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

[sudo459]

PureSlime said:

Institutionalized racism is what people usually talk about when they mean racism. And racial prejudice against white people is by far not nearly the same thing as the systemic oppression of non-white people.

Why are we getting hung up on semantics?

White people are not racially discriminated against in the western world. White people have significant racial privilege over those of other ethnicities.

This isn't a debate? This is a self-evident fact.

Because people like you think minorities are incapable of discriminating against white people. Do I really have to show you an example?

Here's what you really mean (and something I actually agree with to some degree)
"White people are not systematically racially discriminated against in the western world."
"White people generally have significant racial privilege over those of other ethnicities."

An example of discrimination against white people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Cqkq6zWc

The black speaker said:

White life is wrong.

[Tarnsman]

PureSlime said:

Institutionalized racism is what people usually talk about when they mean racism. And racial prejudice against white people is by far not nearly the same thing as the systemic oppression of non-white people.

Why are we getting hung up on semantics?

White people are not racially discriminated against in the western world. White people have significant racial privilege over those of other ethnicities.

This isn't a debate? This is a self-evident fact.

Because the vast majority of the people who you need to convince to support the things that could go a long way in not necessarily completely eliminating structural racism but reducing its impact, are mostly powerless people who don't like the idea of being told they have privilege when they're lives are full of plenty of struggle and strife. And yeah you can say "well they do" all you want but that's just you hiding behind your own ignorance of the situation.

All "well they do they just stop getting so upset about me telling the truth to them" does is make them less likely to listen to you. Eventually it ends up turning cries of racism into white noise and making people apathetic to these problems unless they're so blatant that they're impossible to deny.

I mean look at every single thread in EE right now going on about whatever political issue. Find me one example of anyone screaming the typical "SJW" talking point changing anyone's mind. Please ONE. That's important because if you have a system of power screwing people over that only changes via either violent revolution (not going to happen in an industrialized first world country in 2016) or getting the people in the system to agree with you. So if your goal is to give people perspective in EE, you've failed utterly and completely. If your goal is just to annoy people who disagree with you... I guess have fun with that?

The only one I've seen where someone actually changed their mind on an issue was my call out thread in blogs where Trace, who initially supported the North Carolina bathroom law, was able to understand why people have a problem with it. Which only happened because I didn't call him a transphobe, I explained it to him in a way that he could appreciate from his perspective. All people piling on him calling him a transphobe did was make him lock his original thread and run away from the issue (i.e. not gain the valuable perspective that respectful discourse allowed him to gain)

[PureSlime]

sudo459 said:

Because people like you think minorities are incapable of discriminating against white people. Do I really have to show you an example?

They are incapable of systemically discriminating against white people in the western world.

They are capable of being racially prejudiced against white people, and I'm not necessarily saying that's a good thing. But white people are not discriminated against in anywhere near the same way as people of colour. Denying white privilege is willful ignorance.

Laws and social constructs are very much geared towards white people's benefit. It's a creeping white supremacy. Just because it doesn't exist in such overt ways as in decades and centuries previous doesn't mean it isn't there.

Tarnsman said:

mostly powerless people who don't like the idea of being told they have privilege when they're lives are full of plenty of struggle and strife. And yeah you can say "well they do" all you want but that's just you hiding behind your own ignorance of the situation.

I understand where you're coming, but people do need to be aware of their privileges. I realize it may be a frustrating thing for them to recognize, but it exists and they must come to terms with it eventually.

[Tarnsman]

PureSlime said:

I understand where you're coming, but people do need to be aware of their privileges. I realize it may be a frustrating thing for them to recognize, but it exists and they must come to terms with it eventually.

No they really don't because most of them just amount to having slightly less shit than other people. Some white person in a rural town screwed over by lost manufacturing jobs is barely better off than they would be if they weren't white. No structural problem will get solved by him recognizing his privilege, especially when the people telling he's privileged also come up with solutions like "clap when black people enter the room".

