed at whites, but it refers (allegedly) to the cracking of whips. The n-word was and is used to remind blacks of where their expected place in society is. One is referencing a power structure and trying to dismantle it. The other is reinforcing it. The logic holds for most of those actions that white people "can't" do.

insanoflex312 said:

What I'm asking is, if white privilege exists, then demonstrate it's universality to the west.

A cursory glance at academic studies of the subject would give you a wealth of evidence.

But look, let's examine what you said. You said that economic disadvantage is systemic, that classism is the root of oppression. All right, think about who would be able to build up family fortunes/businesses. You agree that it would have been significantly easier for whites to do so a generation or two ago, right? After all, it's easily apparent that the civil rights movements in the 60's was necessary, because blacks were not afforded the same rights as whites. I mean, the city I live in used to be what's known as a sundown town. (That is, back when we were an engineering center and had a high standard of living.) That means that any blacks that lived in the city who were out after sundown would be lynched. We now have a sizeable black population.

Do you know when that happened? Almost exactly in tandem with when our engineering companies all moved out and left the town an empty husk. Well, after they dumped chemicals in the water and poisoned the municipal supply. Maybe you could argue that it's all a bunch of coincidences. But it's not as if this is a rare situation.

So look at most black communities in the US: they're generally poor and underfunded by the state. That leads to all that "black-on-black" crime that people use to disparage the victims of police brutality. (Also disregarding that almost all crime is intraracial.) That leads to profiling and implicit bias among the police, leading to over-incarceration. This is all just one big pot of resentment and fear, with a dash of poor accountability and fraternal instinct in the police force. It's not really surprising that cops are killing black people at a ridiculous pace.

We know that blacks are killed at four times the proportional rate as whites. There's rationale for it, and it is a lot deeper than just a few racist cops, though vetting of officers is also woefully inadequate in general. We have a lot of work to do, and being sad because you have implicit structural privilege is counter-productive. It's not an indictment of you, personally. It's a statement of observable fact with trails all through history.

Tarnsman said:

stuff

Y'know, this made me think.

Is there an actual way to take American political matters into your own hands that doesn't involve murder? Or, at least, kidnapping someone and hiding them away long enough for them to be declared dead, or brainwashing them into being unfit to run the country, or any similarly extremely messed up things.

Because there's really no way to realistically be in a position to influence who gets nominated, gets elected, and gets an environment where actually being in power means something because they don't have like half the other side of the government disagreeing with everything they do just because they got in by representing a different primary color. And someone who actually runs to get elected has even less influence over any of that. About the only thing that's truly proactive is to actually force the government to replace someone who can no longer take the position. And dead men can't run governments, so ...

... Considering how America was literally founded on forcibly overthrowing the rulers, I have to wonder how much of this is intentional. It's rather frustrating that only such extreme actions can be so certain, and even past the moral issues there's the whole social backlash that would certainly ensue.

Membrain said:

And when it comes to things like #AllLivesMatter, the people who started BLM and are being shot are saying that ALM is harmful. And really, it makes sense to me. The only time you hear #AllLivesMatter is as a response to BLM, and it's almost exclusively used to distort or minimize BLM. Whatever you think about the group itself, that is a racist act. BLM is a social justice movement for the black community, so marginalizing what they are saying and centering white people is just taking advantage of the status quo to shut them down.

The problem is that if "All Lives Matter" exists exclusively to minimize "Black Lives Matter" it is succeeding wonderfully because you and many other people are falling into the exact trap it's setting. Instead of just saying "yes we agree that's why we're focusing on these issues that are ruining the lives of people (part of that ALL) so let's talk about those issues" it becomes this toxic quagmire of having to refute it as a talking point constantly and then you get the people who say "well I'm for equality so that doesn't make sense to me" and you have to debate those people and so on and so forth. It's the same divide and conquer shit that gets used all the time and people still fall for it because we irrationally value some sort of ideological purity of form.

It's a completely irrelevant fight that's a total waste of time.

Arctangent said:

Y'know, this made me think.

Is there an actual way to take American political matters into your own hands that doesn't involve murder?

A quick solution? No. If you want a solution that's not "just wait hundreds of years for people to slowly get more and more 'progressive' by virtue of mass communication eliminating the 'other'" you're either left with violent revolution (not going to happen in 2016 and most of the ones that have happened in history have been complete and utter failures) or pragmatism where you nudge things forward inches at a time and focus on the things you can solve.

deadwolves said:

Has anybody else read Baudrillard? This entire thread is not only simply nonsense, in every way, but nonsense which would support his theory of hyperreality. The discussion we have here is not a discussion about events or their meaning, or even the ripples after their meaning, but even further - the pondering of far-end metaphysical counterparts. In a way this is a discussion which is so useless that it becomes useful in its uselessness; hence the creation of the post-modern discussion. This is one where nothing is really real, and we do not pay regard to real events, because the real has been lost already, thus cannot be regarded. What really holds value in these discussions is the meta-real. So therefore we must find our joy in the hyper-real argument: one where there is no point, no real reality, but an endless seeking of a nonsensical metanarrative.

Art.

Membrain said:

But look, let's examine what you said. You said that economic disadvantage is systemic, that classism is the root of oppression. All right, think about who would be able to build up family fortunes/businesses. You agree that it would have been significantly easier for whites to do so a generation or two ago, right? After all, it's easily apparent that the civil rights movements in the 60's was necessary, because blacks were not afforded the same rights as whites.

But whites were given opportunities that blacks weren't given in the past, but are given now. We have laws against discrimination etc. The civil rights movement made huge amounts of progress to give blacks equal rights, and in the law, it succeed completely. But you cannot say that because discrimination happened in the past, white people are afforded privileges right now because they are white. Its because of their grandparents. Again, they were born into it.

Membrain said:

Do you know when that happened? Almost exactly in tandem with when our engineering companies all moved out and left the town an empty husk. Well, after they dumped chemicals in the water and poisoned the municipal supply. Maybe you could argue that it's all a bunch of coincidences. But it's not as if this is a rare situation.

Even granting that it wasn't coincidence doesn't prove white privilege today.

Membrain said:

So look at most black communities in the US: they're generally poor and underfunded by the state. That leads to all that "black-on-black" crime that people use to disparage the victims of police brutality. (Also disregarding that almost all crime is intraracial.) That leads to profiling and implicit bias among the police, leading to over-incarceration. This is all just one big pot of resentment and fear, with a dash of poor accountability and fraternal instinct in the police force. It's not really surprising that cops are killing black people at a ridiculous pace.

If you want to point to the poor, under-funded areas that have a lot of black-on-black crime, even if I grant you that its because of racism today in those areas(and not historical racism), it still doesn't demonstrate universal institutionalized black-oppression because they are isolated communities and we should focus on making those communities better rather than generalizing all whites as "structurally privileged". Because its not universal. Black oppression is isolated to those communities, at least in general. If you want to say that those communities exist in the state they exist today because of something inherent to the whole, then what is it?

@fraggle, I see where you're coming from, but I think my posts gave a slightly wrong impression. I don't want to play the blame game (as it were) so much as I want genuine accountability. I don't want anything swept under the rug, rather I want people to realize that there are highly influential parties out there who wish to maintain the currently oppressive status quo, and that the sort of bickering you see at the bottom about white privilege and whatnot only seems to cloud people's vision of what's really going on here. Such terms serve to divide us rather than unite us. I feel that framing it as a privilege infers it can (or even should) be taken away at any time. Anyone who is complacent with the fact that black people are discriminated against is frankly an asshole, but you're far more likely to get them to see reason, empathise and take action when the whole thing isn't framed with "you're white so you don't know what it means to struggle". I know that isn't what you and some others mean by white privilege, but that's what most people hear. I feel like putting an emphasis on the privilege crap is more of a "sweep it under the rug" solution honestly, to me and others it just rings with "sweet, evil whitey has been blamed, now we don't need to actually address any issues cause we found someone to blame". I guess one of the biggest problems with these kinds of issues is that everyone interprets them so differently. I absolutely want equal treatment for anyone of any race, I just think that going on about how great it is to be white makes more people defensive to the issue and ultimately has a detrimental effect. There are other more effective approaches that bring out empathy in people rather than defensiveness.

