Like?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Harvard Poll says 57% of Americans view Black Lives Matter negatively
- Thread starter theignoramus
- Start date
I'm obviously aware of that and your need to respond in defense is literally what I am talking about.
Here's the thing though... White America, en masse, is never going to help Black America. You can win a heart and mind here and there, sure, but outside an extreme minority, even the whites sympathetic to the cause are just going to nod in agreement, post a nice comment, and move on with their lives. They have no skin in the game.
Like, this has been going on for centuries. White America only changes their minds in retrospect, which is what those MLK numbers represent. Why would that be any different now?
Getting angry on the internet doesn't help, but it doesn't really hurt, either, in any practical sense. And even if it does... is it really my place, as a white guy, to criticize? No one likes an armchair quarterback.
A year or so ago I would have agreed with you, but nowadays? If you're not gonna help, just step aside.
Those links don't support your statement at all. One is about white people rehtinking BLM. Another is BLM saying, "Where are the All Lives Matter people now". The third is closer but they state hesitancy. Not exactly what I'm talking about.
bengraven
Member
excelsiorlef
Member
What?
Considering that Palestinians are a second-class citizens over there then yeah blm would have a problem with that.
And if being anti Israel is calling out the B's they do then I and lot of people are anti Israel
Dude Abides
Banned
For black lives matter to make progress it actually needs to be about white people.
I can understand not agreeing with that stance, sure. But it's not a part of their platform and they don't protest about it or even make it a point. Is it not possible to disagree with some of the people of the organization that think this way while still supporting the larger movement and its purpose?
BrutishMrFish
Member
The people who have a problem with the phrase "black lives matter" are so full of shit. If they take it to mean "only black lives matter" or "black lives matter more" then why don't they see "white lives matter" as meaning the same thing for white people, or "blue lives matter" as putting law enforcement above all else? I have yet to see even one single person who has a problem with the first phrase also have problems with the other two.
I'm not sure why there's this need to make excuses that deny the possibility that these people could be racists when the alternative is that they're shamefully stupid. Treating them like children who couldn't possibly learn anything on their own doesn't make them look any better.
I'm not sure why there's this need to make excuses that deny the possibility that these people could be racists when the alternative is that they're shamefully stupid. Treating them like children who couldn't possibly learn anything on their own doesn't make them look any better.
Violence Jack
Member
Exactly what he said.
Fair point, yeah. I live in a predominately Hispanic area, and a lot of the most vicious racism I've observed has come from folks who wouldn't be considered white outside Miami.
Well, given that a lack of centralized structure caused Occupy Wall Street to fall apart and I'm not really sure you can claim any major victory for Black Lives Matter, it might be a legitimate criticsm.
excelsiorlef
Member
OWS despite branching off sort was a very localized and targeted thing.
Their focus was literal physical occupation. That inherently has a shelf life.
Also fuck Wall Street is a much more nebulous and ambiguous idea than police brutality.
None of those issues come from the decentralizing of leaderships
...as they should be?
I would argue that the decentralization of leadership is part of the problem of why BLM is misunderstood. They don't really have a clear message, because it's a bunch of small groups (and in some cases, I think individuals) with a bunch of different messages.
The about section of the "official" Black Lives Matter (which I think some of the sub groups don't actually recognize as official) about section is basically word salad of social justice concepts, and is so laced with jargon that the average person probably doesn't really understand what it means.
Like it doesn't even explicitly mention police brutality once. Instead of having one overarching goal, they have 6 or 7, ranging from misogyny to black genocide to LGBT rights to disability rights to The treatment of black women during wartime.
All of those things are worthy, but how does one organization organize around all of those things simultaneously? I think they would be more effective (and possibly better liked) if they picked one issue and one goal at a time, and focused on that like "we want to have this set of rules instilled in every police department in the US" or "we want to pass this law in every state". And then once that goal is getting traction, find the next step.
The one thing BLM has unquestionably been successful with is highlighting specific incidences of police injustice and gotten cities and states to open investigations, even if most of those police officers end up being acquitted. IMO, the logical step would be to build off of that and focus on advocating for specific policies that help hold officers accountable. One organization isn't going to be able to solve all of the problems at once.
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
I ain't even surprised anymore, at anything. I don't expect much from white people
I was talking about still supporting BLM, the only group actually doing anything about it, so no.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
Thats what happened. Slander him, attack him and kill him then 50 years later act like you agreed with him from the start.
Amibguous Cad
Member
This happens to almost every grassroots political movement that doesn't have a clear platform or strictly delineated membership. You get identified with your worst members. Happened to Occupy, happened to the Tea Party, happened to BLM.
Unfair as it is, when someone claiming affiliation with your group murders 5 cops, you're not going to get mainstream support no matter how reasonable everyone else is.
Unfair as it is, when someone claiming affiliation with your group murders 5 cops, you're not going to get mainstream support no matter how reasonable everyone else is.
Err, if you support all that then you do support BLM. That's literally what BLM supports.
Like what?
old manatee
Banned
Occupy Wall Street lacked a centralized structure because it was basically a giant mass of angry citizens taking to the streets, and saying that Black Lives Matter can't claim a victory is incredible given how much awareness they have raised. It's not OWS's fault that the 1% is still robbing everyone, and it's not BLM's fault that cops are still killing black people. I'm glad that people from both movements bothered to get out there and draw everyone's focus to some important issues for a minute.
So, what would you tell the Palestinians, innocent civilians, including children who have been displaced or killed due to the conflict? I wouldn't characterize Israel as a whole advocating for the slaughter of innocents in this conflict, but if I was to use your mindset, the single fact that Palestinians have been displaced should be enough to look at Israel critically. Somehow you're able to compartmentalize actions of Israel's government but certain actions of segments of BLM is enough to withdraw support for the organization but not Israel? Please explain your reasoning.