But say convince him that the war on drugs is an affront to conservative values and our prison system is fiscally irresponsible where he starts supporting politicians who want to fix those two things and you've done far more towards ending the systemic problems of our country then getting him to recognize his privilege ever would.

[PureSlime]

All I'm saying is that white privilege exists, and that denial of it so often breeds racism and contributes to the systemic oppression of people of colour.

Also, I'm not even going to respond to that nonsense "proof" of racial discrimination towards white people that sudo459 posted.

[sudo459]

PureSlime said:

They are incapable of systemically discriminating against white people in the western world.

I'm not denying that. But what I called you out on, is your blatant equivocation.

PureSlime said:

White people are not racially discriminated against in the western world.

PureSlime said:

They are capable of being racially prejudiced against white people, and I'm not necessarily saying that's a good thing. But white people are not discriminated against in anywhere near the same way as people of colour. Denying white privilege is willful ignorance.

No, it's a claim, and you need to provide evidence. I'm not convinced. Convince me. Saying it's obvious, or you are ignorant just means to me that you don't actually have an argument. It's obvious to you, not to me. Show me the evidence.

PureSlime said:

Laws and social constructs are very much geared towards white people's benefit. It's a creeping white supremacy. Just because it doesn't exist in such overt ways as in decades and centuries previous doesn't mean it isn't there.


I understand where you're coming, but people do need to be aware of their privileges. I realize it may be a frustrating thing for them to recognize, but it exists and they must come to terms with it eventually.

The problem with that, is that it's really hard to notice. I'm poor. Dirt poor and jobless. I've been called names by black people, yet have seen very little "white to black" racism myself, despite living in Texas. I don't even know what my privileges are, besides the police issue.

PureSlime said:

Also, I'm not even going to respond to that nonsense "proof" of racial discrimination towards white people that sudo459 posted.

Why not? Do you deny that what I posted was discrimination coming from a black person?

[PureSlime]

sudo459 said:

No, it's a claim, and you need to provide evidence. I'm not convinced. Convince me. Saying it's obvious, or you are ignorant just means to me that you don't actually have an argument. It's obvious to you, not to me. Show me the evidence.

You would need to provide evidence that white people are systemically racially discriminated against in any manner comparable to the discrimination face by people of colour. Burden of proof does not lie on me for asserting they do not. It would lie on you to prove that they are.

I understand and I'm apologetic that you have a frustrating economic situation. I have been privileged so far as to never have to experience that. However, simply because you haven't noticed how white privilege effects you in particular does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that white people are discriminated against in the same way as people of colour.

[sudo459]

PureSlime said:

You would need to provide evidence that white people are systemically racially discriminated against in any manner comparable to the discrimination face by people of colour. Burden of proof does not lie on me for asserting they do not. It would lie on you to prove that they are.

No I don't because I never said they do. It's clear now that you believe that discrimination is the same as systematic discrimination. If you do not, then I apologize, but it's getting increasingly frustrating having to rebut your equivocations.

[PureSlime]

sudo459 said:

No I don't because I never said they do.

Then, I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what your argument is about.

[sudo459]

PureSlime said:

Then, I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what your argument is about.

You said, "White people are not racially discriminated against in the western world." I offered a rebuttal to that. I believe that yes, some minorities discriminate white people in the western world. It's not systematic, and yes it's semantics, but I hope it's clear by now that arguing semantics isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when my whole shtick is fighting arguments that use this blatant equivocation as their primary selling point.

[Tarnsman]

PureSlime said:

I understand and I'm apologetic that you have a frustrating economic situation. I have been privileged so far as to never have to experience that.

Okay so you don't see the problem of telling someone that's living through something you have no experience of that they objectively benefit from something?

That's exactly what's wrong with what you're trying to do. I understand it. I'm not saying your heart is in the wrong place, it's fine but you're being counter productive to what you're trying to achieve. You're marginalizing an entire group and then expecting them to care about the problems you're telling them aren't their problems.