Edit: Side note, I simply do not understand people who think police body cams should not be mandatory and think there's any benefit at all of the stupid ass war on drugs. Legalize/regulate certain drugs and hold cops accountable for their actions and suddenly we've made huge strides in helping the black community and really all communities. Once we've done that, we can obliterate any race-based legislation and suddenly have a much happier population. In theory, anyway - if only it was as easy to do as it is to say. My overall point is that our focus should be on how to fix these problems and what needs to be done to get there. The only influence most of us have is through our vote and through our collective voices, and we need to be using them to call for equality.

Another side note, I wish humans weren't a bunch of assholes and we could just treat each other equally and with respect. Legislation should never factor in a person's race. This species is so damn flawed. Maybe Giant Meteor 2016 would be the most effective way to solve all these problems, but the romantic in me thinks we might actually have a chance to develop beyond our current bullshit ways. Maybe I just watch too much Star Trek or something.

Mr. Freeze said:

As a non-extremist SJW commie pinko democrat, I'd like to add that combating racism with racism is a shit idea.

Who the hell would suggest fighting fire with fire?

Doomkid said:

Who the hell would suggest fighting fire with fire?

I actually posted something akin to this earlier, though I understand if not everyone considers this as fighting racism with racism. I do however.

To reiterate:

Black people can’t be racist against white people, because duh. White people are inherently racist against black people, for reasons that go without saying.

This is definitely a problem. Unfortunately, it’s probably not practical to ban white people from college campuses. So what can be done?

Whenever a black person walks into a classroom, he and/or she receives a standing O. Any white student who refuses to thusly apologize is immediately expelled.

Notice it says that everyone should give the person a standing ovation, but that we should single out whites who refuse. It's really sad to see this attitude to be honest.

GoatLord said:

So to get the question I'm really interested in: Is the ideology attributable to a particular political movement, or something more broad?

When you think about what "social justice" actually means, it should be somewhat obvious what can be included.

If the world we live in was socially just, people would get the same money for the same work, for example. Women get paid as much as men, black people get paid as much as white people, children with not-so-rich parents would still be able to get proper education, poorer people should still be able to get the health-care they need, race or gender would not have an influence on the odds of getting a job, and so on. So, the "social-field" is actually fairly broad, and if you are involved in any of these categories, you're basically a part of a social justice movement, and there's nothing bad about it.

So, social justice is all about the idea of nobody getting discriminated, or being put at a disadvantage, for who they are, and how much money they have.

Nowadays the term "social justice warrior" is used to simply label people and their arguments and stances as radical in some way, shape, or form, to prevent discussions and generally dismiss any rational point as nonsense along the way.

As of now these "social justice warriors" are tossed in the same bin as video-game-feminist-bloggers, who will shit all over a decent game, because it shows tits. As if that was something bad to begin with... Even I like tits in video games, because I think it's nice to see boobs which are not my own for a change. But these people exist, and they're easy to disagree with, and just as easily they can be labeled. Feminism, as much as masculinism, as legit parts of social justice, makes it easy to do so, because some feminists don't care about "justice", they want "revenge".

So, because of a law of nature, that states that whenever people amass, there will be idiots among them by way of odds, these idiots are examplified in conjunction with the term "social justice warrior". So, they're giving anyone who engages in something she/he believes to be a just cause a bad name as a result.

And that's what happens on forums everywhere as well. Someone does some research and puts an idea up for discussion, sooner or later someone who does not endorse this idea shows up, and slaps on the label of "SJW-fantasies", and from there on the whole thread is likely to spiral downwards.

The funny thing however is that the actual content of social justice changes over time, depending on what is unjust. If we lived in a world in which white people would get discriminated instead of black people, one might consider the current "american republican-ish" parties as social justice parties, in a strange kind of way, that is. But maybe you get the idea.

Tarnsman said:

The problem is that if "All Lives Matter" exists exclusively to minimize "Black Lives Matter" it is succeeding wonderfully because you and many other people are falling into the exact trap it's setting. Instead of just saying "yes we agree that's why we're focusing on these issues that are ruining the lives of people (part of that ALL) so let's talk about those issues" it becomes this toxic quagmire of having to refute it as a talking point constantly and then you get the people who say "well I'm for equality so that doesn't make sense to me" and you have to debate those people and so on and so forth. It's the same divide and conquer shit that gets used all the time and people still fall for it because we irrationally value some sort of ideological purity of form.

It's a completely irrelevant fight that's a total waste of time.

Hold on a second here. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is what I'm interpreting you as saying:

- BLM is valid. Black lives are treated as less than white lives.
- ALM is a divisive tactic used as a talking point
- Saying ALM in response to BLM is asserting that BLM is implying that ONLY black lives matter

I fail to see how this is any different than what most people talking about BLM are already saying. And I would wager that putting the onus on activists for other people misrepresenting and attempting to sabotage the civil rights movement is flawed.

#AllLivesMatter is, I agree, asserting that Black Lives Matter is saying "Only black lives matter". But you didn't include the fact that that's obviously false and intellectually dishonest. The actual intention, presumably apparent at a glance and also explained in great detail *all over the place*, is "Black lives matter, too". So by saying All Lives Matter in response, you're shouting over that, which is centering white feelings over black lives.

So sorry, no, I don't have very much sympathy for the people still trying to justify ALM, and I certainly disagree with you about that purity argument. ALM is *not* a civil rights statement, which should not come as a surprise to anyone. Not when there's so much information out there to explain the BLM movement. Ignorance at this point is willful.

insanoflex312 said:

But whites were given opportunities that blacks weren't given in the past, but are given now. We have laws against discrimination etc. The civil rights movement made huge amounts of progress to give blacks equal rights, and in the law, it succeed completely. But you cannot say that because discrimination happened in the past, white people are afforded privileges right now because they are white. Its because of their grandparents. Again, they were born into it.

They were born into it because they have white grandparents, yes. You are so close and you still miss it. You seem to realize that the circumstances of the past influence the layout of the world of today in every way but race.

You can't play the colorblind card when so much of history has been predicated on skin color.

insanoflex312 said:

Even granting that it wasn't coincidence doesn't prove white privilege today.

If you want to point to the poor, under-funded areas that have a lot of black-on-black crime, even if I grant you that its because of racism today in those areas(and not historical racism), it still doesn't demonstrate universal institutionalized black-oppression because they are isolated communities and we should focus on making those communities better rather than generalizing all whites as "structurally privileged". Because its not universal. Black oppression is isolated to those communities, at least in general. If you want to say that those communities exist in the state they exist today because of something inherent to the whole, then what is it?

These aren't one or two communities. These are the communities where a majority of blacks live because of a number of different reasons. Consider:

- Leaving is very expensive, especially when economically disadvantaged.
- Even if you can afford to leave, many do not want to leave behind their friends and family, as well as their culture.

Black oppression is also not limited to those areas. Ever considered what it would be like to be the only black family in town? It's not exactly a cakewalk. Moreover, even with affirmative action, black students face distinct and unique challenges. My own school, deep in the northernmost regions of New York, had a fairly high-profile case where threats were made against the life of one of our few black professors. Small towns throughout the US are absolutely full of racism. Maybe you don't see it. Maybe you don't have to worry about it. But why not believe the people who do?

TraceOfSpades said:

I discredit anybody who is hypersensitive or gets offended on behalf of other people.

I have to agree fully with this assessment. I can hear what people say - I don't need someone telling me that what I heard was bad - I can judge this for myself.

