4 ms·

I was fully expecting someone in HN to get very upset about Black Lives Matter. I don't know much about them, but judging from their Wikipedia entry, as a whole

by jordigh 11y ago

I was fully expecting someone in HN to get very upset about Black Lives Matter. I don't know much about them, but judging from their Wikipedia entry, as a whole the movement seems to be doing much more good than harm. It's also a pretty diverse group, and some have used the BLM monicker while being denounced by other members of BLM. So don't paint them all with the same brush. It's like saying that you're against John Stuart Mill or Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz because you dislike feminism[1]. It will be interesting to see which part of BLM the EFA considers to be representative. -- [1] Or absolutely all of these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists

odinduty 11y ago
>It's like saying that you're against John Stuart Mill or Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz because you dislike feminism[1]. I don't see why you'd have to be against a person just because they support a different point of view on some specific issue.
- komali2 11y ago
  Really? A person can be the flagship of a movement that is so opposed to your point of view as to be dangerous. A radically religious up and coming politician for example. Or, I suppose, Hitler.
  - odinduty 11y ago
    Of course, but he was quoting a "list of feminists", which I haven't clicked but I guess contains dozens or even hundreds of individuals, whose lives most likely don't revolve around feminism.
    - rustynails 11y ago
      And there are plenty of people whose lives didn't revolve around the KKK either. You would find that most KKK members believed in different treatment based on a person's skin colour, but disagreed with lynching or physical violence. I argue that any group who focusses on itself is similar. You get some vocal intolerance (see the attack on Matt Taylor for a list of tens of thousands of intolerant feminists). However, what you get from the collective group is a misguided sense of entitlement. Eg. The founder of she++ dislikes gender based groups, so she established one herself! In fact, I'd argue she++ is one of the few gender based groups I know of. As far as I'm concerned, prejudice is prejudice. BLM focus on black lives only. Feminism focuses on special treatment based on gender. how are either of these things fair or reasonable? Such movements can't help but encourage intolerance (eg. the attack on Matt Taylor). Hence, they should be denounced in the same way we denounce the KKK.
Karunamon 11y ago
After having read the talk pages and controversies surrounding a number of politically charged wiki articles, I could not in good faith use them as a source to determine which political groups have a positive or negative influence. I'm starting to think disjoint, disorganized movements like BLM are a bad idea just from an organizational standpoint. It means your message can't be controlled, it means its up to each individual member what the groups means, and worst of all, It takes just one idiot doing something wrong before the whole movement is permanently tainted - mostly because the majority of people will not exercise the same benefit of the doubt you just did.
- xuegbibfj 11y ago
  That's a good point. We should let the elites handle everything because they have our best interests at heart and are much more intelligent than us. We can't trust "regular people" with political discourse.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    I'm confused. Where did you get the idea "elites" need to handle everything? Parent simply stated unorganized groups with a non-unified message allows a single member to ruin the entire movement. So where do "elites" come into play? Edit: oh I see your account was created 15 minutes ago to just post bullshit. Sigh.
    - phillc73 11y ago
      I think he got the idea that the "elites" need to handle everything, through having a sense of sarcasm.
      - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
        It's deleted now but at the time when I read it it didn't appear sarcastic at all. I thought I was usually good at figuring out sarcasm on the internet so I'm going to blame their terrible ability to express it (if that was the case). :)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rustynails 11y ago
Any movement that focuses on one section of society (KKK, feminism) inevitably drives intolerance. Just ask Matt Taylor who was crucified by feminists for wearing a shirt designed by a woman. It is one of many examples that highlights why BLM and feminism are flawed in the same way. EFA should only promote groups who represent everyone equally. You wouldn't accept the KKK, why accept others who encourage equivalent prejudices.
- NotOscarWilde 11y ago
  > Any movement that focuses on one section of society (KKK, feminism) inevitably drives intolerance. If a section of society is marginalized and persecuted in the society as a whole, a movement to equalize things is bound to crop up. By your argument, you would prefer the African-American civil rights movement never to have existed, is that correct? As a sidenote, I would like to remark that many feminists would like to define feminism as the struggle to end sexism for everybody. Consider this quote by bell hooks: "In Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, I suggest that defining feminism broadly as “a movement to end sexism and sexist oppression” would enable us to have a common political goal…Sharing a common goal does not imply that women and men will not have radically divergent perspectives on how that goal might be reached."
  - iza 11y ago
    (devil's advocate) Arguably feminism has already succeeded in achieving equality by the end of the second wave. Although some feminists may indeed fight to end sexism for everybody, feminism still bears the implicit assumption that women are currently disadvantaged.
mtgx 11y ago
It reminds me of how Occupy was discredited: "They're just thugs and lazy people who don't want to work...and they're occupying our parks, for crying out loud!" Because why would anyone other than thugs and lazy people who don't want to work ever protest Wall Street?
studentrob 11y ago
For sure, thoigh some of them advocate violence and separatism, and at some points people with such views had a lot of followers, kind of like the Trump followers who are filled with fear of Muslims. Note that the BLM logo is the black panther logo, and they were largely viewed as separatists. I'm all for the movement when it is peaceful and respectful of American values, but when people who advocate having their own space start having a louder voice, then I lose interest.
dreta 11y ago
The Wikipedia is the absolute last place you should ever visit to read up on political movements. It’s a biased source. If you say you support a particular movement, you’re taking on the whole baggage it brings. If you don’t want the whole baggage then don’t name names.
- jordigh 11y ago
  > It’s a biased source. Every source is biased. Wikipedia tries harder to be less biased. And hey, you can frequently change the bias if you just go and edit the article yourself. I suppose I should read Wikipedia and Conservapedia and take the average of the two to get closer to the truth? :-)

by jordigh 11y ago

odinduty 11y ago

>It's like saying that you're against John Stuart Mill or Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz because you dislike feminism[1]. I don't see why you'd have to be against a person just because they support a different point of view on some specific issue.