There is no real unique problem in America. Like unless you're the richest of the rich you've suffered some version of everyone else's problems. Yes the average white person doesn't suffer from X, Y, and Z as much as the average black person but there is overlap to create solidarity that "you don't suffer from this because you're white" instantly prevents and makes people not care. And you know who you need to care if you want things to change? Those people.

[insanoflex312]

Another big thing that needs to change is the attitude that your beliefs are self-evidence, super obvious and that people who disagree with your beliefs are willfully ignorant, racist, or equivalent to creationists. That is far from beneficial.

[Doomkid]

I don't think anyone is going to claim there's no institutionalized racism. The point that I and (I think) Tarnsman have been trying to make this whole time is that "blame whitey" is such a stupidly simplified, flat out unjust reaction.

Nothing said so far dismantled a single thing I put forward in my last post. Place the blame/pressure where it belongs and have a chance of getting something done, or harp on about white privilege and keep widening the divide.

Bucket, if you plan to make any more dipshit claims about how you can't be racist against white people, at least have the decency to specify that you're talking about institutionalized racism. I still don't entirely agree because we have different laws in place depending on a person's race (how the fuck is something so archaic still true in the 21st century, seriously) but I won't deny that white people, on average, turn out better for it. Any law or rule that benefits one race over another or is more detrimental to one race over another needs to be done away with ASAP. It's bad that such things exist. It stands in the way of easing racial tension. Disadvantaged people of any race deserve help. Wealthy people of any race have more influence. We all bleed red at the end of the day and any legislation that ignores that is shit.

The racist lobbyists and lawmakers are still glad we're bickering here on the bottom though, they're glad race is emphasized tenfold more than classism, lets keep that oppressive status quo going whooppeeee

Edit: Instead of talking about how white people have "privilege", turn the coin and talk about how black people are more likely to be denied basic rights. That way you're not blaming all whites for the egregious sin of being white AND not referring to basic fucking rights as "privileges". Like I said before, that's a subtle but very, very important distinction. Not being senselessly murdered by a police officer is meant to be an unalienable right, not some optional "privilege", ffs..

[Tarnsman]

Doomkid said:

(I think) Tarnsman have been trying to make this whole time is that "blame whitey" is such a stupidly simplified, flat out unjust reaction.

My point is that whether or not it's just is completely irrelevant. It could be the most just position in the world and it'd still be wrong because all it succeeds in doing is alienating the very people you need to unify. Each person is essentially an island, one island can be as correct as humanly possible and it still won't mean shit if the other islands ignore them.

As great as it would be for all of life to be able to boil down to a Stan "you know I learned something today" speech that solves the problem, it doesn't work that way.

[Doomkid]

The problem seems to be that no matter how digestible/"nice" you make your point, it seems like some asshole is just going to out yell you. It would be great if people would listen to reason but instead they mistake loudness for passion and attach to the emotionally charged rather than something based in reason.

I don't mean to dissuade anyone from engaging in discourse in a respectful manner, its just a shame this yelling match shit is seen so frequently. It's all that matters in elections, for example. Tarns and Trace coming to see eye to eye after some fairly calm discussion is the exception rather than the rule. I really wish that were not the case.

Anyway though, yeah racist/racially charged laws need to go. They suck.

[Tarnsman]

Doomkid said:

Edit: Instead of talking about how white people have "privilege", turn the coin and talk about how black people are more likely to be denied basic rights. That way you're not blaming all whites for the egregious sin of being white AND not referring to basic fucking rights as "privileges". Like I said before, that's a subtle but very, very important distinction. Not being senselessly murdered by a police officer is meant to be an unalienable right, not some optional "privilege", ffs..

This is on the right track but my point is more meta.

Let's go to Bucket's life jacket example from a while ago where he tried to claim that "all lives matter is telling a drowning person that EVERYONE needs a life jacket". That's the completely wrong way of looking at it.

