dronecatcher wrote: ↑
20 Jul 2020, 20:21
parasiteinblack wrote: ↑
20 Jul 2020, 19:15
Yes it's a "stating the bleedin' obvious" message but some people still need to hear it. Perhaps there are more people out there who are not "rational, ordinary people".
I'm not sure who is being "unjustly tarred and feathered". Obviously that's no good either, and not one of the tenets of being anti-racist. If it's promoting inherent racism as you say then perhaps the message has been misunderstood and is more nuanced than is being made out. It's a bit more complex than "don't be a racist". I think the phenomenon you are alluding to has been termed "white fragility".
The actions of George Floyd as a person also shouldn't negate the overall message.
None of the issues you list need to occur for anti-racism to exist, although obviously some reform is probably needed with some police forces. The fact that these things may have happened also don't negate the message.
There are plenty who are not rational and no they will not be swayed by a catchy slogan, or for that matter any well reasoned arguement (which BLM doesn't provide.)
As to who is being tarred and feathered, you could start with Nick Buckley who I referenced in my post when I entered this discussion - an MBE awarded charity worker of 20 years who's career and reputation have been destroyed by a hate campaign in retaliation for him posting his doubt about BLM's motives.
A search engine sweep will reveal many more - I've lost count over the past month.
Buckley seems like a decent bloke, yes, but the comment that got him sacked seemed a bit foolish. How is stating that "black lives matter" a Neo-Marxist attack on Western Democracy? It's fine to take a different view and have a healthy discussion like you and I are doing but he's just talking bollocks on that one.
It's not promoting inherent racism, it's stirring up resentment that will seek an outlet. To break it down simply, if someone who has never even entertained the idea of themselves being racist is then told by a black protest movement they are racist and then subsequently lose their livelihood after refuting the accusation, there might be the slightest chance they could become resentful against that minority group that has wrecked their life.
It won't be "that minority group" that will have wrecked their life, will it? Part of this feeling is the "white fragility" I mentioned before and part of it is the misunderstanding of what seems to be the main takeaway from this whole movement: It is not enough not be racist, you must be anti-racist or else be complicit in the racism of everybody else.
I think terming the objection to being accused of a hate crime as "white fragility" is the equivalent of shooting someone in the leg and telling them to "man up" as they bleed all over the floor.
No, I don't agree, it seems to explain quite a lot of the negative reaction to the idea of anti-racism. Again, the idea and not the organisation.
The "message" ie BLM has entered the public sphere for most people directly because of George Floyd, so without him, most people wouldn't have even heard the message because BLM would still be a fringe phenomenon, so to say his actions as a person shouldn't negate the message is a collapse of logic - his very actions are why the message has been promoted.
It's been around for years, it's been a pretty big thing for about five years but has certainly seen a resurgence since George Floyd. I don't follow your logic in your final sentence; yes George Floyd being killed may have promoted the message but it doesn't negate the spirit of it.