The Ferguson, Missouri thread

[Salodin]

Intentions matter too. One protests the system, and the injustices wrought about. The other does nothing but make you late for a job or unable to make it to a hospital to have your child.

Basically, why are you targeting people who are innocent and probably support you any ways? It's the same thing as people saying black lives matter, not all lives.

[quannum]

this is why it's black lives matter instead of all lives matter:



there's no need to fight against the notion that all lives matter, opposite is not true.

[Salodin]

About the photo of the undercover cop, a Reuters photographer mentions the two were attacked and that's how the incident started.

[Priran]

this is why it's black lives matter instead of all lives matter:



there's no need to fight against the notion that all lives matter, opposite is not true.

right, like how OJ's acquittal made white lives stop mattering and children's lives stopped mattering when Michael Jackson and R.Kelly got off the hook

[Tyrath]

Man this whole thing could've been fixed with a simple #blacklivesmattertoo

Because that is closer to the point that hashtag is trying to make.

[tyven]

right, like how OJ's acquittal made white lives stop mattering and children's lives stopped mattering when Michael Jackson and R.Kelly got off the hook

to be fair, michael jackson was pretty much white by the end of it all

[Drex]

I think the core of this atm is that it sounds like it's going along a similar track to colourbind theory.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...is-form-racism
Thanks to the obvious implications of the link above it instantly makes a bunch of people immediately suspicious even if they can't explain why but at the same time colourblind theory has it's own form of automatic defense. Anyone who criticizes it or points something out related to the theory is totally racist or trolling.

#AllLivesMatter is technically true but it distracts the focus away from the fact that this currently stems from a disproportionate amount of black deaths. It turns it to a more nebulous and less specified thing almost like the purpose colourblind theory serves. It's difficult to point out that the focus was on disproportionate black deaths without ending up looking like you're against all lives mattering due to how our minds tend to categorize as for/against.
I'm probably thinking way too much into this though.

Sorry, but I must protest.

Color-Blind = "People of color — we don't see you (at least not that bad ‘colored' part)."

That would be plain blindness. The mistake is absurd because colorblindness is a real thing and it is not the same as blindness. It literally means they cannot differentiate between colors. The message is "I have to judge you by your other attributes because I cannot see the color by which I may otherwise have judged you"; in much the same way that a colorblind person sees two circles instead of differentiating between a red and a green circle. They are also docked points for begging the question ("that bad colored part" in a "theory" about whether that colored part is seen as bad). The whole article is a big mess of concern trolling and projection.

Setting that aside, generalizing from "black deaths" to "people deaths" does not obfuscate the issues of police militarization and unaccountability. Black people are disproportionately harmed by these injustices and will therefore disproportionately benefit from their correction, so if a simple conciliatory gesture increases the likelihood of change then why turn people away? Black Pride?

Black Lives Matter. Otherwise, people are basically saying this: "yeah, black people are getting dealt a really fucking unfair hand in life and are getting mistreated/killed at exceedingly higher rates by police"

"But, you know what? White people die from police, too. Let's just focus on how cops are being bad at their jobs and ignore the whole systemic racial issue, it's too messy."

bum understands how co-opting and dismissing of messages work beyond the surface level of understanding that the rest of you have. Yes, it is important to identify the oppressed and how they are oppressed. No, it is not ok to state things in a way to trivialize that.

This all reminded me of a catchy jingle a company in my hometown used to have. They sang their name and phone number with a cadence that has stuck with me and other people I've spoke to about it, 15 years later. As a branding exercise, it was an enormous success.

Also, they went out of business.

Black Lives Matter is certainly a memorable slogan. But does it have the thrust to enact change?

Now I understand that a minority movement is going to view "advice" from the majority as whitesplaining to some degree, especially if that same majority benefits from the power structures at play. But if we define a civil rights campaign's success by its ability to enact changes, then the most successful historically required the weight of the majority, or at least a coalition of minorities. That's just how democracies work.

Regardless, police militarization and unaccountability are national issues. Regardless of proportionality, if I have the opportunity to reduce p(getting shot or abused), I intend to take it. What arrogance it takes to say that the cause is not Group X's problem just because it affects someone else more! Especially if the issue is being framed as racial and Group X is bounded by their ethnicity and heritage!

How nonseniscal is it to fracture a movement with one goal? For what purpose? To preserve a branding exercise?

Empathy is also an important trait to have

Fortunately, empathy allows a number of white people to intuit the moral ramifications of recent events without experiencing them directly. I hope, then, that you recognize preaching empathy while trivializing the experiences of the "less oppressed" is a losing strategy from any angle.

[Drex]

Man this whole thing could've been fixed with a simple #blacklivesmattertoo

Because that is closer to the point that hashtag is trying to make.