Let's say we're all on a boat. The boat has a problem that it doesn't have enough life jackets. On this boat there are 80 white people and 20 black people. 9 white people and 1 black person are in the good part of the boat that if something happens will be 100% safe. 71 white people and 19 black people are in the shitty part of the boat where they will absolutely need a life jacket if the boat starts to sink. There are 50 life jackets. Now racism says that of those 80 people stuck in the shitty part, white people will probably have a better chance of getting a life jacket.

The "SJW" solution to this scenario is to say "white people have jacket privilege". This is the completely wrong approach. 1. It ignores that even if all 50 went to white people there would still be 21 white people without a jacket and 2. it basically tells the white people "you don't need to worry about this problem" and creates that cycle of "oh it's just *insert group here* bitching about it". In the real world context this would be the "as a white person you never need to worry about getting shot by the cops" (Which is just wrong.)

My argument is that instead of trying to convince those people there is a problem because they have a greater chance of getting a life jacket, which you won't, because "but 21 of us won't" will endlessly come up. (See literally any thread on this shit) The better solution is to focus on "hey we don't have enough life jackets we should probably solve this" because you have a better chance to get those 71 white people behind it, which have more collective power than 19 black people. And if you get the boat to have 100 life jackets, guess what? You've solved the problem of "racism means black people won't get jackets". Did you solve racism? No, you can't in any meaningful quick way. You did what you CAN do, make it IRRELEVANT.

[Doomkid]

I agree entirely. Race should be about as relevant as a person's eye or hair colour. It should be completely irrelevant as far as human rights, legislation and police treatment is concerned.

You'll always get someone refuting this though, which is really annoying. "Black people are more likely to commit crime so cops should be more weary around them" is an unfortunately common argument against this, but not only does it ignore the fact that the crimes rates are more about poverty than skin colour, it also supports this absurd idea that individuals should be treated like a statistic by the fucking police. Everyone, especially cops, should be judging suspects on a case-by-case basis, not statistics that only apply to a small minority of black people. The vast majority of black people never commit a crime, but you never hear them bringing up that statistic.

It's literally the same logic as viewing all men as "potential rapists" because they're statistically more likely to commit rape than women. You throw the majority of a group under the bus for the actions of the bad apples. Anyone who thinks that's fair ain't wrapped tight. (See: daft as shit)

[insanoflex312]

Doomkid said:

I agree entirely. Race should be about as relevant as a person's eye or hair colour. It should be completely irrelevant as far as human rights, legislation and police treatment is concerned.

Which was what I was arguing for, really.

[Doomkid]

insanoflex312 said:

Which was what I was arguing for, really.

Yep, I understand that, and I'm 99% sure sudo is on the same page as well.

[sudo459]

Hey, its about time we bring this back on topic, right? I have noticed that, despite a few bad apples here, things have mostly been civil. So see? Sjw threads don't have to be shitstorms.

[lazygecko]

Doomkid said:

Edit: Instead of talking about how white people have "privilege", turn the coin and talk about how black people are more likely to be denied basic rights. That way you're not blaming all whites for the egregious sin of being white AND not referring to basic fucking rights as "privileges". Like I said before, that's a subtle but very, very important distinction. Not being senselessly murdered by a police officer is meant to be an unalienable right, not some optional "privilege", ffs..

George Carlin would have a few things to say about that.

[Bucket]

insanoflex312 said:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Learn to read your own examples. Or did you forget what you were arguing for?

Certainly not any of the correlations you just invented. You're free to quote my exact words where I said "racism comes from superiority" but we both know you're just assuming causality. If anything you've got it backwards. Also, racial superiority (biologically or otherwise) is not a thing that exists. Race is not a thing that exists. Racism, and thereby the illogical idea of supremacy, most certainly exists and has real consequences.

Tarnsman said:

Bro you ruined you own argument with the links you provided. Per the goddamn dictionary, "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior". You don't have to have power to believe your race is superior. You're thinking of structural/institutionalized racism. Hang up a try again.

