raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,702
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 5, 2020 20:14:05 GMT -5
I’m feeling ornery right now, so I’m going to disagree with you on something. WHY must the movement that is happening now, still cater to the apparently fragile egos of certain people? Saying “Black Lives Matter”....... straight up, no chaser or adverbs..... in no way negates that ALL lives matter. I have 2 children IRL. If 1 of them is in a bad situation, not even of their own making, and I do what I can to help them, does that mean that my other child...... whose life is very different, who isn’t in the kind of crisis the 1st child is in, and never will be...... because I help the child in crisis, does that mean that my other child doesn’t matter to me? I’ll answer loud enough for the people in the back.... Hell no, that’s not what that means. Helping the child in distress and immediate danger, says NOTHING about the child whose life is calmer and less complicated, even though there’s nothing really outstanding about the 2nd child..... they more or less just happened to have the right connections that led to the right opportunities to be “successful”. But they both matter, they’re both someone who is loved, and hopefully loves. Why can’t we have an honest conversation about this shit and stick to the subject, without having to appease the egos of the people that the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD knows have more unearned privileges in this great nation, than many (most?) of the other billions of people in the planet. I’d really like for someone to explain that to me in a way that makes sense. I’ll wait. Nobody HAS TO cater to anybody. This movement clearly doesn't. What I am saying is that while that may be emotionally satisfying it may not be the most productive option going forward. Of course saying, "Black Lives Matter" doesn't negate that all lives matter, for those who already know that all lives matter. My point was that we cannot win by appealing to ourselves. We win by convincing the other people. If that is best accomplished by not alienating them further, great. If someone is going to suggest that societal change within a nation is best accomplished by violent revolution, well, they are going to have to convince me. And it's going to be a very tough sell. They may win in the end, but at what cost? At what cost is exactly the question that has gotten us here. How many times can we sit back and do nothing.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,196
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 5, 2020 20:26:55 GMT -5
The problem with the word "too" is the people that you think will be convinced by including it won't be. They want the word "too" included so they can go back to focusing on themselves. They want to go back to their safe bubble and not be uncomfortable with the idea that others are of value.
It's apologetic and ego soothing. It allows the powers that be to smugly tell themselves they aren't ::insert discriminatory values here:: because after all "EVERYONE" matters. Followed by the * that some lives (theirs) still matter more than others.
A declarative statement is supposed to make you sit up and pay attention. People don't want to sit up and pay attention. Hence the insistence it would be much more appealing and nice of us to include the word "too" anytime we talk about our issues.
Not only that it then gives you permission to railroad the conversation because after all YOU matter which means your experiences and your thoughts are just as valid as the person who made the statement. You can dismiss their pain because after all YOUR experience "wasn't that bad" therefore mine can't be either.
That is the problem with the word "too". It's not about being angry. It's about enjoying a right that others in this country have, exercise freely and take for granted every single day. The fact it makes people uncomfortable and that says a lot about them. It's not my job to soothe their egos.
Those are people who won't be convinced. If they would then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The answer would be "yes you matter" end of story.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 20:23:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2020 20:44:08 GMT -5
The situation right now is damned if you do and damned if you don't if you are white. No matter what you say, it is picked apart. And if you keep your mouth shut to listen, that is wrong, too.
These are truly minor problems in today's scheme of things. But that is why many white people feel helpless in addressing the pfoblem.
Me included.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,586
|
Post by CCL on Jun 5, 2020 20:53:56 GMT -5
I believe there will be change. It may not be quick and it will not happen all at once, but a lot of the younger generation does not care about the color of people's skin. I have seen this among my friends and with my son and his friends. I have hope for a better future even though the future may not be here as soon as we want it to. I was about to say the same things. My kids judge people by how they act, not by how they look. If I compare the attitudes of my parents' generation to those of my kids', I can see changes for the better.