A lot of insecurity has led people to join the speech police movement. Sticks and stones, and all that. If people spend their energy working on themselves, most of this would go away. And, remember kids, claiming that one group of people "matter", and ignoring everyone else, is, guess what? Racism, sexism, or whatever group you're describing...ism. I don't need your lecture - you have never seen me dividing people up. Neer has such hypocriticism been cloaked in positivity on such a scale. Everyone matters. regardless of my sympathy, I am not responsible for what others do. We all have scars. Now, pick yourself up and try, try again. Everything I advocate involves people tending to themselves, being responsible for themselves (and their loved ones). Period. When you accept responsibility for the things surrounding your life, all of a sudden you realize that you alone have the power to change your life.

This way of living runs counter to group mentality, which is when people stop thinking for themselves, and join the collective. This is when you give up your individual power, and let the group dictate your life. No thank you.

Membrain said:

Stuff

You're still not getting it and you're falling into the same trap. Whether or not ALM is intellectually dishonest is completely irrelevant. Every moment spent having to explain why ALM is bad is a minute spent not focusing on the real issues. The system is really good at staying in power because despite most people having a problem with it, the system knows that if it can get people to argue over dumb shit (which is what BLM vs ALM is) that it will bog down the discourse and keep it off of the actual solutions needed.

The response to ALM is not "that's racist" or "that's stealing away from black issues" or any of the typical progressive talking points, that's the response ALM exists to get, you're doing what they want. The response to ALM is to say "yes they do, that's why we're talking about these issues" and then to keep the discussion on track instead of vering off into a pissing contest over virtue signaling.

I'm not trying to convince people like you, Tarnsman. You are aware of systemic privilege and civil rights issues. I respect that and I appreciate that you understand.

What I'm talking about is people who instinctively yell "All Lives Matter!" as soon as anyone says Black Lives Matter. They should be talked to and educated if willing. If not, they should be ignored. However, the difference isn't always stark, so I try to educate first, then ignore. My goal with our conversation is less for the benefit of winning a debate with you and more to explain my viewpoint and hopefully show those who commit the actual problems to consider their actions.

Some are trolls, but some legitimately think that ALM is a valid movement. It is important to explain why its not and why BLM is, and why word/phrase choice should matter when discussing issues. (Which you obviously understand, based on what you've said.)

Membrain said:

They were born into it because they have white grandparents, yes. You are so close and you still miss it. You seem to realize that the circumstances of the past influence the layout of the world of today in every way but race.

You can't play the colorblind card when so much of history has been predicated on skin color.

This has gone on far enough. I'm getting really tired of being misconstrued. I'm genuinely confused as to why you said this.

Membrain said:

These aren't one or two communities. These are the communities where a majority of blacks live because of a number of different reasons. Consider:

- Leaving is very expensive, especially when economically disadvantaged.
- Even if you can afford to leave, many do not want to leave behind their friends and family, as well as their culture.

Black oppression is also not limited to those areas. Ever considered what it would be like to be the only black family in town? It's not exactly a cakewalk. Moreover, even with affirmative action, black students face distinct and unique challenges. My own school, deep in the northernmost regions of New York, had a fairly high-profile case where threats were made against the life of one of our few black professors. Small towns throughout the US are absolutely full of racism. Maybe you don't see it. Maybe you don't have to worry about it. But why not believe the people who do?

If you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that I think racism doesn't exist or that its only a few communities, then I can't have a conversation with you. I'm not going to be told again and again by so many SJW types what I believe and what I'm saying.


I'm going to clarify because I'm not going to have words put in my mouth again:

As I understand it, White Privilege is the concept that white people universally are treated better than non whites consciously and deliberately by society on the whole on the basis of race(as in, those who treat white people better are doing it consciously and purposely based on race, they know what they're doing) and non-whites universally in the west are consciously and deliberately treated poorly by whites universally in the west. Is this an accurate assessment? Is this what white privilege is? If its not conscious and deliberate, or its the mere circumstance that racism just happened to played a part in the past to put whites as the majority of those of privilege, then its not white privilege, its classism. Racism in the past =/= racism today. What part of this do you dispute? We need to agree on these concepts before we have a discussion on the matter.

Membrain said:

Hold on a second here. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is what I'm interpreting you as saying:

- BLM is valid. Black lives are treated as less than white lives.
- ALM is a divisive tactic used as a talking point
- Saying ALM in response to BLM is asserting that BLM is implying that ONLY black lives matter

I fail to see how this is any different than what most people talking about BLM are already saying. And I would wager that putting the onus on activists for other people misrepresenting and attempting to sabotage the civil rights movement is flawed.

#AllLivesMatter is, I agree, asserting that Black Lives Matter is saying "Only black lives matter". But you didn't include the fact that that's obviously false and intellectually dishonest. The actual intention, presumably apparent at a glance and also explained in great detail *all over the place*, is "Black lives matter, too". So by saying All Lives Matter in response, you're shouting over that, which is centering white feelings over black lives.

I'd like to offer some food for thought here. So when, let's say a white family that has a child who as been killed unjustly by the police hears a statement like "Black lives matter", how do you think they are going to respond? Like this: "Yeah, that's right! Police are unfairly targeting blacks!" Or "So my child's life doesn't?". Yes, obviously the word, "too" is implied. The movement, by it's very nature, however, focuses on blacks being killed disproportionately, which, I'm sure any rational ALM would agree to. But, in doing so, it diminishes the value of the other lives taken by police. So I'd like to ask, how does one form a movement to combat the fact that blacks are disproportionately targeted by police while simultaneously keeping the value of the other lives lost unjustly by the police? I understand BLM isn't just about that, but it was how it was started, and that talking point seems to be on it's forefront.
As a disclaimer, so you don't go and making unfair assumptions about what I believe like you did to insanoflex, the above does not reflect my beliefs in any way, and is meant solely as a thinking exercise.

insanoflex312 said:

This has gone on far enough. I'm getting really tired of being misconstrued. I'm genuinely confused as to why you said this.

If you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that I think racism doesn't exist or that its only a few communities, then I can't have a conversation with you. I'm not going to be told again and again by so many SJW types what I believe and what I'm saying.

We're online. I can only understand what you believe based on what you type. If I misrepresented you, I apologize. I am attempting to have a civil discussion and to act fairly so long as you afford me the same courtesy.

insanoflex312 said:

I'm going to clarify because I'm not going to have words put in my mouth again:

As I understand it, White Privilege is the concept that white people universally are treated better than non whites consciously and deliberately by society on the whole on the basis of race(as in, those who treat white people better are doing it consciously and purposely based on race, they know what they're doing) and non-whites universally in the west are consciously and deliberately treated poorly by whites universally in the west. Is this an accurate assessment? Is this what white privilege is? If its not conscious and deliberate, or its the mere circumstance that racism just happened to played a part in the past to put whites as the majority of those of privilege, then its not white privilege, its classism. Racism in the past =/= racism today. What part of this do you dispute? We need to agree on these concepts before we have a discussion on the matter.

Okay, so, like I said before, you're very close. It's actually more frustrating than with someone who is obviously racist, because while there are key concepts that I'd like to get across, it's generally the more intricate things rather than the fundamentals where I am trying to make progress.

First of all, white privilege is not a conscious act. If it were, I certainly wouldn't consider myself subject to it. I make a conscious effort not to uphold racist systems, though, like everyone, I make mistakes every so often. Remember that, due to the circumstances that put people in their current social positions, there are differences in how we should approach solving those issues. When it comes to class, it's usually pretty easy. You can generally set up social nets and programs to help people get their feet under them. I support all those programs because I wouldn't be living anything near the comfortable, if indebted, life I am without those systems.