When a society is built upon the idea of the superiority of one race, it precludes a mindset of the superiority of other races. The real world is not like the Dr. Seuss book where butter-side-downers and butter-side-uppers both think they're better and everyone can choose a side. Here on Earth, British imperialism happened.

Doomkid said:

Bucket, if you plan to make any more dipshit claims about how you can't be racist against white people, at least have the decency to specify that you're talking about institutionalized racism.

"Institutionalized racism" is exactly the reason why white people can't experience racism, for reasons I've stated above. Are there any other difficulties you want me to help you with?

Tarnsman said:

Let's go to Bucket's life jacket example from a while ago where he tried to claim that "all lives matter is telling a drowning person that EVERYONE needs a life jacket". That's the completely wrong way of looking at it.

Let's say we're all on a boat. The boat has a problem that it doesn't have enough life jackets.

BLM and #AllLivesMatter do not fit this metaphor, thanks to the irrelevant ad hoc elements you've thrown in. There are more people than life jackets in your story; in reality, the dignity of not being shot dead during a police encounter is not in short supply. There are no Survive Routine Traffic Stop Tokens that they only give out in predominately white neighborhoods; we DO NOT need to be asking why there aren't enough to go around. To look at an issue that has cost lives in this light is the height of absurdity, not to mention insultingly tone-deaf.

[Decay]

Bucket said:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism?s=t
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/racism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism
Oh look, all these academic sources linking racism directly to supremacy. I eagerly wait to be provided with the academic sources that Decay, insanoflex312, Saturn, Tarnsman, Fonze, Dynamo, and Doomkid use that unequivocally say otherwise.

Sorry, reactionary regressives. Racism is a bit more complicated than, "I don't like people of a certain color." Accept the facts or continue not to be taken seriously by any rational person.

LOL again, wikipedia as an academic resource. I did not state what racism is, learn to read. The only thing I said even implicitly is that you are brain damaged, and maybe I should make that more plain. Maybe you should review the statement of yours I quoted and refer back to your own "resources" and see where you went wrong.

:O)

[insanoflex312]

Bucket said:

Certainly not any of the correlations you just invented. You're free to quote my exact words where I said "racism comes from superiority" but we both know you're just assuming causality. If anything you've got it backwards. Also, racial superiority (biologically or otherwise) is not a thing that exists. Race is not a thing that exists. Racism, and thereby the illogical idea of supremacy, most certainly exists and has real consequences.

I literally have no idea what you're rambling about. This inane jibbering is not even close to what we were talking about, and so far, you have, maybe? conceded that racism does not depend on the power of the person, since none of your examples mention that, or take that into consideration and you've mentioned that it comes from superiority(the belief of superiority is all that your examples mention). You've either forgotten what you were arguing for, or you've changed your tone because you know you're wrong.

Oooops, actually you continue ;(

Bucket said:

When a society is built upon the idea of the superiority of one race, it precludes a mindset of the superiority of other races. The real world is not like the Dr. Seuss book where butter-side-downers and butter-side-uppers both think they're better and everyone can choose a side.

Whats stopping a black person from thinking the black race is superior? No physical law stops that person, so, what are you getting at? Your very own definitions say that anyone who believes their race is superior is a racist. If an Asian person hates the "white devil", then that person is racist according to your own definitions.

Bucket said:

Here on Earth, British imperialism happened.
"Institutionalized racism" is exactly the reason why white people can't experience racism, for reasons I've stated above. Are there any other difficulties you want me to help you with?

Maybe stop equivocating racism with "Institutionalized racism"? None of the definitions you gave me supported your use of the term. Oh, and you can explain "Institutionalized racism" to me. So, historically, the "white race" has dominated the world and set itself as superior to all other races, therefore, whites cant experience racism? How does that follow at all? Besides, I think you should research history if you think the "white race" conquered the world as a group.

[Arctangent]

Tarnsman said:

stuff about life jackets

... I feel like you're basically arguing for limiting the usage of horse steroids in a reply to someone arguing for the investigation of the ecological effects of cheap pesticides.

