Dance troupe Diversity's Black Lives Matter performance receives 24,000 complaints

[belboid]

It’s a shame that all the devils are white, even those who aren’t, and as such the focus is shifted from the simple fact that devils are due to power, not skin colour.

You live your straw men as much as Malik. Thankfully no one, apart from maybe Farrakhan, argues any such thing. You just keep arguing against anti racism. Bit shit that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That wasn't the part of the post I'm interested in discussing tbh, ta.

It's a way in to the discussion though. Cos potentially, having realised something about the process, you can propose the simple change without accusing anyone of anything. In fact the only person you're accusing in this case is yourself. If everyone agrees to it, you have both fixed that particular problem and potentially got people to think about the issues around it. No?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Dear god what awful liberalism. It’s not a dinner party debate it’s actually a matter of life and death for many people. Which means being blunt and direct, not toadying around to gain the approval of people who won’t join you in the actual struggle.

The struggle. Lol. Where’s the protests for DPRK?

 

[8ball]

That wasn't the part of the post I'm interested in discussing tbh, ta.

I was just kind of wondering whether you had a 'plan' for what you were looking for that you strayed from.
Removing the names from CV's (as LBJ suggested) is something I've heard about some companies doing.

I guess we'd then see what other cues people are using to filter for people who are 'like them'.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

You live your straw men as much as Malik. Thankfully no one, apart from maybe Farrakhan, argues any such thing. You just keep arguing against anti racism. Bit shit that.

I didn’t even mention Malik. A pretty odd response.

 

[belboid]

Lol. I've not tried to gain anyone's approval. I just pointed out that, whether or not you or I like it, the slogan is demonstrably, literally divisive, which is a weakness. I've certainly not made any excuses for those who take issue with it; I've criticised them in each of my posts on the topic.

So you made a pointless post, fair enough.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It’s a shame that all the devils are white, even those who aren’t, and as such the focus is shifted from the simple fact that devils are due to power, not skin colour.

That's all a bit abstract again. As I said, I think BLM is a much simpler thing than you're making it out to be. It is people coming together to make a stand against racism. And both in the US and the UK (and Belgium for that matter), it is people of all races coming together to make that stand together. And. Um. What else?

 

[Athos]

So you made a pointless post, fair enough.

No, it had a point: that you were wrong to say the slogan isn't divisive - it clearly is (regardless of the fact that it shouldn't be).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, it had a point: that you were wrong to say the slogan isn't divisive - it clearly is (regardless of the fact that it shouldn't be).

Or it simply highlights divisions that were already there.

 

[belboid]

I didn’t even mention Malik. A pretty odd response.

Read the thread.

Ignore the Malik part - you are making up reasons to oppose anti-racism,using arguments no one in the movement you are opposing actually makes. It has nothing to do with what is actually happening.

 

[Athos]

Or it simply highlights divisions that were already there.

It certinly does that, too. But 'divisive' means to cause disagreement; this slogan has indisputably done so, even if only about what it means, and notwithstanding that one side of that disagreement is wrong!

 

[belboid]

No, it had a point: that you were wrong to say the slogan isn't divisive - it clearly is (regardless of the fact that it shouldn't be).

Yeah, that’s pretty pointless.

 

[Athos]

Yeah, that’s pretty pointless.

Yes, pointing out your errors is largely unnecessary.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I was just kind of wondering whether you had a 'plan' for what you were looking for that you strayed from.
Removing the names from CV's (as LBJ suggested) is something I've heard about some companies doing.

I guess we'd then see what other cues people are using to filter for people who are 'like them'.

Be the change you want to see

* pukes *

 

[belboid]

Yes, pointing out your errors is largely unnecessary.

Do tell us how many angels we can fit on the head of a pin.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

That's all a bit abstract again. As I said, I think BLM is a much simpler thing than you're making it out to be. It is people coming together to make a stand against racism. And both in the US and the UK (and Belgium for that matter), it is people of all races coming together to make that stand together. And. Um. What else?

It’s a shame that you think it’s simpler than what it is but uprisings matter to me and how they think matter even more. If the dominant narrative (which, let’s not argue) is ‘white privilege’ then who is their enemy? And if the outcome of that results in black vs white, whose interests does it serve?
Which raises the question, why are those who claim to want an equitable society pushing the antagonisms in the same way that the far right do?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Read the thread.

Ignore the Malik part - you are making up reasons to oppose anti-racism,using arguments no one in the movement you are opposing actually makes. It has nothing to do with what is actually happening.

Why am I opposing anti racism you mad cunt?

 

[8ball]

Do tell us how many angels we can fit on the head of a pin.