Nah. Americans can't even agree that on just that, that black lives matter. The term is near perfect.
ebullientprism
Member
I would genuinely blame the media for a large chunk of this. Every single negative aspect of BLM has been magnified and played up for ratings. They borderline sold it as an anarchist group prone to violence. So no wonder a large percentage of people view it negatively.
Gentleman Jack
Member
It's part of the black criminality narrative. 2 black people standing next to each other is a dangerous superpowered gang of aggressive, uncontrolled violence in the eyes of the law and wider culture.
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
I was asked why I don't the support the organization but support the cause.
Same as I support a 2 state solution and support palestinian rights but don't support hammas.
I support Israel but not the settlers.
Violence Jack
Member
No, I was agreeing with you because I was about to pose the exact same question to that person.
Israel is supporting the settlers.
So you ARE supporting the settlers, unless the whole Israeli government disregarding international criticism and expands settlements means the settlers did it on their own.
BLM did a great job getting media attention and forcing political candidates/governments to respond. For a while there, every relevant shooting was front page news, and at every debate BLM was likely to come up (in questions, or in the audience).
But as with a lot of topics, Americans eventually shrugged and lost interest.
But as with a lot of topics, Americans eventually shrugged and lost interest.
Frankly my biggest take away from this is that 50 percent believe that the American justice system is fair. Like after all we hear on the news what?!
I still laugh whenever I see this.
Well you see...
I still laugh whenever I see this.
It doesn't surprise me that the vast majority of Americans think the judicial system is fair to blacks. There's this disconnect and dehumanization of blacks that makes it nearly impossible for those people to see us as human, and therefore worthy of humane treatment. To them, the police are just putting down rabid animals, not human beings.
Fix the way American society views black people, and you'll start to fix the way blacks are treated by American society. They need to be convinced we're people first.
This study doesn't surprise me one fucking bit.
Fix the way American society views black people, and you'll start to fix the way blacks are treated by American society. They need to be convinced we're people first.
This study doesn't surprise me one fucking bit.
Ah I see, sorry ha.
yeah I mean, that opinion about Israel is just that, an opinion, they are not actually making a point to change things about it, while they are actively trying to change discrimination against Black America. I can't believe somebody that says, "well that one opinion is enough to make stop supporting BLM even though I do support what they want in theory", when there is literally no other options to choose from except the status quo of things continuing the same way. So I support it, but conditionally, it has to be perfect...
Now if BLM made attacks on Israel as part of their platform, then I could see the argument.
I can only speak in regards to the local chapter where I am, but public sympathy was lost, especially from people that supported them, when the group started protesting by shutting down major highways. It has splintered the group, there were leadership changes, drama etc... and now people here generalize all of BLM based off the actions here. I see that generalizing happen in both support of and in opposition to BLM, and it really doesn't help anything. It's become confusing, polarizing, and the message has been lost.
sooperkool
Member
Silly us, we thought people could understand the implied "too". So head it is in black and white (heh) Black Lives Matter Too
While I don't want to discount the fact that raising awareness of issues with policing is an obvious good and necessary step towards reform (and at the least it's becoming more easy to get stats on this sort of stuff), awareness isn't what I would call any significant victory. I went looking for examples of what people are calling BLM victories and found... they got a highway named after a wrongfully killed woman, and they pissed off Bill Clinton. The only tangible achievement I could find you could ascribe at least in part to the efforts of BLM is the ousting of a Chicago prosecutor, although there's a dearth of followup to see how successful that is currently. BLM hasn't been successful in any electoral races as far as I know, at least in producing candidates that win. If someone has info to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
I think when it comes to questions of leadership and "faces" of the movement, there's a difference between what is necessary or good for getting work done, and what is necessary or good for relaying your message. Being "leader-full" may work inside BLM chapters, but it's not a successful strategy for engaging with the public, and makes it much harder to fight against what right-wing organizations are going to throw at them.
Especially in regards to the tactics we've discussed on GAF over the years about protests, there's also the question of whether all press is good press, and what methods are harmful or distracting versus necessary to keep people agitated. It's not something new; progressive organizations have always struggled with the tension between the principled and the pragmatic courses of action. I'd say BLM has it harder than previous civil rights efforts in that the internet makes it easier to get out your message, but far harder for your message to get carried in a meaningful way of engaged activism.
LinkAndEpona
Banned
Nah, fuck this noise.
It's more rationale to be able to think of the issues on both sides of an argument.
SanguineShark
Member
Does the term "Save the Rainforest" mean fuck all other forest? Is that confrontational? How about breast cancer awareness? There is nothing wrong with the name, there is something wrong with people.
SanguineShark
Member
Double post.
So inconvenience is where you draw the line huh. Guess you would have been upset that black folks just had to do sit in's and marches on bridges on the 60's right. We have some nerve.
Not really.
Nydius
Gold Member
You're right that it's rational to be able to think on both sides of the issue so that you can argue for or against, or take a devils advocate position in order to spur discussion. That's how debate teams function. However, it's irrational for someone to sit on the center of a position and only take a lukewarm stance when it suits them.
With an issue like this, I can't see where there's a middle ground/centrist position at all. Either someone is for equal rights and equal protection under the law OR they're against it. Centrist positions of "I support X but Y..." is just masking being against the position with flimsy justifications in order to make themselves feel like they're not a bad person.
Acerac
Banned
Many seem to be of the opinion that protests are better if they can be ignored entirely. Calling such opinions frustrating would be putting it extremely mildly.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked