Support NeoGAF

[werks]

I think, even if the accusation of white supremacy is hyperbolic, it is important to not let your feelings allow you to lose sight of more important things.

Sorry I don't buy that. Could say the same thing about Bernie supporters attacking black activist and it would never fly.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

That's a bunch of crap. If a woman called you a sexist, and you thought that you weren't sexist, then you are a sexist???? That's one hell of an argument.

Not really. Asking why (to figure out if what you're doing is indeed wrong) isn't a problem. But getting into the pattern of being super defensive instead of listening no matter who's talking to you is not good.

 

[JustenP88]

I think, even if the accusation of white supremacy is hyperbolic, it is important to not let your feelings allow you to lose sight of more important things.

It would take a pretty unique person to sit there and have that shouted at them by someone who was just screaming in old dude's face on stage and not have a hint of "fuck you, too" creep into their mind.

 

[Indicate]

I think, even if the accusation of white supremacy is hyperbolic, it is important to not let your feelings allow you to lose sight of more important things.

I'm not white, but if I was called a white supremacist racist in that crowd I would be pissed and rightly so. It's an issue and an important one. It's not something to push aside especially after she doubled down.

 

[samn]

Not really. Asking why (to figure out if what you're doing is indeed wrong) isn't a problem. But getting into the pattern of being super defensive instead of listening no matter who's talking to you is not good.

'You're a white supremacist!'

'Hmm well I guess I never thought about it that way thanks for bringing your nuanced point of view to my attention'

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

'You're a white supremacist!'

'Hmm well I guess I never thought about it that way thanks for bringing your nuanced point of view to my attention'

If she said that after people were throwing bottles at her and asking for her to be tasered, I wouldn't fret. I'd probably agree because I damn sure wouldn't be a part of it.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

So here's a fun quote from the website of the group disrupting Sanders events, Outside Agitators.

lol, I know these people VERY well

many night arguing with those "revolutionary" brothers n sisters.

 

[Arkeband]

If she said that after people were throwing bottles at her and asking for her to be tasered, I wouldn't fret. I'd probably agree because I damn sure wouldn't be a part of it.

And what if she said it before...? Should these be things we figure out before we muse about them out loud and pretend that's the way it occured?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

'You're a white supremacist!'

'Hmm well I guess I never thought about it that way thanks for bringing your nuanced point of view to my attention'

Seriously, what a load of horseshit. If I insult you calling you offensive things and you think of yourself first then you're a horrible person. Because everyone's first reaction is not take insults personally. Fuck that, what a dumbass mentality.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

And what if she said it before...? Should these be things we figure out before we muse about them out loud and pretend that's the way it occured?

It didn't, she outright said as much. Context matters.

 

[lednerg]

It didn't, she outright said as much. Context matters.

Context, as in, she just interrupted the speech that people there had traveled miles and stood around for hours to hear. She was even offered the podium when Sanders was done, but refused. She was being unreasonable and hostile from the very start, trying people's patience and somehow thinks she should be afforded the respect that she wasn't giving anyone else there? And for more context, she's from a group (not BLM) who says they're "declaring war on the Democratic Party."

 

[Deified Data]

Just watched the video, despite knowing exactly what it'd be. Odds are if your response to someone saying "be reasonable, we'll give you the mic" is shouting at the top of your lungs "WE ARE BEING REASONABLE!", you're not being reasonable. I'm sure someone can helpfully inform me how this young woman is justified in her blind agitation, however.

 

[royalan]

She was even offered the podium when Sanders was done, but refused.

LOL why would she want the mic AFTER Sanders was done speaking? This was a protest. That's not how it works.

"Oh thanks! I'll wait until Sanders is done speaking so he can just walk off the stage and the crowd can stop caring. Anything to make it more convenient for you."

 

[dave is ok]

LOL why would she want the mic AFTER Sanders was done speaking? This was a protest. That's not how it works.

"Oh thanks! I'll wait until Sanders is done speaking so he can just walk off the stage and the crowd can stop caring. Anything to make it more convenient for you."

Her options were a.) say whatever you want to 10,000 people after Sanders finishes or b.) say nothing at all to anyone.

I can see why she chose B considering she had nothing to say though

 

[Deified Data]

LOL why would she want the mic AFTER Sanders was done speaking? This was a protest. That's not how it works.

"Oh thanks! I'll wait until Sanders is done speaking so he can just walk off the stage and the crowd can stop caring. Anything to make it more convenient for you."