9

 

[Steel Icarus]

It’s a shame that you think it’s simpler than what it is but uprisings matter to me and how they think matter even more. If the dominant narrative (which, let’s not argue) is ‘white privilege’ then who is their enemy? And if the outcome of that results in black vs white, whose interests does it serve?
Which raises the question, why are those who claim to want an equitable society pushing the antagonisms in the same way that the far right do?

I really don't get the sense BLM is about division. It's about tearing down the old, entrenched white power structures to be replaced by something more equitable that supporters of BLM black and white alike want

 

[Athos]

Do tell us how many angels we can fit on the head of a pin.

Lol. My position - what is i.e. that the slogan has weaknesses- has a lot more practical use in the fight against racism than yours - what should be i.e. that the slogan ought not to be contentious.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It’s a shame that you think it’s simpler than what it is but uprisings matter to me and how they think matter even more. If the dominant narrative (which, let’s not argue) is ‘white privilege’ then who is their enemy? And if the outcome of that results in black vs white, whose interests does it serve?
Which raises the question, why are those who claim to want an equitable society pushing the antagonisms in the same way that the far right do?

But it isn't black vs white. In terms of those directly involved in antagonism, it's racists vs anti-racists.

And yes, it is necessary to take a side. That's one of the messages I see coming from BLM. But those sides are not defined by race. They are defined by racism.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I really don't get the sense BLM is about division. It's about tearing down the old, entrenched white power structures to be replaced by something more equitable that supporters of BLM black and white alike want

But what about the current non-white global power structures? Those that do all kinds of nasty things to non-white workers that they’d ever experience in the west.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

But it isn't black vs white. In terms of those directly involved in antagonism, it's racists vs anti-racists.

And yes, it is necessary to take a side. That's one of the messages I see coming from BLM. But those sides are not defined by race. They are defined by racism.

But ‘white privilege’ is a racist argument. Why? Because you’re reducing the actions of people to the colour of their skin. Why is this acceptable?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But ‘white privilege’ is a racist argument. Why? Because you’re reducing the actions of people to the colour of their skin. Why is this acceptable?

I happen to agree with you largely about framing political discussions in terms of 'privilege'. It is often unhelpful. But I've heard the term used in a way not intended to be racist in that way - not reducing the actions of people to the colour of their skin, but rather reducing how they are acted on by others to the colour of their skin.

The example killer b gave upthread re CVs would be a case in point (names standing as a rough proxy for colour in this instance).

 

[Marty1]

I really don't get the sense BLM is about division. It's about tearing down the old, entrenched white power structures to be replaced by something more equitable that supporters of BLM black and white alike want

A leader of BLM in America was interviewed on Fox News where he stated that they (BLM) would burn down the system if they didn’t get what they wanted (or words to similar effect).

Ive now seen criticism of BLM portraying them as a Marxist group.

 

[belboid]

Why am I opposing anti racism you mad cunt?

I don’t know why you are, but you are. You’ve made excuses for those who are anti BLM on spurious grounds and seem to deny the reality of what racism is.

 

[belboid]

But ‘white privilege’ is a racist argument. Why? Because you’re reducing the actions of people to the colour of their skin. Why is this acceptable?

It really really does not do that. The whole point is that it isn’t about any explicit actions you take.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I happen to agree with you largely about framing political discussions in terms of 'privilege'. It is often unhelpful. But I've heard the term used in a way not intended to be racist in that way - not reducing the actions of people to the colour of their skin, but rather reducing how they are acted on by others to the colour of their skin.

The example killer b gave upthread re CVs would be a case in point (names standing as a rough proxy for colour in this instance).

It’s a strange fact that immigrant incomers will end up in working class communities to serve the interests of capital. This existed for (centuries?) but the sharp turn comes when there’s a shortage of housing and amenities. This aids the politics of the far right.
What liberals appear to do is abandon the above and then disregard them as racists if they dare to complain. This needs to be understood with regards to what I am saying.
So there’s a new movement called BLM that ticks all the boxes for those of a particular political bent. But it just winds up further those who are struggling economically to be called ‘privileged’ in times where there’s nothing.
This is sometimes difficult to understand with people who have been to university and always had food on the table but it’s fucking dangerous.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It really really does not do that. The whole point is that it isn’t about any explicit actions you take.

yeah, while I don't much like the term, that's absolutely right. It's privilege by absence, essentially.

If you're white, you don't walk through life in a racist society being judged and acted on adversely due to your race.
If you're black, you do.

Even MM wouldn't argue that the essence of those statements is wrong, surely?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It really really does not do that. The whole point is that it isn’t about any explicit actions you take.

You don’t know what it does . Because you’re removed from it.