I can see how that makes black lives sound like an afterthought though. OurLivesMatter is, imo, a more unified message.

It's still just branding: important, but probably not worth discarding valuable support groups. Without more backing, it's memorable and impotent, like OccupyWallStreet.

[Tyrath]

I can see how that may make blacklives sound like an afterthought. OurLivesMatter is, imo, a more unified message.

It's still just branding. Without more backing it's OccupyWallStreet: memorable but impotent.

I think it conveys the message that currently they don't seem to matter as much very well. Because that is what they are saying.

[quannum]

right, like how OJ's acquittal made white lives stop mattering and children's lives stopped mattering when Michael Jackson and R.Kelly got off the hook

right, if OJ had statistically been acquitted for murdering whites over a period of decades/centuries.

[Priran]

right, if OJ had statistically been acquitted for murdering whites over a period of decades/centuries.

I didn't realize Darren Wilson was an immortal serial killer. A Grand Literal Wizard, you might say

[kuronosan]

this is why it's black lives matter instead of all lives matter

there's no need to fight against the notion that all lives matter, opposite is not true.

See? That wasn't that hard to explain. I understand now.

[kareface]

Intentions matter too. One protests the system, and the injustices wrought about. The other does nothing but make you late for a job or unable to make it to a hospital to have your child.

Basically, why are you targeting people who are innocent and probably support you any ways? It's the same thing as people saying black lives matter, not all lives.

First off, emergency services knew well in advanced that it was going to happen. The protesters tried unsuccessfully the night before. The ambulance driver never should have attempted to take that route. Second off, why did protesting suddenly become something that doesn't inconvenience people? Just because many of us have grown up in a generation of apathetic people doesn't mean that protesting has historically been designed to inconvenience the fewest number of citizens. Obviously their intentions in blocking the freeway is to spur a national debate, which has worked very well. If you support the cause, being late to work is an easy sacrifice to suffer.

[quannum]

I didn't realize Darren Wilson was an immortal serial killer. A Grand Literal Wizard, you might say

heh, this is your faulty analogy, im just riding shotgun.

[NynJa]

If you support the cause, being late to work is an easy sacrifice to suffer.

So you pretty much just said "if you dont support this, you're racist".

[Dantrag]

First off, emergency services knew well in advanced that it was going to happen. The protesters tried unsuccessfully the night before. The ambulance driver never should have attempted to take that route. Second off, why did protesting suddenly become something that doesn't inconvenience people? Just because many of us have grown up in a generation of apathetic people doesn't mean that protesting has historically been designed to inconvenience the fewest number of citizens. Obviously their intentions in blocking the freeway is to spur a national debate, which has worked very well. If you support the cause, being late to work is an easy sacrifice to suffer.

Occupy Wall street did the same thing by occupying a park... Now that we're blaming EMS services I really don't know what to say.

So you pretty much just said "if you dont support this, you're racist".

Seems to be the case. Basically; "If you get hourly pay and aren't racist then you should be ok losing your wages for the cause! And you should also be ok with being fired, or else you're racist."

[Priran]

heh, this is your faulty analogy, im just riding shotgun.

I was replying to an image demonstrating a race-associated difference of opinion on two specific verdicts by applying the conclusion reached from that to race-associated differences of opinion on different verdicts and your response was some dumb shit about every black person killed ever? If that's supposed to be following the argument you need to try harder.

[RKenshin]

I agree with the statement if being inconvenienced was enough to change your mind about the protests then it's unlikely you gave enough shits about the cause to begin with to matter.

There's a difference between it changing your mind on the cause, and it changing your mind about how/if/why you participate.

I doubt there are many people that will go the road of 'I'm tired of protesters, I now hate black people and hail police violence.' Sure, yeah, people like that probably weren't really for the cause in the first place.

But there are definitely people that will decide against and/or moderate how they actively support/contribute to the protests, as they may no longer want to be apart of that form of expression (and even be frustrated by it). This is a NATURAL response when something directly inconveniences you, no matter what the reason.

And in this case, the aforementioned
1) Does not make those that are swayed from it racist or unemphatic.
2) Does not mean the person can't contribute to it in different ways.
3) Does not mean they don't support the movement, because they don't like the way X people are acting about it.
4) Does not bring positive attention to the movement

[kareface]

So you pretty much just said "if you dont support this, you're racist".

I never once bought race into this. Not supporting something is not the same as not supporting something due to race.

[kuronosan]

Exactly. I'm sorry, I'm terrible with words sometimes and I get seriously annoyed or depressed when what I want to say doesn't translate into what is said.

Saying you don't support something because you're not willing to go homeless for it is selfish.

P.S. Don't let me see you blame early responders if you get shot and they can't get you to the hospital.