BLM is all about protesting police brutality and letting people know about the disproportionate amount of police brutality against black Americans that normally just gets swept under the rug. Saying as a counterpoint that "all lives matter" completely misses the point that the name stems from the fact that the people in charge don't seem to think black lives matter. Nor, from a cynical perspective, does it seem like most of America cares about them, either.

So perhaps Bucket's metaphor wasn't quite complete. It's like saying to a drowning man that everyone needs a lifejacket ... when you're on completely dry land and would only need one if you tripped and fell into the drink yourself.

And the thing is, the movement is actually doing its best to get stuff done. Its members are putting cases of police brutality into the public eye when others would rather it not, and they are organizing full-on protests to try and get this shit fixed. So it's nothing like whatever you're going on about.

[fraggle]

Bucket said:

Sorry, reactionary regressives. Racism is a bit more complicated than, "I don't like people of a certain color."

This is why I deliberately avoid ever trying to make those "can't be racist against white people" arguments. You may have a point you're trying to make but you end up arguing semantics and trying to convince someone of your preferred interpretation of a particular word. The fact is that for a lot of / most people, "racism" just means "prejudice on account of race" and nothing more. You're probably far better off just accepting that and trying to have a meaningful discussion of the actual issues rather than digging in for an endless trench battle over how your particular interpretation is the "correct" meaning of the word.

Doomkid said:

Edit: Instead of talking about how white people have "privilege", turn the coin and talk about how black people are more likely to be denied basic rights. That way you're not blaming all whites for the egregious sin of being white AND not referring to basic fucking rights as "privileges".

On the contrary, I've found that thinking of it this way actually helps to personalize the issue. Everyone knows that people of colour face discrimination; this isn't anything new. Reframing the issue as "white privilege" personally helped me to understand the issue better, because it forced me to consider all the ways in which my background and demographic have helped me to succeed.

The thing is we tend to take these things for granted because it's our perspective on life and how we view the world; without a wider perspective it's easy to assume that everyone else has the same experience. In a way it's also humbling and that's perhaps why some people find the concept so difficult to deal with.

But that said, I have to address the angle you take this - you're effectively saying, "instead of blaming X, blame Y instead". Have you considered that it's blame itself that may be the issue here and is actually counterproductive to understanding and addressing the problem?

Whenever I see discussions like these, I always see some people who interpret "white privilege" to mean "white blame" or who somehow think that people with privilege are being "blamed" for things that happen to those who are not. I find it perplexing because it's not how I see the issue at all; these are just ways of analyzing what are perceived as structural injustices - if we understand how the system works then we can fix it.

This kind of "blame politics" is unfortunately too prevalent and tends to be destructive both towards any reasonable discussion and towards providing solutions to problems. For example in discussions of: terrorism, poverty, contraceptives, abortion, etc. If you want a specific example, consider how certain politicians will claim to be "anti-abortion (ie. it should be illegal), except in the case of rape". Think about what that means in terms of blame.

Too often we're focused on finding ways of blaming people because it's easier than addressing systemic issues - if you can find someone to blame then it's a convenient rug to sweep the issue under. But worse, it can become a damaging way of viewing the world where blame clouds the issues and you can't have any kind of emotionally detached discussion of them. Humanity is a system that's bigger and more complicated than individuals are, but if you focus on blame then you're stuck at the level of individual interactions.

Fundamentally the difference between cause-and-effect and blame is that blame is a moral judgment. You're not just observing the state of something but applying your own opinion and perspective to it - it's no longer an objective assessment but rather a subjective one.

I've gone way off course here but to tie this back to the original discussion in some way: it's best if you just let go of blame entirely when thinking about these issues. Nobody's trying to blame anyone here; we are all stuck in a system that is larger than us and that is the product of decisions dating back centuries. Understand how the system works, recognize that it is imperfect and that injustices exist, and realise that we can only solve these problems collectively by discussing them and finding solutions.