komali2 11y ago
Really? A person can be the flagship of a movement that is so opposed to your point of view as to be dangerous. A radically religious up and coming politician for example. Or, I suppose, Hitler.
- odinduty 11y ago
  Of course, but he was quoting a "list of feminists", which I haven't clicked but I guess contains dozens or even hundreds of individuals, whose lives most likely don't revolve around feminism.
  - rustynails 11y ago
    And there are plenty of people whose lives didn't revolve around the KKK either. You would find that most KKK members believed in different treatment based on a person's skin colour, but disagreed with lynching or physical violence. I argue that any group who focusses on itself is similar. You get some vocal intolerance (see the attack on Matt Taylor for a list of tens of thousands of intolerant feminists). However, what you get from the collective group is a misguided sense of entitlement. Eg. The founder of she++ dislikes gender based groups, so she established one herself! In fact, I'd argue she++ is one of the few gender based groups I know of. As far as I'm concerned, prejudice is prejudice. BLM focus on black lives only. Feminism focuses on special treatment based on gender. how are either of these things fair or reasonable? Such movements can't help but encourage intolerance (eg. the attack on Matt Taylor). Hence, they should be denounced in the same way we denounce the KKK.

Karunamon 11y ago

After having read the talk pages and controversies surrounding a number of politically charged wiki articles, I could not in good faith use them as a source to determine which political groups have a positive or negative influence. I'm starting to think disjoint, disorganized movements like BLM are a bad idea just from an organizational standpoint. It means your message can't be controlled, it means its up to each individual member what the groups means, and worst of all, It takes just one idiot doing something wrong before the whole movement is permanently tainted - mostly because the majority of people will not exercise the same benefit of the doubt you just did.

xuegbibfj 11y ago
That's a good point. We should let the elites handle everything because they have our best interests at heart and are much more intelligent than us. We can't trust "regular people" with political discourse.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  I'm confused. Where did you get the idea "elites" need to handle everything? Parent simply stated unorganized groups with a non-unified message allows a single member to ruin the entire movement. So where do "elites" come into play? Edit: oh I see your account was created 15 minutes ago to just post bullshit. Sigh.
  - phillc73 11y ago
    I think he got the idea that the "elites" need to handle everything, through having a sense of sarcasm.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      It's deleted now but at the time when I read it it didn't appear sarcastic at all. I thought I was usually good at figuring out sarcasm on the internet so I'm going to blame their terrible ability to express it (if that was the case). :)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rustynails 11y ago

Any movement that focuses on one section of society (KKK, feminism) inevitably drives intolerance. Just ask Matt Taylor who was crucified by feminists for wearing a shirt designed by a woman. It is one of many examples that highlights why BLM and feminism are flawed in the same way. EFA should only promote groups who represent everyone equally. You wouldn't accept the KKK, why accept others who encourage equivalent prejudices.

NotOscarWilde 11y ago
> Any movement that focuses on one section of society (KKK, feminism) inevitably drives intolerance. If a section of society is marginalized and persecuted in the society as a whole, a movement to equalize things is bound to crop up. By your argument, you would prefer the African-American civil rights movement never to have existed, is that correct? As a sidenote, I would like to remark that many feminists would like to define feminism as the struggle to end sexism for everybody. Consider this quote by bell hooks: "In Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, I suggest that defining feminism broadly as “a movement to end sexism and sexist oppression” would enable us to have a common political goal…Sharing a common goal does not imply that women and men will not have radically divergent perspectives on how that goal might be reached."
- iza 11y ago
  (devil's advocate) Arguably feminism has already succeeded in achieving equality by the end of the second wave. Although some feminists may indeed fight to end sexism for everybody, feminism still bears the implicit assumption that women are currently disadvantaged.

mtgx 11y ago

It reminds me of how Occupy was discredited: "They're just thugs and lazy people who don't want to work...and they're occupying our parks, for crying out loud!" Because why would anyone other than thugs and lazy people who don't want to work ever protest Wall Street?

studentrob 11y ago

For sure, thoigh some of them advocate violence and separatism, and at some points people with such views had a lot of followers, kind of like the Trump followers who are filled with fear of Muslims. Note that the BLM logo is the black panther logo, and they were largely viewed as separatists. I'm all for the movement when it is peaceful and respectful of American values, but when people who advocate having their own space start having a louder voice, then I lose interest.

dreta 11y ago

The Wikipedia is the absolute last place you should ever visit to read up on political movements. It’s a biased source. If you say you support a particular movement, you’re taking on the whole baggage it brings. If you don’t want the whole baggage then don’t name names.

jordigh 11y ago
> It’s a biased source. Every source is biased. Wikipedia tries harder to be less biased. And hey, you can frequently change the bias if you just go and edit the article yourself. I suppose I should read Wikipedia and Conservapedia and take the average of the two to get closer to the truth? :-)