belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
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.
Dance troupe Diversity's Black Lives Matter performance receives 24,000 complaints
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
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?
The struggle. Lol. Where’s the protests for DPRK?
8ball
Decolonise colons!
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'.
I didn’t even mention Malik. A pretty odd response.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
So you made a pointless post, fair enough.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
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
Well-Known Member
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
one of Maxwell's demons
Or it simply highlights divisions that were already there.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Exasperated, not angry.
Yeah, that’s pretty pointless.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, pointing out your errors is largely unnecessary.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Do tell us how many angels we can fit on the head of a pin.
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?
Why am I opposing anti racism you mad cunt?
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Steel Icarus
we move
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
Well-Known Member
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
one of Maxwell's demons
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
one of Maxwell's demons
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).
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
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
Exasperated, not angry.
It really really does not do that. The whole point is that it isn’t about any explicit actions you take.
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
one of Maxwell's demons
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?
You don’t know what it does . Because you’re removed from it.
Similar threads