Race, on the other hand, is messy and convoluted. The US in particular has had a lot of problems, due to our legalization of slavery and other civil rights issues. (Not just for blacks, either. Whenever anyone is not considered "white", they suffer. Italians and the Irish were not "white" when they first started immigrating, for example. That's a lot of the reason why the mobs got a foothold in the States, along with prohibition.) Issues for the black community are particularly difficult. Because of their skin color/non-Western heritage and culture (harder to assimilate) and the unique history of black slavery in America, systemic racism such as the war on drugs (overwhelmingly targets black communities, though whites are actually more likely to use), Ronnie Raygun's "welfare queen" myth, and the more modern demonization of black culture stick around and affect even those blacks that try to "pass". After all, it's kind of hard to pass when your skin color is "non-default". Even the President has to deal with racism on a daily basis. The Birther movement didn't happen specifically to Obama for no reason, and he's faced more obstruction in office than any President in history. That's not just a coincidence. That's not just classism. (Though it is true that blacks face both racism and classism disproportionately.)

Sorry about the wall of text. I promise I'm about done here. Taking all of the above into account, consider your own experiences. Have you had to face adversity? Almost assuredly. I know I have, and I'm white as fuck. But none of that adversity, on a structural level, is because of your skin color. White privilege is called that because we don't face racial injustices on a daily basis, in every aspect of our lives, from birth on. That's it. It's not saying you're a bad person or that you're inherently racist. Though, like me, you've probably inadvertently done things that contribute to racism. That's okay! It's just important to identify where those things are and make efforts to improve. (That's what "checking your privilege" is, by the way.)

sudo459 said:

I'd like to offer some food for thought here. So when, let's say a white family that has a child who as been killed unjustly by the police hears a statement like "Black lives matter", how do you think they are going to respond? Like this: "Yeah, that's right! Police are unfairly targeting blacks!" Or "So my child's life doesn't?". Yes, obviously the word, "too" is implied. The movement, by it's very nature, however, focuses on blacks being killed disproportionately, which, I'm sure any rational ALM would agree to. But, in doing so, it diminishes the value of the other lives taken by police. So I'd like to ask, how does one form a movement to combat the fact that blacks are disproportionately targeted by police while simultaneously keeping the value of the other lives lost unjustly by the police? I understand BLM isn't just about that, but it was how it was started, and that talking point seems to be on it's forefront.
As a disclaimer, so you don't go and making unfair assumptions about what I believe like you did to insanoflex, the above does not reflect my beliefs in any way, and is meant solely as a thinking exercise.

Black lives are being taken at four times the proportional rate of white lives. Yes, all cases of police brutality and murder are unacceptable, but pointing out that racism is driving so many of them is not a bad thing. All lives DO matter. Nobody is saying otherwise. And it's not like the demands being put on police for increased accountability and protection for civilians are going to affect only those black lives taken by police.

Membrain said:

Black lives are being taken at four times the proportional rate of white lives. Yes, all cases of police brutality and murder are unacceptable, but pointing out that racism is driving so many of them is not a bad thing. All lives DO matter. Nobody is saying otherwise. And it's not like the demands being put on police for increased accountability and protection for civilians are going to affect only those black lives taken by police.

I'm saddened that you seemed to dismiss my thought experiment completely. If you think it's not valid, you should say why. What you've posted here is, first of all, not disputed in any way, but also has nothing to do with what I posted.

Let me explain. Of course BLM says that indeed all lives matter. But, by it's very nature, it focuses on the race of the victim. I've personally seen no BLM activists cry out when whites are killed unjustly, and when they do, it's a scoffing, "See? They aren't killed nearly as much as whites." I'm not saying focusing on the race of the victim is inherently bad, but it is inherently divisive, especially when I think the problem is both racism and under-regulated police forces, the latter being the greater of the two problems regarding police killings. An other factor could be that these communities just have a higher percentage of violent crime offenders, meaning there are more opportunities for police killings to occur. And since these communities are mostly black, that could, in some way, influence the discrepancy.

Membrain said:

...pointing out that racism is driving so many of them is not a bad thing.

Do you have evidence of this claim? What is the ratio of police killings that are racially motivated to those that aren't? What do you define as an incident with racism being the driving force? Is it still considered racism if a black cop kills a white person because the suspect was white? Obviously an exact percentage is impossible to calculate, but there must be something that can be calculated in the ballpark. If not, how can you honestly say it's "so many of them"?

Membrain said:

White privilege is called that because we don't face racial injustices on a daily basis, in every aspect of our lives, from birth on. That's it.

I'm sorry, I must be misreading this, but are you saying all non-whites are constantly being discriminated against in every facet of life, at all times? I'm almost positive that, if you look at our entire population, there is at least one black person alive, who is old enough for this to matter, and that has never faced racially charged adversity.

Membrain said:

Though, like me, you've probably inadvertently done things that contribute to racism. That's okay! It's just important to identify where those things are and make efforts to improve. (That's what "checking your privilege" is, by the way.)

I know I'm replying to what you said to insanoflex. I hope he doesn't mind too much, but, if I understand correctly, you are saying that if one is white, one has probably done things that contribute to racism. Please clarify, because I honestly don't understand how I can contribute to racism, except from being outright racist myself. But anyway, that means there is a chance that some whites don't have privileges afforded to them based on their race? If that is an incorrect statement, then what does "check your privilege" really mean?

If you really want my honest opinion on the matter, it is simply, I don't know. I'm skeptical about everything put forth by SJWs so far, and nothing I've personally read has persuaded me towards their stance. Just when I'm convinced by one data point, I read another that points to the opposite conclusion. I just get the feeling that this whole thing is more nuanced than "The system is racist, and that's to blame for the problems minorities face". Finding data, however is a challenge.

Membrain said:

What I'm talking about is people who instinctively yell "All Lives Matter!" as soon as anyone says Black Lives Matter. They should be talked to and educated if willing.

Some are trolls, but some legitimately think that ALM is a valid movement. It is important to explain why its not and why BLM is, and why word/phrase choice should matter when discussing issues.

Well, I don't see what makes you think that there is that much of a difference in validity to begin with. Of course all lives matter, the Padaung matter as much as other natives, as much as black people, as much as Kurds and whatnot.

I mean, the idea of humanism is that all lives are to be treated equally. You come across as if you wanted to patronize people into caring about black people above all else, instead of letting people choose what they get involved in. Let alone that you ignore the fact that "black people" are not the ones who are being at a disadvantage all across the globe, there's regional differences, for lack of a better term.

The idea of "educating" people into caring about black people's issues above all else, regardless of "justification", almost (almost as in: not saying it does, but it gets kinda close) sounds like some sort of "meta-racism", because you deem these issues to be more important than any other. I mean, sure in the US it might be the most significant topic quite comfortably, simply by way of numbers, but still people should have a choice as to what they get involved in, because black people are not the only ones in need of support in the US, or somewhere else. There are other ethnical minorities in the US, which also deserve attention. So, if someone says that all lives matter, she/he sure as shit is right, and you're not exactly in a position to "educate" her/him into setting priorities up accordingly to yours.

Sorry if that came across somewhat offensive, but the idea of a human rights movement being so exclusive is something I find hard to stomach, especially when it would be much easier to achieve something when there are more people are involved in a movement to begin with. Feel free to explain to me why BLM is more valid than ALM is, after reading how I feel about it. I'm open for input, and there may be things I do not know about. However there's one thing you won't argue me away from, and that's the idea of letting people pick their own fights.

Sure Bowb said:

The idea of "educating" people into caring about black people's issues

This sort of gets into the problem modern social justice gets into. Black issues are American issues. The left brings up the (correct) idea that say women's rights are human rights all the time and so on and so forth but when it comes to getting people on board these platforms still segregates them into "these people's issues" which breeds the mass apathy we're currently afflicted with.

Since we've been on the topic for a while, let's stick with it. Police brutality is not just a black issue. 18 unarmed white people and 12 unarmed black people have been shot and killed by the police in 2016. (That's just unarmed that's not counting the other 500 or so armed people shot by cops). Now yes that means that blacks are disproportionately killed to white people but that doesn't mean that it doesn't impact white people, claiming it doesn't and they don't have to worry about it just alienates a lot of people who could be potential allies in actually solving the issue. And for what? Some sort of "this is our issue" brownie points? Well have fun with that.

I would like it if you included some context next time you quote me. The way you did it makes me come across kinda racist. I certainly am aware that people need to be generally educated about what problems exist within their society, as well as what solutions politics can/should offer, just to get that out the way.

Tarnsman said:

This sort of gets into the problem modern social justice gets into. Black issues are American issues. The left brings up the (correct) idea that say women's rights are human rights all the time and so on and so forth but when it comes to getting people on board these platforms still segregates them into "these people's issues" which breeds the mass apathy we're currently afflicted with.

Which is why I think that there is nothing bad about an "ALM-movement". Everybody needs to realize that they are a part of it. At the very least everybody pays taxes which are also used to maintain prisons, so giving people a better perspective in life is not just a "black people issue", though it seems that there needs to be some special attention in regards to melting-pots. So from the "everybody-perspective" it should be easy to sell. If anything the problem is that people generally have a tendency to care only once they are involved themselves, rather than thinking that one day, these problems will be theirs regardless.

Tarnsman said:

Since we've been on the topic for a while, let's stick with it. Police brutality is not just a black issue.
[snip]
...blacks are disproportionately killed to white people but that doesn't mean that it doesn't impact white people, claiming it doesn't and they don't have to worry about it just alienates a lot of people who could be potential allies in actually solving the issue. And for what? Some sort of "this is our issue" brownie points? Well have fun with that.

I agree here. That's why I think it is best not to pigeon-hole citizens into thinking it is an exclusive issue in any way imaginable. Cops shooting people who did not even carry a knife, is something that needs dealing with. I mean the issue of police brutality in the USA has been around for decades by now, let alone that it is not USA exclusive.

At the moment I live in germany, I moved here like 2 years ago, and since the day I came here I have been harrassed by the police multiple times, for no particular reason, and shit hit the fan once the cops saw I am not even a german citizen (never will be, for that matter). Funnily enough, it has become a bit less annoying once the refugees showed up here, so it would appear that the police has a new target audience, which I am obviously not a part of. Ethnically I'm part japanese, part indian, part latin, so I am rather close to being black, and I'm a female. I guess I'm good for now, but still, having a darker skin colour can cause problems elsewhere too. I will admit however, that the thought of visiting the USA completely on my own kind of scares me.

So... sorry for the wall of text. I'm trying my best to explain complicated subjects off the top of my head without confusing people.

sudo459 said:

I'm saddened that you seemed to dismiss my thought experiment completely. If you think it's not valid, you should say why. What you've posted here is, first of all, not disputed in any way, but also has nothing to do with what I posted.

Your thought experiment doesn't take into account the fact that people can care about and deal with more than one issue at a time. Black Lives Matter is about police violence and brutality against blacks, because it is a specific and widespread issue. It does not impede caring about the lives of whites taken by the police.

Look, pretty much any discussion about civil rights against oppressed demographics basically runs into this roadblock where people try to recenter the "default". With women's rights, you end up with a bunch of people crying "What about the men?!" With BLM, you get ALM, which is essentially "What about the white victims?!" In any of these cases, the point isn't to draw attention to actual problems, but to delegitimize the movement.

In fact, most activists will try to explain that solving the problems they are talking about will help everyone, including the people who are part of the privileged demographic but who do not enjoy the privileges as much as others, such as men who are more effeminate or otherwise not up to the arbitrary standards of masculinity. And in the case of police brutality, as I said before, the solutions to the problem, like body cams, increased accountability, and the like will help *all* the victims of police violence. And, for that matter, should benefit the majority of cops who are good people by putting them in the limelight and vetting the bad ones.

So yes, the thought experiment isn't really worth much because it doesn't take the reality of social justice movements into account. To reply to Tarnsman's point, I'd like to mention that, for blacks, police killings are an epidemic that they know the most about, because they are dealing with the issue on a constant basis.

sudo459 said:

Let me explain. Of course BLM says that indeed all lives matter. But, by it's very nature, it focuses on the race of the victim. I've personally seen no BLM activists cry out when whites are killed unjustly, and when they do, it's a scoffing, "See? They aren't killed nearly as much as whites." I'm not saying focusing on the race of the victim is inherently bad, but it is inherently divisive, especially when I think the problem is both racism and under-regulated police forces, the latter being the greater of the two problems regarding police killings. An other factor could be that these communities just have a higher percentage of violent crime offenders, meaning there are more opportunities for police killings to occur. And since these communities are mostly black, that could, in some way, influence the discrepancy.

Do you believe that the majority of people whose deaths have become known due to BLM activism were violent offenders? Do you not wonder why white people can point guns at cops, threaten them, and still be arrested alive, but blacks can get shot while sitting in their cars, reaching for their ID, immediately after being told to present their ID?

Your points here sound a lot like blaming the person acknowledging racism as the "real racist". You may not believe you are doing that, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, you may want to take a close look at why you are making these arguments. (To clarify, I'm not accusing you of racism, but imploring that you consider the basis of your argument.)

sudo459 said:

Do you have evidence of this claim? What is the ratio of police killings that are racially motivated to those that aren't? What do you define as an incident with racism being the driving force? Is it still considered racism if a black cop kills a white person because the suspect was white? Obviously an exact percentage is impossible to calculate, but there must be something that can be calculated in the ballpark. If not, how can you honestly say it's "so many of them"?

The actual figures are roughly four times the proportional rate of whites. White people are killed by cops. Black people are killed more often. Trying to prove racism as the cause of every single killing is not as important as noticing a trend, acknowledging it, and working to determine the cause and solutions. Because this is uniquely an issue in the black community, it is also important to know to step aside and let them determine the solution.

sudo459 said:

I'm sorry, I must be misreading this, but are you saying all non-whites are constantly being discriminated against in every facet of life, at all times? I'm almost positive that, if you look at our entire population, there is at least one black person alive, who is old enough for this to matter, and that has never faced racially charged adversity.

Highly doubtful. Unless they are somehow insulated from society, every black person alive in the US has faced or will face some form of racially charged adversity, as you put it. It doesn't really matter how good of a person they are or how carefully they live their lives. (In fact, having to carefully live your life to avoid racial adversity is, y'know, a challenge in and of itself.) Here's an anecdote: I live in the north, in NY, and I have a friend who went to college in a relatively safe area, with low crime rate. No record, listens to classic rock, wears respectable (Read: white) clothing, casually athletic but not jacked, the works. He should be the definition of a black person able to escape adversity, right?

Two years ago, he was out for a run and, out of nowhere, he got tackled, hard, to the ground by three police officers, who then arrested him, head bleeding and glasses broken. (The glasses weren't cheap, either. He had a decent job at the school.) Why did they arrest him? Because on the other side, about two miles away, of town, a fraternity had just had their party broken up, where they were serving alcohol to minors. He was lucky, though, since he was wearing his tracksuit, no alcohol in his system, and was TWO MILES from where they had just broken up the party a few minutes before. So at least they didn't shoot him. Oh, and I forgot to mention, he wasn't running alone. His friend, who is white, was also running with him. This friend (NOT tackled or arrested, by the way.) spent the entire night telling the officers about how they had been running since getting out of class. Next morning, he was finally released and allowed to go to the hospital to have his head looked at.

Now, I realize that the plural of anecdote is not evidence. That being said, can you think of anything this kid could have done to make himself safer other than changing his skin color?

sudo459 said:

I know I'm replying to what you said to insanoflex. I hope he doesn't mind too much, but, if I understand correctly, you are saying that if one is white, one has probably done things that contribute to racism. Please clarify, because I honestly don't understand how I can contribute to racism, except from being outright racist myself. But anyway, that means there is a chance that some whites don't have privileges afforded to them based on their race? If that is an incorrect statement, then what does "check your privilege" really mean?