[Scripten]

fraggle said:

This is why I deliberately avoid ever trying to make those "can't be racist against white people" arguments. You may have a point you're trying to make but you end up arguing semantics and trying to convince someone of your preferred interpretation of a particular word. The fact is that for a lot of / most people, "racism" just means "prejudice on account of race" and nothing more. You're probably far better off just accepting that and trying to have a meaningful discussion of the actual issues rather than digging in for an endless trench battle over how your particular interpretation is the "correct" meaning of the word.

Honest question: Do you believe that these people would respond better to "White people cannot experience institutional, structural racism"?

I have a feeling we'll know the answer soon. From the mouth of babes and all that.

[insanoflex312]

Membrain said:

Honest question: Do you believe that these people would respond better to "White people cannot experience institutional, structural racism"?

I have a feeling we'll know the answer soon. From the mouth of babes and all that.

I certainly would respond better to that, given the alternative sweeps non-whites calling for white genocide(it happens sometimes) or something just a horrible under the rug or at worst, says that its OK to say things like that.

Before you ask, yes I have encountered this. Yes, those people have cited "you can't be racist against whites" as a justification for saying it. No, I don't think its a common sentiment for those who use the power+prejudice definition. The problem is, people who would never stoop to such a low level sometimes defend the words of the people calling for genocide because they believe in the "you can't be racist against whites" mentality.

[Tarnsman]

Arctangent said:

Nor, from a cynical perspective, does it seem like most of America cares about them, either.

And constantly telling them that it's not their problem doesn't help at all.

Arctangent said:

So perhaps Bucket's metaphor wasn't quite complete. It's like saying to a drowning man that everyone needs a lifejacket ... when you're on completely dry land and would only need one if you tripped and fell into the drink yourself.

No. The drowning guy is the guy currently being shot by police. No one is going up to that guy and saying "excuse me sir ALL lives matter". They're saying it to the other black people standing on shore who are telling them they need life jackets. You're trying to fight over a hill that's meaningless. If someone response to "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" your response to that shouldn't be "NO YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG" it should be "I'm glad you agree let's talk about what needs to happen to save lives" and then force them to have that conversation. The "identity politics" hill is a distraction at worse and a quagmire that impedes progress at worst.

Here is a 19 year old unarmed white kid who got shot by the cops multiple times while he was on the ground (Yes unarmed white people get shot by the cops too), is his family standing in solidarity with the BLM movement and using their tragedy to get more Americans behind criminal justice reform? No they're complaining that the media isn't covering their son's death like they would be if he was black. Those are the same people that have been told that their son never has to worry about being shot by the cops because he's white.

If you have someone you need to help you fix your house's foundation, you don't get into an argument over the color of the walls. That's all the this verbiage garbage is. Yes they should be willing to not get so hung up on minor little quibbles like that too but guess what? You're the one trying to convince them. Not the other way around. They don't have to do shit.

Arctangent said:

And the thing is, the movement is actually doing its best to get stuff done. Its members are putting cases of police brutality into the public eye when others would rather it not, and they are organizing full-on protests to try and get this shit fixed. So it's nothing like whatever you're going on about.

Protesting is not changing legislation. All it is keeping things visible, which is important, but you need to get people on board on top of that. Blocking highways doesn't make people suddenly go "oh shit system racism IS a problem I better do something about it" it's just going to annoy them because they're late for work or whatever. BLM has a pretty decent platform of what needs to change, none of that is going to change until the majority of people whose problem it "isn't" think it is their problem. The concept of the "other" is overwhelmingly powerful and actively reinforcing it is harmful.

fraggle said:

On the contrary, I've found that thinking of it this way actually helps to personalize the issue. Everyone knows that people of colour face discrimination; this isn't anything new. Reframing the issue as "white privilege" personally helped me to understand the issue better, because it forced me to consider all the ways in which my background and demographic have helped me to succeed.

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.

[Mr. Freeze]

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