|
|
JustLurkin
Well-Known Member
This is what you look like right now.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 5:28:20 GMT -5
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by JustLurkin on Jun 5, 2020 20:56:47 GMT -5
Don’t be so shocked, I call my mom on the regular; maybe not as often as I should. But because I watched the George Floyd video again and while it angered me; I couldn’t stop from crying when he called out: Mama! mama! What made it even more heartbreaking is his mother already passed. After Steve Harvey's mother passed, he accepted an award which he dedicated to her. When he spoke he said something to the effect of "Your first cry into the world is for your mother; and when you're in the foxhole of life your last cry is for your mother." It's not just Black men: Rekia Boyd, Aiyana Jones, Pearlie Golden, Tarika Wilson, Miriam Carey, Shantel Davis, Tyisha Miller, Kendra James, Shellie Frey, Shereese Francis, Shulena Weldon, Erica Collins, Adaisha Miller, Alesia Thomas, Darnisha Harris, Delores Epps, Makayla Ross, Heather Parker, Jacqueline Robinson Culp, Karen Day-Jackson, Latasha Walton, Malissa Williams, Tanisha Williams, Shantel Davis, Sandra Bland, Atatiana Jefferson, Breonna Taylor, Tanisha Anderson, Yvette Smith, Alberta Spruill... May 2020 be the year we finally come together and end this.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,702
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 5, 2020 21:00:13 GMT -5
The situation right now is damned if you do and damned if you don't if you are white. No matter what you say, it is picked apart. And if you keep your mouth shut to listen, that is wrong, too. These are truly minor problems in today's scheme of things. But that is why many white people feel helpless in addressing the pfoblem. Me included. Saying the wrong thing is about my biggest fear in life and that is what has me flabbergasted. I've walked through vacant properties without a a realtor, I've been in parks after hours, I've driven with an expired license and tags and had nothing bad happen. I always knew my life was easy (sure some hard work, but lots of being in the right place at the right time), but truly recognizing how much is privilege and how much more I haven't even begun to process. How do I really show my kids how easy they have it and how do we stop living the easy path of privilege we have literally at the expense of others. Im not trying to pick at anyone anymore than I am at myself. What we have isn't working. I don't have the answers, but we have to question everything.
|
|
finnime
Junior Associate
Be kind. Everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 7:14:35 GMT -5
Posts: 7,392
|
Post by finnime on Jun 5, 2020 21:04:22 GMT -5
I'm really glad you called your mother, TheHaitian. I'm glad for you and for her, too.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,196
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 5, 2020 21:06:51 GMT -5
The situation right now is damned if you do and damned if you don't if you are white. No matter what you say, it is picked apart. And if you keep your mouth shut to listen, that is wrong, too. These are truly minor problems in today's scheme of things. But that is why many white people feel helpless in addressing the pfoblem. Me included. I don't think it's damned if you do or don't. My job is to educate myself and recognize these things when I see them. When I do or say stupid things, which I have and likely will continue to do soit's my job to either correct myself or allow myself to be corrected. Accept my discomfort without trying to reason my way out of it. Don't justify it and recognize I don't get it and never will] I got a lot of this at the university when I first started. I wince at some of ignorance back then. My coworkers would speak up and I'd listen. I think being the only person in the room is something a lot of people could benefit from experiencing. Society as it currently is is geared towards my advantage. I have absorbed this since birth. Rooting it all out will take a lifetime. It's my job not others to do it for me or soothe me over any guilt I feel or make me comfortable. In turn I speak up. No more silent eye rolls or nervous twitters or staying silent. I accept I'm going to piss people off and lose friends. But getting uncomfortable is the only way we learn and grow. It's the only way change happens. I'm not apologizing for being white and straight. I'm recognizing the immense favors I'm granted in exchange and I need to stand up so others can share the advantages I get simply for checking at least two of society's approved boxes. I hope that my kids see mommy questioning things and calling out BS will make them more likely to do so as adults and teach their kids. Each generation is more liberal than the last. If my kids see me as a conservative old fart someday then I've done my job
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,586
|
Post by CCL on Jun 5, 2020 21:08:18 GMT -5
I believe there will be change. It may not be quick and it will not happen all at once, but a lot of the younger generation does not care about the color of people's skin. I have seen this among my friends and with my son and his friends. I have hope for a better future even though the future may not be here as soon as we want it to. Not caring about the color of skin isn't the answer though, and is part of the problem. I think that is why so many people like to think racism doesn't exist. Can you explain? How would that be part of the problem? Because it's simplification?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,196
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 5, 2020 21:27:19 GMT -5
The situation right now is damned if you do and damned if you don't if you are white. No matter what you say, it is picked apart. And if you keep your mouth shut to listen, that is wrong, too. These are truly minor problems in today's scheme of things. But that is why many white people feel helpless in addressing the pfoblem. Me included. Read a book. Find a blog. Watch a TED talk. Look up businesses owned by minorities to support. Call your local, state and federal representatives to ask what they are doing to address various issues. Share posts if you're on social media to amplify the voice of others. Donate to groups like the NAACP or ACLU. While there browse the page for causes to help champion. Nebraska has a movement where you can contribute towards bail for protesters. Others provide masks, food, water and medical aid for protesters. You can donate supplies or money. I knew nothing about transgender issues till a friend of mine took me to a lecture on campus back in 2006. After that I continued to educate myself on the topic. Now you're aware of police brutality. Keep going. Not everyone is cut out for the front lines but you can still participate. The biggest is have the courage to call out people on their shit. Yep you're going to be called the PC police and probably lose some friends but society doesn't change when we remain silent. That is going to mean being the party pooper. I get it isn't always that easy like in a boss vs employee situation. Nobody expects perfection and every one of us has to make concessions at times. But I don't have to let my friends say stuff. I don't have to put up with customer bad behavior because they are "always right". I call my grandma out on her crap being old is not an excuse. My silence is taken as approval and acceptance. To root it out I have to shine a light when and where I can.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,702
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 5, 2020 21:33:13 GMT -5
Not caring about the color of skin isn't the answer though, and is part of the problem. I think that is why so many people like to think racism doesn't exist. Can you explain? How would that be part of the problem? Because it's simplification? We only get to ignore skin color if we're white. Ignoring skin color invalidates peoples experiences and pretends that systemic racism doesn't exist. What really opened my eyes was reading accounts of what mom's of black children wanted white children to know. Then reading that black children are statistically disciplined more harshly than white peers because they are perceived as older.