Like, being offered a free platform at a rally of a US Presidential hopeful, but only after the man the event was held for spoke his piece? That would be downright reasonable.

 

[MC Safety]

I like Bernie Sanders' ideas and am intrigued to learn more about his platform.

But I look to a presidential candidate for leadership as well as ideas. Sanders' passivity here was disappointing.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Her options were a.) say whatever you want to 10,000 people after Sanders finishes or b.) say nothing at all to anyone.

I can see why she chose B considering she had nothing to say though

Regardless of what you think of what she did, this doesn't make sense. Protesting doesn't involve accepting an ultimatum, not an effective one anyway. If people kept accepting ultimatums instead of protesting how they wanted, many groups would be so far behind where they are today.

 

[stufte]

I'll never understand why, by merely "protesting", people should be able to conduct themselves however they please and we should just be conciliatory because they are "protesting".

 

[royalan]

Her options were a.) say whatever you want to 10,000 people after Sanders finishes or b.) say nothing at all to anyone.

I can see why she chose B considering she had nothing to say though

Like, being offered a free platform at a rally of a US Presidential hopeful, but only after the man the event was held for spoke his piece? That would be downright reasonable.

But their point wasn't to speak to that crowd. It was to confront Bernie Sanders in front of that crowd.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I'll never understand why, by merely "protesting", people should be able to conduct themselves however they please and we should just be conciliatory because they are "protesting".

Because historically protests by people who are angry, loud, and mean are a lot more successful than ones conducted by people who give in to requests like "don't protest here", "don't protest them", "don't protest that way", "keep it down", etc.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

I think, even if the accusation of white supremacy is hyperbolic, it is important to not let your feelings allow you to lose sight of more important things.

No reasonable person would listen to someone throw around ridiculous accusations like that and considering continuing it listen to them because, "Hey, they might be on to something, maybe I am a white supremacist!"

 

[Deified Data]

But their point wasn't to speak to that crowd. It was to confront Bernie Sanders in front of that crowd.

Because historically protests by people who are angry, loud, and mean are a lot more successful than ones conducted by people who give in to requests like "don't protest here", "don't protest them", "don't protest that way", "keep it down", etc.

Are her needs being better served by silencing herself through stubbornness or by cooperating with a sympathetic party that actively wanted to give her a platform?

Historically, protests rarely have the express cooperation of the party they're protesting against. I don't think this is a suitable comparison at all.

 

[UltimaPooh]

But their point wasn't to speak to that crowd. It was to confront Bernie Sanders in front of that crowd.

Actually I think it was to the crowd with her address. She was welcoming Bernie to Seatlle and then started listing off reasons why Seattle is still in systemic racism. Not listing reasons why Bernie is a racist or not listening.

 

[lednerg]

LOL why would she want the mic AFTER Sanders was done speaking? This was a protest. That's not how it works.

"Oh thanks! I'll wait until Sanders is done speaking so he can just walk off the stage and the crowd can stop caring. Anything to make it more convenient for you."

That's hardly the point I was making.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I'm glad Sanders is now taking on racism head-on, but this woman and her movement come across like jargon-spewing fools, I must say.

 

[dave is ok]

But their point wasn't to speak to that crowd. It was to confront Bernie Sanders in front of that crowd.

Confront him over what? If they wanted to pick someone to confront they did a shitty job considering he's an ally on pretty much every issue and some other people already "confronted" him.

You might be in the group that thinks she accomplished something, anything for her cause by doing this but to the huge majority all she did was BLM's credibility and make them look foolish.

 

[royalan]

Confront him over what? If they wanted to pick someone to confront they did a shitty job considering he's an ally on pretty much every issue and some other people already "confronted" him.

You might be in the group that thinks she accomplished something, anything for her cause by doing this but to the huge majority all she did was BLM's credibility and make them look foolish.

I disagree. And I guess only the future will tell.

 

[Caturro]

Pulling another one where the argument is Bernie's a racist because he doesn't consider Argentina an awesome example of socialism better than Scandanavia, even.

The funny thing here is that both Argentina and Uruguay have size able 'white' populations.

Of the examples given, Ecuador, Uruguay and Bolivia have had success bridging inequality while Argentina is perpetually locked in populism that holds back its development and Venezuela is nearing failed state status. None of these countries come even close to accomplishing a successful social democracy on the level that we see in Scandinavia. That has nothing to do with racism, or whatever it is they are trying to claim here. It's just simply shooting for a higher goal.