If you are white, you have, hopefully unintentionally, contributed to or benefited from the oppression of people of color. Historical circumstances (extensive and valid as they are) aside, our entire way of life is predicated on (current) Western imperialism. But to get back on subject, do you have any friends who are black? Ask them sometime, if you can, about the considerations they have to make just in their day-to-day lives just to keep themselves safe. Consider that you will never have to worry about seeing hundreds, thousands, of people throughout your life disparaging your life, culture, and heritage via rhetoric and violence of various natures. Those actions, and all the myriad ways our culture supports them, prop up white as the default, the norm, and benefit white people exclusively.

sudo459 said:

If you really want my honest opinion on the matter, it is simply, I don't know. I'm skeptical about everything put forth by SJWs so far, and nothing I've personally read has persuaded me towards their stance. Just when I'm convinced by one data point, I read another that points to the opposite conclusion. I just get the feeling that this whole thing is more nuanced than "The system is racist, and that's to blame for the problems minorities face". Finding data, however is a challenge.

It is nuanced, but that doesn't mean that the statement is false. They also face specific occurrences of racism that help fortify racist structures, which is part of why ALM is insidious, and the internal problems in the community caused both by oppressive systems and by human nature.

For example, black criminals are still criminals. However, innocent blacks (a vast majority) still apparently have to answer for their actions as a monolith. Imagine if whites, when rallying against police violence, had to work against claims that the victims inherently had it coming to them because they were "no angel", by virtue of their skin color. Hell, Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old kid shot by an officer with a history of aggression, who'd been fired for racist actions at a previous job. It was a system of racial oppression that allowed that to happen, alongside a specifically racist officer.

Sure Bowb said:

Stuff

Granted, we also have issues with our treatment of literally every other race except white people, but Black Lives Matter is a specific response to police brutality and killings. Its existence does not necessitate "forgetting" about other lives or ignoring racism elsewhere. It is part and parcel in talking about racial justice in our country. Other countries have a different social setup and thus would require different approaches.

All Lives Matter, as I've said before, is specifically designed to minimize the attention given to police violence against blacks because it inherently pushes for a continuation of the status quo. It's very similar to the "Straight Pride movement" or "White History Month", where people take movements designed to raise awareness of various issues and mock/belittle them with a "What about ME?" demonstration. If all people were treated equally, as egalitarianism posits, then there would be no need for specific movements to combat inequality. Even those people who are being intellectually honest, like in this thread, supporting ALM are contributing to a problem. That is, not every community requires the same treatment for what ails them. Trying to solve police brutality against blacks using egalitarian strategies is like attempting to treat a broken bone with cough syrup. That's why we have separate movements for separate problems. (This is also directed at Tarnsman's comment.)

Membrain said:

Granted, we also have issues with our treatment of literally every other race except white people, but Black Lives Matter is a specific response to police brutality and killings. Its existence does not necessitate "forgetting" about other lives or ignoring racism elsewhere. It is part and parcel in talking about racial justice in our country. Other countries have a different social setup and thus would require different approaches.

Well, here's the thing: You've mentioned semantics earlier, and it just so happens that these semantics are not working your favour, as long as it's called "black lives matter". The problem is simple: If anyone who's not into "social-stuff", and isn't black, hears about that BLM-movement, said person won't feel affected at all, in most cases I suppose. If it is a movement that is dealing with police brutality in general, it's name isn't doing it much good, because it comes across too specific and exclusive. I mean that's what I thought at first as well

Membrain said:

All Lives Matter, as I've said before, is specifically designed to minimize the attention given to police violence against blacks because it inherently pushes for a continuation of the status quo. It's very similar to the "Straight Pride movement" or "White History Month", where people take movements designed to raise awareness of various issues and mock/belittle them with a "What about ME?" demonstration.

So, what you're basically saying is, that the ALM is some sort of joke movement that serves no other purpose than mocking BLM. OK, I get it... I just now did a cursory search via google, and it just so happens that the ALM seems to be quite touch'n'go with Trump. So obviously is does not serve a good purpose, I see where you come from.

Here's a good read with a disturbing video: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/23/all-lives-matter-racist-trump-weekend-campaign-rally-proved-it

Membrain said:

If all people were treated equally, as egalitarianism posits, then there would be no need for specific movements to combat inequality. Even those people who are being intellectually honest, like in this thread, supporting ALM are contributing to a problem. That is, not every community requires the same treatment for what ails them. Trying to solve police brutality against blacks using egalitarian strategies is like attempting to treat a broken bone with cough syrup. That's why we have separate movements for separate problems. (This is also directed at Tarnsman's comment.)

Well, I'm not so sure about egalitarian strategies being all wrong. I mean in the end, we want all people to be equal, so levelling the playing field is the most important thing to do, I believe. The reason black people are subjected to violence, hate and triggerhappy cops is because many of them are born with no decent perspective, which is a huge chunk that needs to be dealt with in order to level the field, let alone that it would help to decrease media-driven spite.

Don't get me wrong here, racism is a huge part of the problem, but the way I see it racism is rather a symptom of a greater disease. I mean, that's what I see in action here in germany now. As I said I've been here for about two years, and over these two years more refugees have come here, which had an impact on the population and it's stance towards these refugees, as well as the thought of taking steps towards helping them. As soon as media gets flooded with reports of refugees not being healthy, not being able to work, and a few of them causing trouble, people get pissed off over time. It went so far that some super right-wing party here had noticeable survey-upswings, and you better believe that scared me nigh shitless. That's been happening in the USA over decades by now, I would imagine. So I think the idea of creating an environment in which this "equalty" can be lived and experienced is one of the most important steps, if you want to effectively fight and prevent racism.

Sure Bowb said:

Well, here's the thing: You've mentioned semantics earlier, and it just so happens that these semantics are not working your favour, as long as it's called "black lives matter". The problem is simple: If anyone who's not into "social-stuff", and isn't black, hears about that BLM-movement, said person won't feel affected at all, in most cases I suppose. If it is a movement that is dealing with police brutality in general, it's name isn't doing it much good, because it comes across too specific and exclusive. I mean that's what I thought at first as well

To be more clear, BLM is a movement dealing exclusively with police violence against the black community, led by the black community. One of the important parts of being an activist is letting people have self determination in solving the issues they face. Trying to solve black issues as a white person is pretty condescending, wouldn't you agree? We, as whites, don't know their experiences like they do, so stepping to the side and amplifying what they are saying when possible is the best course of action.

I also believe that the police require significant changes overall, but BLM has a specific purpose and is wholly valid.

Sure Bowb said:

So, what you're basically saying is, that the ALM is some sort of joke movement that serves no other purpose than mocking BLM. OK, I get it... I just now did a cursory search via google, and it just so happens that the ALM seems to be quite touch'n'go with Trump. So obviously is does not serve a good purpose, I see where you come from.

Here's a good read with a disturbing video: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/23/all-lives-matter-racist-trump-weekend-campaign-rally-proved-it

Baaaasically a joke, yeah. More of a mean-spirited jab than anything. But regardless of the intent, the result of people using the movement is that BLM is put to the wayside in favor of white feelings. We can have our own movements, but we should also be cognizant that they do not erase or marginalize people who are already vastly more affected by the issues.

Sure Bowb said:

Well, I'm not so sure about egalitarian strategies being all wrong. I mean in the end, we want all people to be equal, so levelling the playing field is the most important thing to do, I believe. The reason black people are subjected to violence, hate and triggerhappy cops is because many of them are born with no decent perspective, which is a huge chunk that needs to be dealt with in order to level the field, let alone that it would help to decrease media-driven spite.

I agree, egalitarianism is a good concept. I considered myself egalitarian for many years, until I started growing up and out of it. There are two terms with very similar meanings being used here. (By here, I mean in social action. Like with words such as "racism", you end up with confusion and debate about meanings. Please just play along for now.)

First, you have equality. That is giving all people the same treatment and opportunities. This works when society is equal by default, which is unfortunately far off at the very least.