|
|
nidena
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 28, 2010 20:32:26 GMT -5
Posts: 3,580
|
Post by nidena on Jun 6, 2020 0:25:02 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of awareness happening on LinkedIn...numerous posts by people in DEI positions, posting about calling out racism on public platforms...at least two posts by white men learning more about privilege (let's face it, they're at the top of the privilege mountain, especially if they can check the other privilege "boxes" in regards to gender, orientation, religion/faith, wealth, ability, etc) and asking for ways to further their knowledge...
Then there's the change we see happening in regards to the laws. I've seen articles with at least two cities and the state of Colorado introducing legislation to change what is already in place to remove the neck and backholds. BTW, the book Chokehold is eye-opening with statistics.
There's the videos posted of teenagers in anguish as they try to have conversations about race with their racist and biased parents.
People are furthering their knowledge by watching documentaries like 13th (about the Prison Industrial Complex) and When They See Us (about the five teenage boys who were wrongly convicted) and it's follow-up interview with Oprah Winfrey and A Tale of Two Americas (about the housing boom in the 40s and 50s and today's redlining) and movies like Just Mercy (streaming for free on numerous platforms).
Conversations about avoiding being a white savior. That's the hard part for me. I want to help but I don't want to come off like that. I don't want to show them how it's done. I just want to help get it done.
We whites can help other whites by getting more comfortable talking openly about our own biases and the nuggets of racism that we still fight because we (I) grew up with racist grandpas. Biases like: if the neighborhood is bad, it must be because Blacks live there when I know for a fact that neighborhoods are made bad by city and state govts purposely design their cities that way.
But, most importantly, we can't make it the responsibility of Blacks to educate us. We have to do that ourselves.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,679
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 6, 2020 2:56:22 GMT -5
I hope readers will go all the way through before reacting, but I think it should too. I don't know what his argument is, but here is mine: Anyone "enlightened" or caring knows exactly what the phrase means. They understand it exactly the way its backers want them too. They are not the problem. Those people are already on the side that is fighting against racism and for equality. They are horrified by the continuing treatment of (especially) black men by police. Civil disobedience such as these protests are done to bring awareness to an issue and to try to change minds so that we can then change laws and/or society. It does no good to appeal to those who already believe as you do. You cannot increase support that way. If, say, 65% of the country believes with you, then appealing to those 65% will leave you with...65%. You have to appeal to the ones who do not yet agree with you, primarily to the undecideds who are not virulently opposed to your beliefs. Not only that, you have to meet them where they are (mentally, emotionally, and philosophically), not where you think they should be. Imagine what the name sounds like to them. It sounds angry, and like a demand. Some will even read it as a demand to put black lives above their own. Now, I will be the first to stipulate that there is a right to be angry for centuries of mistreatment, and that we should be even more angry that there is still such a great distance yet to go after all this time, but again, I am not the one who needs to be convinced or appealed to. Those not on our side, whether they are in fact racist or merely ignorant waiting to be educated, are the ones who need to be reached. We do not reach them by alienating them with language. We appeal to them with different language. Angering them and allowing them to think that something is being taken away from them is not the way to soften their hearts. It is far more likely to harden them. Saying, "Black Lives Matter Too" acknowledges that those people are already possessing of human dignity, but that we are merely saying there should be equality for all of us and that all persons should be due that same dignity. It is an appeal simply to be on the same level as everyone else, and does not sound at all angry or demanding. It is therefore far less likely to alienate the people we need to convince. Target the message to the ones who need to hear it, not to the ones already on your side. Of the previous example, if even one out of seven is persuaded by your approach, you have gone from 65% to 70% support. Isn't that better? Isn't that more likely to lead to a better outcome? I will grant that it may not be as emotionally satisfying as anger, but what really is the goal here? Saying Black Lives Matter Too is a simple change that costs its backers nothing that I can see. Those on that side should understand that it really is the same thing. If it may in the end benefit you to add the word "Too", do it. Why not? I’m feeling ornery right now, so I’m going to disagree with you on something. WHY must the movement that is happening now, still cater to the apparently fragile egos of certain people? Saying “Black Lives Matter”....... straight up, no chaser or adverbs..... in no way negates that ALL lives matter. I have 2 children IRL. If 1 of them is in a bad situation, not even of their own making, and I do what I can to help them, does that mean that my other child...... whose life is very different, who isn’t in the kind of crisis the 1st child is in, and never will be...... because I help the child in crisis, does that mean that my other child doesn’t matter to me? I’ll answer loud enough for the people in the back.... Hell no, that’s not what that means. Helping the child in distress and immediate danger, says NOTHING about the child whose life is calmer and less complicated, even though there’s nothing really outstanding about the 2nd child..... they more or less just happened to have the right connections that led to the right opportunities to be “successful”. But they both matter, they’re both someone who is loved, and hopefully loves. Why can’t we have an honest conversation about this shit and stick to the subject, without having to appease the egos of the people that the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD knows have more unearned privileges in this great nation, than many (most?) of the other billions of people in the planet. I’d really like for someone to explain that to me in a way that makes sense. I’ll wait. I'll explain it as best I can. As a single white woman who is non traditional I have had to cater to fragile egos all my life just to accomplish less than my male peers or even other people who fit into the boxes better. I was born in 1960, when things were starting to change for both women and a little later blacks with the civil rights movement. Screaming I matter or I deserve equal rights would have nipped most of the progress I have made through my entire life in the bud and emboldened life long enemies which I got anyway around age 5 simply because I was born smart and they hated that. I didn't have the luxury of a black family where all were united in a common goal to rise in the outside world. I was born into a changing white culture where my parents survived partly by keeping their heads down (Depression babies) and my Mom's case daily fighting just to be herself by wanting and doing things like *gasp* drive a tractor or hang out with the draft horses when younger. Some level of appeasement was trained into me from the beginning from my parents because they had to do so to survive as well. The community reinforced that. And I understand your example about the kids, but what you feel and what the kids feel will be different. Most studies I have read show that the sibling given the most attention is the one the other kids feel is more important. It will matter little that is not your intention.That's how it will feel. We are having an honest conversation. People have to join it from where they are, not where you hope they would be. Part of the reason we are even having this conversation now is because of the time we are in. Trump got voted in and most of the federal government is appeasing his ego every day just to survive and keep their jobs. So the willingness to see and correct injustice is strong right now. I think those who are capable of tuning the message to bring others along should, but I recognize that right now is a time many people just want to gather and protest systemic injustice. I had a co-worker say with a huff well "All lives matter". And I only said "Of course they do", because I knew saying more would not help.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 20:23:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2020 7:24:31 GMT -5
You assume, NomoreDramaQ1015, that I was looking for a list of things I can do to make the situation better. You are making the assumption that I don't know or do many of these things already. I do. That wasn't the issue. The issue is primarily social media. I don't think that's the place to hash out these issues, but some people do. And I have a diverse group of friends--black and white, young and old, poor and affluent, conservative and liberal. These are my former students and colleagues and neighbors and so on. Someone will post a discussion of why the protests are going on, and an argument will start that devolves into them being called looters. Someone will post a discussion of the destruction that has occurred, particularly to black businesses by black protesters, in downtown Birmingham, and an argument will start that devolves into a different set of name-calling. Lol. And if that isn't enough, a black colleague started a post that began with, "I can tell who my friends are by what you are saying and not saying." We are apparently not allowed to be quiet and listen and learn. And now everyone is falling all over themselves to assure her that they are indeed her friend. That just seems so fake to me. Say something if you have something to say, not to just get your name out publicly on her thread. And be quiet and let others show you the way if you don't know what to say. So that was what I meant by "you are damned if you do and damned if you don't." That may not be true in your world, but it is in mine.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Jun 6, 2020 8:02:14 GMT -5
Not caring about the color of skin isn't the answer though, and is part of the problem. I think that is why so many people like to think racism doesn't exist. Can you explain? How would that be part of the problem? Because it's simplification? Because you only get yo ‘not pay attention’ if you are white... and it effectively ignores the issues that exist.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 6, 2020 12:38:49 GMT -5
