You're viewing a single thread.
What? A left wing movement that uses the wrong name to make people understand what they truly mean? Really? Nah, that would never happen!
Adversaries to a movement will split hairs and redefine a movement anyways.
That's all we are seeing here. Look at now they tried to frame Black Lived Matters, something quite clean cut.
No. We suck at naming things. And communication in general.
"Black Lives Matter Too" would have been more clear.
"Replace the Police" would have been better also.Even mainstream Democrats suck at it. They should be shouting every day, how they're taking on big corp's, going after antitrust abuses and unpaid taxes; While refusing to audit anyone making less than $250,000. But instead they just keep saying some variation of "The economy's great, stupid."
They would have willfully misinterpreted both of those alternatives and convinced you they were poorly named anyways.
They may have willfully misrepresented, but couldn't really have an excuse to mistakenly misinterpret them. That was our bad.
Is your argument that a genuine, good faith interpretation of "Black Lives Matter" is "Only Black Lives Matter"?
This isn't how English works. If I say "I like your mom" to an SO, they wouldn't interpret it as I don't like them and instead like their mom. I don't have to say "I like your mom too".
Anyone coming back with "all lives matter" proves the ease of confusion over the slogan.
My own immediate response to it was "Yah, of course they do. All lives matter. Why single out Black lives? The police shouldn't be killing anyone."
I'm not going to try mind read anyone else.
People who go out and counter protest actively have given it more than a cursory thought. They know BLM isn't advocating for white genocide (okay, most of them understand this. There are some literal nazis/skin heads/white nationalists in the counter protesting groups that believe in The Great Replacement, but they believed this prior to BLM existing).
Yet they still go out and counter protest. It's not confusion at that point. You can't go up to an all lives matter reactionary and say "Hey! Did you know BLM doesn't actually want to murder all white people? Are you a fan of BLM now?" and actually expect any progress.
Why single out Black lives?
Isn’t that kind of the point of BLM?
It should have been called of course black lives matter then move on from the stupid race baiting movement and get back to living.
Law enforcement based on the Peelian principles is not a tennable thing. Sure, every US beat officer will learn it in training but they also learn the public is the enemy, which has been the way of things for over a century.
if we could imagine a new age of policing, it would involve much less enforcement and much more prevention, mostly disincentivising people from engaging in desperation crime. Heck, we might even end retributive sentencing for a more restorative system.
If we dropped our current law enforcement -- the whole thing -- and turned to investigating and intercepting elite deviance (white collar crime) we would save more lives, prevent more damage and more cost by orders of magnitude. Not that law enforcement actually does much to reduce crime.
The name was never thebproblem. You can spend a million years coming up with the best name possible and it will still be dragged through the mud by the media.
"too" implies
a) they don't matter yet
and
b) mattering is a new concept we should consider.
The statement is clear without modifier and requires no qualification, clarification or context: do black lives matter or not?
Or to take the inverse: under what circumstances do black lives not matter? If the answer is "there are none" then obviously black lives matter.
You're not wrong, I guess the biggest issue with it being misconstrued was by people who watch Fox news, but honestly Fox news was gonna find a way to spin it no matter what.
I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against "too".
Because yah, police specifically, and society generally, have been acting as though black lives don't matter. And the slogan "black lives matter" was created to argue against that idea. But it was easily confusing. Hell I was immediately confused the first time I heard it, and actually thought "Well yah. All lives matter. What are they talking about?" It took me a good min or two to understand. But simply adding the "too" immediately clarifies that.
"Black lives matter" isn't wrong. It's just not immediately as clear as it could be.
Leftists can name things appropriately. You just proved that. It's the "moderate" "liberals" that run the DNC that have the issue. That's just because they are desperately trying to to convince the right that "there won't be any significant changes," while still pandering to the center. They don't care about the left except to make us shut up and sit down.
If people are trying to make you shut up and sit down then you're probably the problem.
If that's the case I'm proud to be a "problem," and "inconvenience."
Your time is up weirdo commie.
BLM was a scam, a grift.. that's an undeniable fact.
What was achieved? Because what we witnessed was violence, theft and property destruction. If you deny this, you are willfully ignorant or a bold faced liar.
Oh and Malcolm X was right. More Black people should study Malcolm X and his message.
I distinctly remember Malcolm X saying the white moderate fucking sucks
Malcolm X saying the white liberals
Fixed.
They are kind of the same thing, no?
Classical liberalism and all that jazz.
Classical Liberalism is an economic philosophy.
It's unrelated to sociopolitical liberalism.Bold of you to assume the two aren't completely intertwined.
It's just the definition.
Classical Liberalism is very similar to today's political conservatives.Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.
to make people understand what they truly mean
Sizable portion won't understand though. That's a big issue with that sort of names
Some people do argue for a post-work, scarcity-free utopia. However, I don’t see how that’s ever a possibility even in an endless universe unless we solve mortality and answer every possible question there is about the nature of existence and reality. There will always be “work”.
I think work reformists look at exploitative conditions both at home and in developing nations, and rightfully want better. There’s no reason why millions of people cannot be lifted out of poverty via direct intervention. Training and educating those people for whatever self determined purpose makes the most sense. Currently people’s lives are wasted on perma survival mode, and it’s a waste of human intellectual potential and intellectual capital.