 

[sphagnum]

So here's a fun quote from the website of the group disrupting Sanders events, Outside Agitators.

This isn't entirely incorrect. The Democratic party is a capitalist party that seeks slow and gradual change rather than the radical change that BLM wants, and if it is successfully able to defang and incorporate (through paternalistic recognition) BLM it would take away the force of the movement.

 

[Oogedei]

So after a dozen pages it's still about "BLM lost its credibility" and Bernie Sanders Followers are white supremacist? Pretty disappointing GAF.

Sorry but if you consider BLM as something irrelevant now because it is "losing its credibility" or whatever then you're absolutely wrong. Just because of this protest? The protesters =//= all supporters of BLM. Hell, in these times BLM is so incredebly important. People are dying and institutional racism is being justified by so many people. Bashing BLM for some activists is stupid and you should get over it.

For the other side: Generalizing Bernie Sanders followers isn't that constructive either. I understand that reading BS comments on Social Media is frustrating (I belong to a minority too just in a different country and I know that the situation for us isn't as bad as for black people in the US because many have to go through so much more BS but reading racist comments trying to generalize us became a daily routine since Facebook and co. are full of it so I kind of see the point made here).
But I have to say it again: it's still not the majority of the Sanders followers and furthermore it is often not clear whether actual Sanders supporters are making BS comments or people using this situation to shit on minorities. It is not fair to generalize them just like it isn't fair to generalize BLM because of these protesters.

Visibility is a major issue of minorities and it is often underrated. Minorities have to be visible everywhere and there are people out there trying to prevent this where ever they can. Be it in schools where black culture is being dismissed (black writers, history of slavery etc.) or in the public.
However, the result of this protest wasn't quite the "right" visibility but it's not entirely the fault of the protesters. Yes, Sanders could've been more clear on racial issues and he should've added the things earlier to his website. But looking at the video it seems to be a totally wrong approach to me. There should be protests but these two protesters never seemed to care about engaging in a real discussion and Sanders is certainly not the worst candidate for doing so. He is on the side of BLM but has to be more vocal about it and I guess a lot of people are dismissing this. The protesters handled it poorly and I think that you should be able to criticise it. The same would apply for any movement/ protester handling it like that.

However this shouldn't mean that you get a cheap excuse for dismissing BLM and some posters here have to learn it yet.

 

[zero shift]

Pulling another one where the argument is Bernie's a racist because he doesn't consider Argentina an awesome example of socialism better than Scandanavia, even.

The countries listed couldn't be further from Scandinavian philosophy. The only one that is kind of close is Uruguay. Bolivia and Ecuador have had huge success in reducing inequality and poverty but both their economic and political systems lean to be more heavy handed and authoritarian than Scandinavia. Argentina is still stuck in its populist phase and has had very mixed results with its shift leftward. Listing Venezuela is laughable. While it is true the country made strides in reducing poverty and unemployment, all that has been practically lost by their collapsing economy. The reason for this is that instead of taking up social democracy like Norway, Venezuela took the route of essentially being Cuba with free (but not fair) elections. Also bringing up the "Cuban Revolution"? Are they fucking serious? How ignorant can somebody be?

 

[alstein]

When it comes to a candidate, it's about the candidate not the followers.

Whatever you may think of Bernie's supporters, he isn't like that.

Also one can have a negative opinion of the BLM folks and still agree there are massive inequalities when it comes to police treatment in America. Hell, the Oath Keepers in Ferguson are proving that right now being able to open carry because they're white.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

The idea that people oppose socialism because they are racists is an almost impossibly smug, indulgent and self righteous political theory. Its such a shabby left wing trope to argue that those who disagree, disagree for the most base and repellent reason possible.

 

[Loakum]

.

Exactly. This is how a worthy/important cause shoots itself in the foot. I haven't seen them pull this at any Republican candidates town halls, but they attack the one Democratic candidate that would actually support their cause. Pathetic!

 

[MikeyB]

LOL why would she want the mic AFTER Sanders was done speaking? This was a protest. That's not how it works.

"Oh thanks! I'll wait until Sanders is done speaking so he can just walk off the stage and the crowd can stop caring. Anything to make it more convenient for you."

She could value generating public support over visibility. That would require some strategy in mind for a longer game than a one off high profile protest. Pretty evident that public support is not on her radar.