I’m feeling ornery right now, so I’m going to disagree with you on something. WHY must the movement that is happening now, still cater to the apparently fragile egos of certain people? Saying “Black Lives Matter”....... straight up, no chaser or adverbs..... in no way negates that ALL lives matter. I have 2 children IRL. If 1 of them is in a bad situation, not even of their own making, and I do what I can to help them, does that mean that my other child...... whose life is very different, who isn’t in the kind of crisis the 1st child is in, and never will be...... because I help the child in crisis, does that mean that my other child doesn’t matter to me? I’ll answer loud enough for the people in the back.... Hell no, that’s not what that means. Helping the child in distress and immediate danger, says NOTHING about the child whose life is calmer and less complicated, even though there’s nothing really outstanding about the 2nd child..... they more or less just happened to have the right connections that led to the right opportunities to be “successful”. But they both matter, they’re both someone who is loved, and hopefully loves. Why can’t we have an honest conversation about this shit and stick to the subject, without having to appease the egos of the people that the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD knows have more unearned privileges in this great nation, than many (most?) of the other billions of people in the planet. I’d really like for someone to explain that to me in a way that makes sense. I’ll wait. Nobody HAS TO cater to anybody. This movement clearly doesn't. What I am saying is that while that may be emotionally satisfying it may not be the most productive option going forward. Of course saying, "Black Lives Matter" doesn't negate that all lives matter, for those who already know that all lives matter. My point was that we cannot win by appealing to ourselves. We win by convincing the other people. If that is best accomplished by not alienating them further, great. If someone is going to suggest that societal change within a nation is best accomplished by violent revolution, well, they are going to have to convince me. And it's going to be a very tough sell. They may win in the end, but at what cost? NOT AT ALL suggesting that either you or BLM are promoting violent revolution. It is simply an example to counter the other option. No, that kind of catering completely defeats the point. It doesn't/shouldn't have to be said in way that includes white people. White people can be left out of a statement about ending oppression against black people. We should be left out of it. Including us is actually oppressive. Anyone that insists on adding "too" is not on board with the message anyway, they have just perverted the message to their own ends. And you advocating for it as a rational and sensible thing to do is an example of the scariest kind of racism imo. "I'm not trying to oppress you, just explaining what you have to do to get along better" as if we are causing the problem. You also managed to throw a nice dose of mansplaining. I'm really disappointed in you.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,134
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2020 13:19:58 GMT -5
Nobody HAS TO cater to anybody. This movement clearly doesn't. What I am saying is that while that may be emotionally satisfying it may not be the most productive option going forward. Of course saying, "Black Lives Matter" doesn't negate that all lives matter, for those who already know that all lives matter. My point was that we cannot win by appealing to ourselves. We win by convincing the other people. If that is best accomplished by not alienating them further, great. If someone is going to suggest that societal change within a nation is best accomplished by violent revolution, well, they are going to have to convince me. And it's going to be a very tough sell. They may win in the end, but at what cost? NOT AT ALL suggesting that either you or BLM are promoting violent revolution. It is simply an example to counter the other option. No, that kind of catering completely defeats the point. It doesn't/shouldn't have to be said in way that includes white people. White people can be left out of a statement about ending oppression against black people. We should be left out of it. Including us is actually oppressive. Anyone that insists on adding "too" is not on board with the message anyway, they have just perverted the message to their own ends. And you advocating for it as a rational and sensible thing to do is an example of the scariest kind of racism imo. "I'm not trying to oppress you, just explaining what you have to do to get along better" as if we are causing the problem. You also managed to throw a nice dose of mansplaining. I'm really disappointed in you. I think you misunderstood. You may want to try again, particularly in the context of the earlier post.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,113
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Jun 6, 2020 13:57:00 GMT -5
Went online this morning to read the local newspaper. Woman from my town had written a letter to the editor.
Her point was that ALL LIVES MATTER and she doesn't understand why people find that offensive.