Second, you have equity, which is giving people accommodations to bring them all to the same level. This is what works in the real world, where people are all different, with unique experiences and needs.

Black Lives Matter is part of an equitable solution to police violence. They offer solutions that can benefit all victims, but are concerned specifically with the people getting hit the hardest.

Sure Bowb said:

Don't get me wrong here, racism is a huge part of the problem, but the way I see it racism is rather a symptom of a greater disease. I mean, that's what I see in action here in germany now. As I said I've been here for about two years, and over these two years more refugees have come here, which had an impact on the population and it's stance towards these refugees, as well as the thought of taking steps towards helping them. As soon as media gets flooded with reports of refugees not being healthy, not being able to work, and a few of them causing trouble, people get pissed off over time. It went so far that some super right-wing party here had noticeable survey-upswings, and you better believe that scared me nigh shitless. That's been happening in the USA over decades by now, I would imagine. So I think the idea of creating an environment in which this "equalty" can be lived and experienced is one of the most important steps, if you want to effectively fight and prevent racism.

Sure, that's good for the long term, and I agree about the nationalism that is plaguing the western world. I think we agree on the grand scale, but have differences in the smaller realm of solutions. Which is fine. I much prefer that, as I've said to others here, to "debating" people who are actually racist.

Memebrain said:

Systemic racism

Is this systemic racism?

How about now

Maybe if I keep looking for it

I might find something

Not like any of the identity politics are being funded

I mean it can't be an astroturf campaign right?

I mean who wants civil unrest anyway?

Membrain said:

So... sorry for the wall of text. I'm trying my best to explain complicated subjects off the top of my head without confusing people.

Your thought experiment doesn't take into account the fact that people can care about and deal with more than one issue at a time. Black Lives Matter is about police violence and brutality against blacks, because it is a specific and widespread issue. It does not impede caring about the lives of whites taken by the police.

No, that's just not true. We can care about different problems, but when people actively frame police brutality in the "it's the black community's problem", it's divisive. I'm sorry you don't like that but I don't know what else to say. I don't like it either, but I'm willing to admit it, and see how we can frame it into a more inclusive light.

Membrain said:

Look, pretty much any discussion about civil rights against oppressed demographics basically runs into this roadblock where people try to recenter the "default". With women's rights, you end up with a bunch of people crying "What about the men?!" With BLM, you get ALM, which is essentially "What about the white victims?!" In any of these cases, the point isn't to draw attention to actual problems, but to delegitimize the movement.

No, that's just not true either. You are specifically focusing on the race of the victims, here. Here's a question I hope you answer, at least to yourself, as honestly as possible. Why should the race of the victim matter, if racism cannot be determined to have been a factor?

Membrain said:

In fact, most activists will try to explain that solving the problems they are talking about will help everyone, including the people who are part of the privileged demographic but who do not enjoy the privileges as much as others, such as men who are more effeminate or otherwise not up to the arbitrary standards of masculinity. And in the case of police brutality, as I said before, the solutions to the problem, like body cams, increased accountability, and the like will help *all* the victims of police violence. And, for that matter, should benefit the majority of cops who are good people by putting them in the limelight and vetting the bad ones.

If the solution to the problem isn't combating racism, why does the victim's race matter? Do you see why this is so divisive? Whether you like it or not, saying "Whites matter too, but the blacks are killed more often" is saying that the white lives taken by police are not as important. I'm not trying to be rude, but you can't just ignore this. Especially when the rhetoric is "Talking about white victims is obscuring the black victims".

Membrain said:

So yes, the thought experiment isn't really worth much because it doesn't take the reality of social justice movements into account. To reply to Tarnsman's point, I'd like to mention that, for blacks, police killings are an epidemic that they know the most about, because they are dealing with the issue on a constant basis.

Just because they face it more than whites, doesn't mean it's happening to them on a constant basis. I feel like you are exaggerating a bit here. It's a problem no doubt, and I certainly would call it an epidemic. But again, because you are focusing on race here, you are implying that whites don't have to deal with it.

But this gets into really absurd territory when you compare whites killed by police to Asians. Asians accounted for 2% of all police killings in 2011-2013, yet their population is 5.6% as of 2013. But I don't care, because it's all equal.

Membrain said:

Do you believe that the majority of people whose deaths have become known due to BLM activism were violent offenders? Do you not wonder why white people can point guns at cops, threaten them, and still be arrested alive, but blacks can get shot while sitting in their cars, reaching for their ID, immediately after being told to present their ID?

I tried to verify this claim, but I was unable to find any data. In fact, I've read several things saying that the data doesn't exist, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What is the ratio by population and by arrests for justifiable homicides by peace officers of white suspects, and what is the ratio by population and by arrests for justifiable homicides of black suspects? What is the ratio for non-justifiable homicides? Unless you have hard data, this is pure speculation. And therefore I don't have to wonder about anything.

Membrain said:

Your points here sound a lot like blaming the person acknowledging racism as the "real racist". You may not believe you are doing that, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, you may want to take a close look at why you are making these arguments. (To clarify, I'm not accusing you of racism, but imploring that you consider the basis of your argument.)

No, I'm not. I'm saying, "if racism can't be demonstrated, then the victim's race has no bearing on the issue, and saying that it does is divisive." I'm imploring you to stop assuming my position. This screams that you don't actually care about my perspective and just calls into question why I'm even talking to you in the first place.

Membrain said:

The actual figures are roughly four times the proportional rate of whites. White people are killed by cops. Black people are killed more often. Trying to prove racism as the cause of every single killing is not as important as noticing a trend, acknowledging it, and working to determine the cause and solutions. Because this is uniquely an issue in the black community, it is also important to know to step aside and let them determine the solution.

Are you kidding me? It's not just happening in the black community. Didn't you just say whites are killed too? Also, trying to prove racism as the cause is important because, as you said, we need to find the cause so the solutions we come up with address real issues. You are making the assumptions. I'm not, and I refuse to.

Membrain said:

Highly doubtful. Unless they are somehow insulated from society, every black person alive in the US has faced or will face some form of racially charged adversity, as you put it. It doesn't really matter how good of a person they are or how carefully they live their lives. (In fact, having to carefully live your life to avoid racial adversity is, y'know, a challenge in and of itself.) Here's an anecdote: I live in the north, in NY, and I have a friend who went to college in a relatively safe area, with low crime rate. No record, listens to classic rock, wears respectable (Read: white) clothing, casually athletic but not jacked, the works. He should be the definition of a black person able to escape adversity, right?

I don't care. My point is that it's possible, but you are claiming universality with nothing to back up such a claim, other than it's a issue for the general black population. Not every black person will or has faced racially charged adversity, and claiming that they will doesn't go by the data, because the data doesn't say 100%.

Membrain said:

Two years ago, he was out for a run and, out of nowhere, he got tackled, hard, to the ground by three police officers, who then arrested him, head bleeding and glasses broken. (The glasses weren't cheap, either. He had a decent job at the school.) Why did they arrest him? Because on the other side, about two miles away, of town, a fraternity had just had their party broken up, where they were serving alcohol to minors. He was lucky, though, since he was wearing his tracksuit, no alcohol in his system, and was TWO MILES from where they had just broken up the party a few minutes before. So at least they didn't shoot him. Oh, and I forgot to mention, he wasn't running alone. His friend, who is white, was also running with him. This friend (NOT tackled or arrested, by the way.) spent the entire night telling the officers about how they had been running since getting out of class. Next morning, he was finally released and allowed to go to the hospital to have his head looked at.

Now, I realize that the plural of anecdote is not evidence. That being said, can you think of anything this kid could have done to make himself safer other than changing his skin color?

Honestly I don't know. This is a tragedy, if this story is indeed true btw, and the police officer, I hope though doubt, should have faced some sort of disciplinary action. The reason I get to show anecdotes and you don't however is I'm trying to point out exceptions to the rule of the "all" you seem to be claiming. If it's just one that doesn't fit your narrative, you are wrong.