 

[RELAYER]

The idea that people oppose socialism because they are racists is an almost impossibly smug, indulgent and self righteous political theory. Its such a shabby left wing trope to argue that those who disagree, disagree for the most base and repellent reason possible.

ImpossiblySmug would be such a good user name.

 

[Condom]

The idea that people oppose socialism because they are racists is an almost impossibly smug, indulgent and self righteous political theory. Its such a shabby left wing trope to argue that those who disagree, disagree for the most base and repellent reason possible.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This isn't entirely incorrect. The Democratic party is a capitalist party that seeks slow and gradual change rather than the radical change that BLM wants, and if it is successfully able to defang and incorporate (through paternalistic recognition) BLM it would take away the force of the movement.

I mean, #blacklivesmatter hasn't shown much indication that it is concerned with the fact America's economic institutions are deeply racist, either. Insofar as that Democratic elites are concerned with capitalist interests, I don't think #blacklivesmatter threatens them very much.

 

[Infinite]

I mean, #blacklivesmatter hasn't shown much indication that it is concerned with the fact America's economic institutions are deeply racist, either. Insofar as that Democratic elites are concerned with capitalist interests, I don't think #blacklivesmatter threatens them very much.

Huh? It has.

 

[Ke0]

The idea that people oppose socialism because they are racists is an almost impossibly smug, indulgent and self righteous political theory. Its such a shabby left wing trope to argue that those who disagree, disagree for the most base and repellent reason possible.

Is that not the reason though? If I'm remembering correctly. The only reason welfare ever passed in America originally was because they added in caveats that made it near impossible for majority of African Americans to receive it. The original push for single payer healthcare was shot down because the conservative party was worried about the Black Americans using it.

During the Civil Rights movement, many people opposed to integration and interracial marriage compared it with socialism. And were Americans not afraid of Obama because he was going to introduce socialism and give Black Americans stuff as some sort of revenge?

 

[LaserBuddha]

The idea that people oppose socialism because they are racists is an almost impossibly smug, indulgent and self righteous political theory. Its such a shabby left wing trope to argue that those who disagree, disagree for the most base and repellent reason possible.

Not that you're racist per se, but that you've seen the injustice inherent in a more capitalistic system and don't give a fuck because you have and/or will get "yours".

....

Glad to see the utter nonsense about attacking Bernie supporters and "white liberals" (they are intrinsically racist, ya know) has been reeled in, and people are no longer wielding the #BLM banner as a club to intimidate and demonize critics of this woman, when this wasn't even BLM to begin with. This thread might actually drag itself out of the shit.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Huh? It has.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/demands/ has five key national demands. Four of them do not involve any economic redress. The fifth is a partial redress, but is about as radical as a wet paper bag. State expenditure on law enforcement is not particularly high compared to state budgets as a whole, and reducing it by some fraction of an already small amount to spend on black communities will do almost nothing - it's baubles for beggars.

Obviously, #blacklivesmatter is a decentralized movement and different chapters or even just associated individuals will have different focuses, but I don't think it is all unfair to say that #blacklivesmatter does not concern itself with the economic oppression of black American communities.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

Is that not the reason though? If I'm remembering correctly. The only reason welfare ever passed in America originally was because they added in caveats that made it near impossible for majority of African Americans to receive it. The original push for single payer healthcare was shot down because the conservative party was worried about the Black Americans using it.

During the Civil Rights movement, many people opposed to integration and interracial marriage compared it with socialism. And were Americans not afraid of Obama because he was going to introduce socialism and give Black Americans stuff as some sort of revenge?

You aren't remembering correctly. The closest the US came to universal healthcare was under Richard Nixon. Previous efforts were not single payer and were mostly attacked by the healthcare industry.

Before the 70's southern racists were a constituency of the democratic party, and you are right southern states increased welfare for whites only. They were also backed by labour unions who wanted to exclude african americans and migrants to keep their industry wages high.

 

[Infinite]

http://blacklivesmatter.com/demands/ has five key national demands. Four of them do not involve any economic redress. The fifth is a partial redress, but is about as radical as a wet paper bag. State expenditure on law enforcement is not particularly high compared to state budgets as a whole, and reducing it by some fraction of an already small amount to spend on black communities will do almost nothing - it's baubles for beggars.

Obviously, #blacklivesmatter is a decentralized movement and different chapters or even just associated individuals will have different focuses, but I don't think it is all unfair to say that #blacklivesmatter does not concern itself with the economic oppression of black American communities.