I don't know her or where in town she lives. If I did, I would try to educate her.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 6, 2020 14:28:38 GMT -5
In a word, it's dismissive.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 6, 2020 20:43:58 GMT -5
No, that kind of catering completely defeats the point. It doesn't/shouldn't have to be said in way that includes white people. White people can be left out of a statement about ending oppression against black people. We should be left out of it. Including us is actually oppressive. Anyone that insists on adding "too" is not on board with the message anyway, they have just perverted the message to their own ends. And you advocating for it as a rational and sensible thing to do is an example of the scariest kind of racism imo. "I'm not trying to oppress you, just explaining what you have to do to get along better" as if we are causing the problem. You also managed to throw a nice dose of mansplaining. I'm really disappointed in you. I think you misunderstood. You may want to try again, particularly in the context of the earlier post. Lmao you can't stop mansplaining. I understood. You're wrong. Changing it to something that makes racists more comfortable does not move things closer to the goal post. Your whole "this is how to do it right" attitude is obnoxious and such an entitled white man attitude. I repeat, i am REALLY disappointed in you.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,134
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2020 21:12:09 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood. You may want to try again, particularly in the context of the earlier post. Lmao you can't stop mansplaining. I understood. You're wrong. Changing it to something that makes racists more comfortable does not move things closer to the goal post. Your whole "this is how to do it right" attitude is obnoxious and such an entitled white man attitude. I repeat, i am REALLY disappointed in you. I'll fall back on this then. The person who raised an objection to the earlier post, who incidentally has much greater exposure to, experience with, and reaction to racism than you or I ever would, "liked" the response you take such great issue with. People can put a like on posts for any number of reasons, but it is a fair assumption that she is reading it far differently than you are. Correctly, I would bet. You know I love you but you're wrong here. And you know me well enough to know who and what I am. Don't you?
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 6, 2020 22:02:22 GMT -5
Lmao you can't stop mansplaining. I understood. You're wrong. Changing it to something that makes racists more comfortable does not move things closer to the goal post. Your whole "this is how to do it right" attitude is obnoxious and such an entitled white man attitude. I repeat, i am REALLY disappointed in you. I'll fall back on this then. The person who raised an objection to the earlier post, who incidentally has much greater exposure to, experience with, and reaction to racism than you or I ever would, "liked" the response you take such great issue with. People can put a like on posts for any number of reasons, but it is a fair assumption that she is reading it far differently than you are. Correctly, I would bet. You know I love you but you're wrong here. And you know me well enough to know who and what I am. Don't you? I do know you and that is why I am so disappointed. I don't think you are an overt racist but you do suffer from some intellectual arrogance. Sometimes I find it cute but not now. You won't even look at what I am explaining. Telling us/them to change how we/they say it to make whites more comfortable is exactly what white privilege is all about. It's very similar to having say yes ma'am and no sir. There is no need to justify saying Black Lives Matter or soften it up to make it more palatable. Those that insist on that kind of change are not joining the cause, they are changing the cause. And that is the problem we started with. ETA - the comment could have been liked because they recognise that you are not overtly racist and they generally like you and don't have the energy to back and forth with you as often as I am.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,134
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2020 22:35:16 GMT -5
I'll fall back on this then. The person who raised an objection to the earlier post, who incidentally has much greater exposure to, experience with, and reaction to racism than you or I ever would, "liked" the response you take such great issue with. People can put a like on posts for any number of reasons, but it is a fair assumption that she is reading it far differently than you are. Correctly, I would bet. You know I love you but you're wrong here. And you know me well enough to know who and what I am. Don't you? I do know you and that is why I am so disappointed. I don't think you are an overt racist but you do suffer from some intellectual arrogance. Sometimes I find it cute but not now. You won't even look at what I am explaining. Telling us/them to change how we/they say it to make whites more comfortable is exactly what white privilege is all about. It's very similar to having say yes ma'am and no sir. There is no need to justify saying Black Lives Matter or soften it up to make it more palatable. Those that insist on that kind of change are not joining the cause, they are changing the cause. And that is the problem we started with. ETA - the comment could have been liked because they recognise that you are not overtly racist and they generally like you and don't have the energy to back and forth with you as often as I am. The point was that you don't change minds by appealing only to those who already agree with you. I am not at all suggesting appeasing racists, as you seem to think. You're not going to change the minds of the very racist anyway. Screw them. They'll die off at some point, hopefully soon. Change the minds you can when you can. In the history of race in this country, and bearing in mind that I REALLY should not be the one speaking on this, there is the Martin side and the Malcolm side. Dr. Martin Luther King was a man of nonviolent civil disobedience and protest. He sought to change hearts and minds through peaceful means. Malcolm X was much more a revolutionary, promoting immediate and radical change "by any means necessary." I was too young to have any direct experience with either, but I cannot think of a single moment in my entire life where I would have been on the Malcolm side.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 6, 2020 22:44:42 GMT -5