Membrain said:

If you are white, you have, hopefully unintentionally, contributed to or benefited from the oppression of people of color. Historical circumstances (extensive and valid as they are) aside, our entire way of life is predicated on (current) Western imperialism. But to get back on subject, do you have any friends who are black? Ask them sometime, if you can, about the considerations they have to make just in their day-to-day lives just to keep themselves safe. Consider that you will never have to worry about seeing hundreds, thousands, of people throughout your life disparaging your life, culture, and heritage via rhetoric and violence of various natures. Those actions, and all the myriad ways our culture supports them, prop up white as the default, the norm, and benefit white people exclusively.

Along time ago, when I was still enlisted into the us military, I went on a deployment to Iraq. While I was there, I came out as gay. Unfortunately for me, this was still in the era of "DADT" or "don't ask, don't tell". My black sergeant and I had a long talk about discrimination. Do you know what he said to me? "The most I've faced was being called a nigger while playing COD4 online. I feel bad for you, if I were going to lose my job simply for being black, I'd fight. I'd fight harder than you would, and so I will fight for you." I didn't get kicked out of the military. Even the Sergeant Major, who was black, told me that he'd never faced anything I was going through.

Membrain said:

It is nuanced, but that doesn't mean that the statement is false. They also face specific occurrences of racism that help fortify racist structures, which is part of why ALM is insidious, and the internal problems in the community caused both by oppressive systems and by human nature.

For example, black criminals are still criminals. However, innocent blacks (a vast majority) still apparently have to answer for their actions as a monolith. Imagine if whites, when rallying against police violence, had to work against claims that the victims inherently had it coming to them because they were "no angel", by virtue of their skin color. Hell, Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old kid shot by an officer with a history of aggression, who'd been fired for racist actions at a previous job. It was a system of racial oppression that allowed that to happen, alongside a specifically racist officer.

Okay, I'll buy that. It sounds like a tragedy. I've read some about it as well, and also concluded that, in this specific incident, racism was the deciding factor. But it really seems like just a racist white dude had it out for blacks, and was in a position feel justified killing Tamir, a black child. If you want to claim a system of racial oppression allowed it to happen, I want a very solid, concise argument, since, you have a history of making assumptions.

Membrain said:

Granted, we also have issues with our treatment of literally every other race except white people, but Black Lives Matter is a specific response to police brutality and killings. Its existence does not necessitate "forgetting" about other lives or ignoring racism elsewhere. It is part and parcel in talking about racial justice in our country. Other countries have a different social setup and thus would require different approaches.

All Lives Matter, as I've said before, is specifically designed to minimize the attention given to police violence against blacks because it inherently pushes for a continuation of the status quo. It's very similar to the "Straight Pride movement" or "White History Month", where people take movements designed to raise awareness of various issues and mock/belittle them with a "What about ME?" demonstration. If all people were treated equally, as egalitarianism posits, then there would be no need for specific movements to combat inequality. Even those people who are being intellectually honest, like in this thread, supporting ALM are contributing to a problem. That is, not every community requires the same treatment for what ails them. Trying to solve police brutality against blacks using egalitarian strategies is like attempting to treat a broken bone with cough syrup. That's why we have separate movements for separate problems. (This is also directed at Tarnsman's comment.)

But we don't have a separate movement for general police brutality, and if we do, it's completely drowned out by BLM. The "What about me?" sentiment is somewhat justified, because other people besides blacks are dying unjustly by the hands of the police, and SJWs don't seem to care, and BLM drowns out said discussion at best, and really does belittle it at worst. You even said it yourself. I qoute, "....this is uniquely an issue in the black community, ..." and assume that bringing up white victims is delegitimizing BLM. I quote, "With BLM, you get ALM, which is essentially "What about the white victims?!" In any of these cases, the point isn't to draw attention to actual problems, but to delegitimize the movement." You are being very dishonest here by saying that we can focus on more than one issue at time, and whites being killed by police is a tragedy, then turning right around and saying it's only a problem in black communities. I would start being a lot more careful with my words, if I were you, because you are only cementing my position away from yours, and diminishing my motivation to engage with you at all.

Membrain said:

Look, pretty much any discussion about civil rights against oppressed demographics basically runs into this roadblock where people try to recenter the "default". With women's rights, you end up with a bunch of people crying "What about the men?!" With BLM, you get ALM, which is essentially "What about the white victims?!" In any of these cases, the point isn't to draw attention to actual problems, but to delegitimize the movement.

And every single time these arguments work because people like you get so caught up in trying to explain why saying those things is wrong. Instead of just accepting those people into the fold and then making them have a debate with you on the issues.

The next time someone says "All Lives Matter" to you, simply respond "yes they do" and then ask them to support all the reforms that you want passed and make them have that conversation. If they really believe all lives matter then they'll support those policies. If they don't and they're just a racist they won't and you've removed any cover they could hide behind.

Membrain said:

Trying to solve police brutality against blacks using egalitarian strategies is like attempting to treat a broken bone with cough syrup. That's why we have separate movements for separate problems. (This is also directed at Tarnsman's comment.)

This is just completely wrong. The goal shouldn't be to solve police brutality against blacks, the goal should be to solve police brutality. Targeted policies fail to produce long term solutions because they're non-fixes. MLK realized this, that's why his big thing post civil-rights was to focus on things like economic policy and foster unity between working class whites and blacks. The biggest culprits for the criminal justice system harming black people are global things. The war on drugs makes drugs illegal for everyone, it disproportionately impacts blacks. End the war on drugs (a solution for a problem that impacts everyone) and you've ended a huge problem for black people. Same with three-strikes or fine based law enforcement, so on and so forth.

If you have cancer the doctor isn't just going to focus on part of the cancer because it's slightly worse.

Membrain said:

Trying to solve black issues as a white person is pretty condescending, wouldn't you agree?

No it's condescending to imply that black issues aren't owned collectively by all Americans. If the American justice system is disproportionately screwing over a select group that's an American issue, that's something that's fundamentally opposed to what this country stands for. Solidarity is a powerful thing and we need to foster it not fall into the same trap we have been for years. The self-segregation of white and black communities is appalling. You will never defeat the concept of the "other" (the very foundation for most tribalism based problems such as racism) by reinforcing the idea that a group is distinctly different than you.

This is why ALM, which absolutely is used mostly as a dog whistle, has so much power because it represents a far more appealing idea to a lot of people who do want to solve racism. If your solution to solving issues is to ask people to step aside, you've fundamentally misunderstood democracy.

Did not read the entire thread yet, but I think this article is relevant. I say that as someone with a degree in sociology (not that that means anything, but heyo!). The article talks about microaggressions and victim culture. Talks about the mixture of societies of honor and societies of dignity that we have in the west. And how that contributes to the victim culture of today (in the US anyways).

http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/

"The key idea is that the new moral culture of victimhood fosters “moral dependence” and an atrophying of the ability to handle small interpersonal matters on one’s own. At the same time that it weakens individuals, it creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims."

"[In other words, as progress is made toward a more equal and humane society, it takes a smaller and smaller offense to trigger a high level of outrage. The goalposts shift, allowing participants to maintain a constant level of anger and constant level of perceived victimization.]"

Those two quotes pretty much are the gold standard of SJW identity.

Love this one: (Okay, last quote, you can read the article fore the rest):

"Victimhood as Virtue"

"In the settings such as those that generate microaggression catalogs, though, where offenders are oppressors and victims are the oppressed, it also raises the moral status of the victims. This only increases the incentive to publicize grievances, and it means aggrieved parties are especially likely to highlight their identity as victims, emphasizing their own suffering and innocence. Their adversaries are privileged and blameworthy, but they themselves are pitiable and blameless. [p.707-708] [This is the great tragedy: the culture of victimization rewards people for taking on a personal identity as one who is damaged, weak, and aggrieved. This is a recipe for failure — and constant litigation — after students graduate from college and attempt to enter the workforce]"