The way I'm looking at it is a lot of their issues intersect with economics. However the movement focusing on criminal justice and police violence isn't a bad thing as your previous post seemed to have made it out to be.

Edit: saying their last point is "about as radical as a wet paper bag" is moving goal posts, fam.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The way I'm looking at it is a lot of their issues intersect with economics. However the movement focusing on criminal justice and police violence isn't a bad thing as your previous post seemed to have made it out to be.

I don't think their issues intersect with economics. If anything, they reinforce them - body cameras for police is just another means by which corporate America can shill products to the state. Of course, improving the state of justice is not a bad thing at all and my post should not be read that way. I'm just disputing sphagnum's claim that #blacklivesmatter will succeed only by being confrontational because the Democratic party will co-opt them if they don't. #blacklivesmatter's demands are not antithetical to the Democratic party, because, as demands go, they're focused on much less important areas in terms of genuinely rectifying the state of black America.

EDIT: It's not moving goal posts. "Reduce state expenditure to spend on improving employment on black communities" is barely a policy at all. Spending on law enforcement is less than 10% of the state budget in almost every American state. Much of that goes on pay and buildings, which can't be drawn down without reducing police services. Any reductions come from things like reducing spending on equipment and cutting training programmes (the latter of which is deeply harmful to the black community), and probably amounts to around a tenth of the police budget at the moment. That means you're affecting state spending by less than a percentage point. My goal was to show that #blacklivesmatter doesn't threaten the capitalist elite. If their "economic goal" is to change state spending by less than a percentage point, then I think I've proven that.

 

[LaserBuddha]

I don't think their issues intersect with economics. If anything, they reinforce them - body cameras for police is just another means by which corporate America can shill products to the state. Of course, improving the state of justice is not a bad thing at all and my post should not be read that way. I'm just disputing sphagnum's claim that #blacklivesmatter will succeed only by being confrontational because the Democratic party will co-opt them if they don't. #blacklivesmatter's demands are not antithetical to the Democratic party, because, as demands go, they're focused on much less important areas in terms of genuinely rectifying the state of black America.

There is no racial issue that doesn't intersect with economics.

Drugs? Crime? Education? Social mobility? Political power? Poverty is the first obstacle to solve before any of these are addressed. Economic power also probably translates into power to address law enforcement issues in many ways. Aguably economics is the key to everything when talking about racial justice.

Capitalism has been like the #1 tool of oppression against blacks that dwarfs anything that police could do.

Trying to separate issues of race and economics is foolish imo.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

There is no racial issue that doesn't intersect with economics.

Drugs? Crime? Education? Social mobility? Political power? Poverty is the first obstacle to solve before any of these are addressed. Economic power also probably translates into power to address law enforcement issues in many ways. Aguably economics is the key to everything when talking about racial justice.

Capitalism has been like the #1 tool of oppression against blacks that dwarfs anything that police could do.

Trying to separate issues of race and economics is foolish imo.

You don't understand my post. I agree with everything you have just said. Capitalism is, of course, by far the main tool used to oppress black America. What I'm saying is that #blacklivesmatter has very little to say about capitalism.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

There is no racial issue that doesn't intersect with economics.

Drugs? Crime? Education? Social mobility? Political power? Poverty is the first obstacle to solve before any of these are addressed. Economic power also probably translates into power to address law enforcement issues in many ways. Aguably economics is the key to everything when talking about racial justice.

Capitalism has been like the #1 tool of oppression against blacks that dwarfs anything that police could do.

Trying to separate issues of race and economics is foolish imo.

The government oppressed blacks, not capitalism. Who wrote the Jim Crow laws? Who enforced anti-miscegenation law? Capitalism has liberated more brown people with funny names than anything else in human history, ever. Until very recently more than half the worlds population were peasants.

 

[LaserBuddha]

The government oppressed blacks, not capitalism. Who wrote the Jim Crow laws? Who enforced anti-miscegenation law? Capitalism has liberated more brown people with funny names than anything else in human history, ever. Until very recently more than half the worlds population were peasants.

LOL

 

[LaserBuddha]

You don't understand my post. I agree with everything you have just said. Capitalism is, of course, by far the main tool used to oppress black America. What I'm saying is that #blacklivesmatter has very little to say about capitalism.

I'm simply stating that if BLM doesn't concern itself with economics, it should (if its goals are as broad as they seem). Or at least people in this thread who criticized Sanders platform for talking about economic inequality instead of race shouldn't be seeing those things as seperate.