I do know you and that is why I am so disappointed. I don't think you are an overt racist but you do suffer from some intellectual arrogance. Sometimes I find it cute but not now. You won't even look at what I am explaining. Telling us/them to change how we/they say it to make whites more comfortable is exactly what white privilege is all about. It's very similar to having say yes ma'am and no sir. There is no need to justify saying Black Lives Matter or soften it up to make it more palatable. Those that insist on that kind of change are not joining the cause, they are changing the cause. And that is the problem we started with. ETA - the comment could have been liked because they recognise that you are not overtly racist and they generally like you and don't have the energy to back and forth with you as often as I am. The point was that you don't change minds by appealing only to those who already agree with you. I am not at all suggesting appeasing racists, as you seem to think. You're not going to change the minds of the very racist anyway. Screw them. They'll die off at some point, hopefully soon. Change the minds you can when you can. In the history of race in this country, and bearing in mind that I REALLY should not be the one speaking on this, there is the Martin side and the Malcolm side. Dr. Martin Luther King was a man of nonviolent civil disobedience and protest. He sought to change hearts and minds through peaceful means. Malcolm X was much more a revolutionary, promoting immediate and radical change "by any means necessary." I was too young to have any direct experience with either, but I cannot think of a single moment in my entire life where I would have been on the Malcolm side. Adding "too" does not change minds, it changes the message. There is nothing wrong with the message "Black Lives Matter". It is being distorted by those that disagree with it to confuse people that are not as educated on the issue as I'd like everyone to be. Educate them, don't bow down to the false accusations of the racists. And with all due respect to MLK, he did not change minds. He educated those that weren't informed and inspired those that agreed with him. That is where this movement is at now.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 6, 2020 22:54:00 GMT -5
I do know you and that is why I am so disappointed. I don't think you are an overt racist but you do suffer from some intellectual arrogance. Sometimes I find it cute but not now. You won't even look at what I am explaining. Telling us/them to change how we/they say it to make whites more comfortable is exactly what white privilege is all about. It's very similar to having say yes ma'am and no sir. There is no need to justify saying Black Lives Matter or soften it up to make it more palatable. Those that insist on that kind of change are not joining the cause, they are changing the cause. And that is the problem we started with. ETA - the comment could have been liked because they recognise that you are not overtly racist and they generally like you and don't have the energy to back and forth with you as often as I am. The point was that you don't change minds by appealing only to those who already agree with you. I am not at all suggesting appeasing racists, as you seem to think. You're not going to change the minds of the very racist anyway. Screw them. They'll die off at some point, hopefully soon. Change the minds you can when you can. In the history of race in this country, and bearing in mind that I REALLY should not be the one speaking on this, there is the Martin side and the Malcolm side. Dr. Martin Luther King was a man of nonviolent civil disobedience and protest. He sought to change hearts and minds through peaceful means. Malcolm X was much more a revolutionary, promoting immediate and radical change "by any means necessary." I was too young to have any direct experience with either, but I cannot think of a single moment in my entire life where I would have been on the Malcolm side. Also, I'm not a fan of comparing this to MLK and Malcom X. To me this is more like your American Revolution and Civil War. The British did not stop over taxing you and whatever else you were complaining about until you went to war. The South did not stop owning slaves until you went to war. Really what brought about more change, your Civil War or MLK's speeches. And didn't they kill MLK?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,134
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2020 23:40:07 GMT -5
The point was that you don't change minds by appealing only to those who already agree with you. I am not at all suggesting appeasing racists, as you seem to think. You're not going to change the minds of the very racist anyway. Screw them. They'll die off at some point, hopefully soon. Change the minds you can when you can. In the history of race in this country, and bearing in mind that I REALLY should not be the one speaking on this, there is the Martin side and the Malcolm side. Dr. Martin Luther King was a man of nonviolent civil disobedience and protest. He sought to change hearts and minds through peaceful means. Malcolm X was much more a revolutionary, promoting immediate and radical change "by any means necessary." I was too young to have any direct experience with either, but I cannot think of a single moment in my entire life where I would have been on the Malcolm side. Also, I'm not a fan of comparing this to MLK and Malcom X. To me this is more like your American Revolution and Civil War. The British did not stop over taxing you and whatever else you were complaining about until you went to war. The South did not stop owning slaves until you went to war. Really what brought about more change, your Civil War or MLK's speeches. And didn't they kill MLK? And I don't think the American Revolution or The Civil War are apt comparisons, for what should be obvious reasons, but to address your argument: I had posted something earlier about, "at what cost?" The Civil War cost an estimated 750,000 lives. As a percentage of population in today's numbers that would be 7.5 to 8 million people dead. Is that too high a cost, not to mention the economic destruction and the continuing enmity between the two sides? And yet, it has been over 150 years since that war ended. Is the battle won yet? Kinda hard to say yes. If it HAD been won then, we would not have needed Martin, Malcolm, the whole civil rights movement, or BLM now. Imposing change through conquest means that you will have to keep stomping out fires for a long time. The vanquished do not simply "buy in" to the idea that they were wrong all along. We are still dealing with effects from that battle. We will be for a long time. Changing minds may be slower, but the effects are longer-lasting. Without the destruction of war, literal or figurative. Here's a thought experiment: Would racism be more or less of a problem, or no different today, if we had managed to avoid the Civil War and end slavery through peaceful means?
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 7, 2020 1:16:53 GMT -5
Also, I'm not a fan of comparing this to MLK and Malcom X. To me this is more like your American Revolution and Civil War. The British did not stop over taxing you and whatever else you were complaining about until you went to war. The South did not stop owning slaves until you went to war. Really what brought about more change, your Civil War or MLK's speeches. And didn't they kill MLK? And I don't think the American Revolution or The Civil War are apt comparisons, for what should be obvious reasons, but to address your argument: I had posted something earlier about, "at what cost?" The Civil War cost an estimated 750,000 lives. As a percentage of population in today's numbers that would be 7.5 to 8 million people dead. Is that too high a cost, not to mention the economic destruction and the continuing enmity between the two sides? And yet, it has been over 150 years since that war ended. Is the battle won yet? Kinda hard to say yes. If it HAD been won then, we would not have needed Martin, Malcolm, the whole civil rights movement, or BLM now. Imposing change through conquest means that you will have to keep stomping out fires for a long time. The vanquished do not simply "buy in" to the idea that they were wrong all along. We are still dealing with effects from that battle. We will be for a long time. Changing minds may be slower, but the effects are longer-lasting. Without the destruction of war, literal or figurative. Here's a thought experiment: Would racism be more or less of a problem, or no different today, if we had managed to avoid the Civil War and end slavery through peaceful means? You are going to go to any lengths not to learn anything here. This is when your mansplaining and arrogance really aren't cute. Black Lives Matter and Black Lives Matter Too are not the same message. One talks about criminal acts being perpetrated against the black community and one is some kind of admission that talking about only Black people that are being murdered is somehow saying something against white people. And you suggesting that people would suddenly see the light if we would just say it right is blaming the victim.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 7, 2020 1:33:53 GMT -5
Also, I'm not a fan of comparing this to MLK and Malcom X. To me this is more like your American Revolution and Civil War. The British did not stop over taxing you and whatever else you were complaining about until you went to war. The South did not stop owning slaves until you went to war. Really what brought about more change, your Civil War or MLK's speeches. And didn't they kill MLK? And I don't think the American Revolution or The Civil War are apt comparisons, for what should be obvious reasons, but to address your argument: I had posted something earlier about, "at what cost?" The Civil War cost an estimated 750,000 lives. As a percentage of population in today's numbers that would be 7.5 to 8 million people dead. Is that too high a cost, not to mention the economic destruction and the continuing enmity between the two sides? And yet, it has been over 150 years since that war ended. Is the battle won yet? Kinda hard to say yes. If it HAD been won then, we would not have needed Martin, Malcolm, the whole civil rights movement, or BLM now. Imposing change through conquest means that you will have to keep stomping out fires for a long time. The vanquished do not simply "buy in" to the idea that they were wrong all along. We are still dealing with effects from that battle. We will be for a long time. Changing minds may be slower, but the effects are longer-lasting. Without the destruction of war, literal or figurative. Here's a thought experiment: Would racism be more or less of a problem, or no different today, if we had managed to avoid the Civil War and end slavery through peaceful means? As for your arguement, slave owners were not going to be won over no matter how nicely you said it. They had to be forced. Just like the Egyptians had to be forced back in yhe say. And that is true of racists today. All the racists are not just going to die off. There are new young ones coming up all the time. Anyway, I hear you loud and clear. You don't want to really look at what you are telling people to do. I'm done talking to you about it. It's not a topic for "thought excercises"
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 7, 2020 10:14:28 GMT -5
Went online this morning to read the local newspaper. Woman from my town had written a letter to the editor. Her point was that ALL LIVES MATTER and she doesn't understand why people find that offensive. I don't know her or where in town she lives. If I did, I would try to educate her. I live in a beet red part of the country and I'm ashamed to say that lately, our local television has had a slew of new far right GOP candidate ads for a female candidate holding some kind of military weapon claiming she's ready to take on the 'crazy liberal women' in Congress, and boy the ANTIFA protesters better not show up around here. Really, I have to move once I retire. While the rest of the country seems to become more 'woke' we seem to be rushing back in time to some pre-Civil war era nightmare.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,113
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Jun 7, 2020 10:18:25 GMT -5
The small town where I live is very red. I absolutely do not fit in with 95% of the people who live here.
The next town over is probably 99% red. I have enough problems living in this town.
The LCOL keeps me here. I also don't know where I can afford to go where I could be with more like minded people. Sadly not back to Boulder.
|
|