4 ms·

I wish I could select the text to quote on iOS but I can't. However, there's a core premise of the article that I disagree with: it is not more acceptable to e

by duaneb 10y ago

I wish I could select the text to quote on iOS but I can't. However, there's a core premise of the article that I disagree with: it is not more acceptable to emphasize your identity as a minority. People emphasize identity as a white, as male, as part of their class every day. People are OBLIGATED to make an effort to embrace or at least accept and work with minority cultures, but are not restricted from emphasizing or being proud of their own. I certainly know a few Germans and Scandinavian Americans who have no issues celebrating their heritage non-offensively. I think the same applies to sexuality. Cis people have no issues expressing their identity as cis daily. To draw a parallel to the black lives matter movement, the reason #AllLivesMatter is offensive is not because all lives DONT matter, but because it negates the efforts of other people to raise awareness of minority issues. Similarly, nobody is going to give you shit for being cis unless you do some thing like try to start a heterosexual pride day--that's just the norm, EVERY day is heterosexual pride day. You can be joyful of your sexuality daily and express how much you enjoy it to the world. It's called pop music! Secondly, there was a lot of talk about a class binary. This isn't really a thing outside of dialectical materialism, to my knowledge, and the rhetoric about the 1% vs the 99%. Neither of those describe a social class structure but certain interesting economic behaviors characteristic of the times in question. A revolution is inherently binary; a class queer economic revolution isn't an idea that makes sense. Third, the mention of the end of sexual reproduction was... Weird. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything but the end of the male sex thought experiment. Certainly not related to anything happening today. At this point, I stopped reading. Some sources or building on other material would be helpful to see the conclusions in an incremental manner; this reads as a manic rant by a young student who reads philosophy but neglected anything about the topic in question.

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
> the reason #AllLivesMatter is offensive is not because all lives DONT matter I'm not sure I agree with that wording. To be clear: * No lives matter outside the narrow scope of humanity. The universe is an uncaring void. In the context of the universe, no lives matter. * Within the context of human society, all lives should matter. Fairness requires a certain amount of equality and equity.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Yes, the wording is a little weird in my post. But nobody has argued that all lives don't matter. Nobody has argued that black lives matter more than any other lives. It is not the statement itself that is offensive, it is the hashtag used to deny systemic racism by shouting over people attempting to raise visibility to a minority cause--often unarmed black men being brutalized or shot and killed by police. It's like someone gets hurt, and then you start talking about how everyone gets hurt, too, instead of giving the person help. Perhaps there are better ways to communicate the initial half but I haven't been able to figure out a better brand off the top of my head. Edit: also I think the reason the #AllLivesMatter movement has been so successful is because who wouldn't agree with that statement? You must think not all lives matter! Which is a little silly and, I think, is intended as self-reassurance that these #AllLivesMatter proponents can self-love as the #BlackLivesMatter movement self-loves.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
eximius 10y ago
See, I'd have no problem with the BlackLivesMatter movement except that they denounce productive protests by their own members for not being disruptive. There was a protest that turned into a BBQ with the protesters and police and the movement denounced it as against their principles. They seem to only want to be mad at police and not fix things. They only barely aren't advocating black supremacy in that their lives matter more. Its just not a good movement (in practice).
- duaneb 10y ago
  It is not a centrally organized movement. > They seem to only want to be mad at police and not fix things. Well, having some sort of change is the point of the movement. Cookouts aren't going to discourage the eager use of lethal force, even if they are good at reducing tension in the community. I can't speak further on that without understanding to which city's movement you're referring.
  - eximius 10y ago
    I was under the impression it had a central group and had an official platform that chartered other groups. Also, you don't use lethal force on people you aren't afraid of (somewhat of a generalization here). Cookouts DO help. Anyway, I'm speaking mostly from headlines and not research or IRL experience. I probably shouldn't do that.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      Personally I know quite a few BLM members, and the overall opinion was joy at hearing about the cookout (I've heard of at least two). Everyone wants good relations with police because yes, they do make life better for the community. That's pretty clear. But again, the movement and attitudes vary from city to city and there's a lot of posturing for politics. I think there's a fear that there will be a culture change (which IS positive, I think we can all agree) without changes to the underlying problems that enable police brutality without consequence: lack of civilian oversight, the fraternity order of police, the emphasis of lethal force in split-second decision making. It makes me sick there have been no convictions thus far, and that needs to change before people can trust the police to, well, police themselves. There's also a huge overlap with gun violence. That's a topic I won't touch here with a ten foot pole due to its complexity.

by duaneb 10y ago

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago

> the reason #AllLivesMatter is offensive is not because all lives DONT matter I'm not sure I agree with that wording. To be clear: * No lives matter outside the narrow scope of humanity. The universe is an uncaring void. In the context of the universe, no lives matter. * Within the context of human society, all lives should matter. Fairness requires a certain amount of equality and equity.

duaneb 10y ago
Yes, the wording is a little weird in my post. But nobody has argued that all lives don't matter. Nobody has argued that black lives matter more than any other lives. It is not the statement itself that is offensive, it is the hashtag used to deny systemic racism by shouting over people attempting to raise visibility to a minority cause--often unarmed black men being brutalized or shot and killed by police. It's like someone gets hurt, and then you start talking about how everyone gets hurt, too, instead of giving the person help. Perhaps there are better ways to communicate the initial half but I haven't been able to figure out a better brand off the top of my head. Edit: also I think the reason the #AllLivesMatter movement has been so successful is because who wouldn't agree with that statement? You must think not all lives matter! Which is a little silly and, I think, is intended as self-reassurance that these #AllLivesMatter proponents can self-love as the #BlackLivesMatter movement self-loves.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

eximius 10y ago

See, I'd have no problem with the BlackLivesMatter movement except that they denounce productive protests by their own members for not being disruptive. There was a protest that turned into a BBQ with the protesters and police and the movement denounced it as against their principles. They seem to only want to be mad at police and not fix things. They only barely aren't advocating black supremacy in that their lives matter more. Its just not a good movement (in practice).

duaneb 10y ago
It is not a centrally organized movement. > They seem to only want to be mad at police and not fix things. Well, having some sort of change is the point of the movement. Cookouts aren't going to discourage the eager use of lethal force, even if they are good at reducing tension in the community. I can't speak further on that without understanding to which city's movement you're referring.
- eximius 10y ago
  I was under the impression it had a central group and had an official platform that chartered other groups. Also, you don't use lethal force on people you aren't afraid of (somewhat of a generalization here). Cookouts DO help. Anyway, I'm speaking mostly from headlines and not research or IRL experience. I probably shouldn't do that.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Personally I know quite a few BLM members, and the overall opinion was joy at hearing about the cookout (I've heard of at least two). Everyone wants good relations with police because yes, they do make life better for the community. That's pretty clear. But again, the movement and attitudes vary from city to city and there's a lot of posturing for politics. I think there's a fear that there will be a culture change (which IS positive, I think we can all agree) without changes to the underlying problems that enable police brutality without consequence: lack of civilian oversight, the fraternity order of police, the emphasis of lethal force in split-second decision making. It makes me sick there have been no convictions thus far, and that needs to change before people can trust the police to, well, police themselves. There's also a huge overlap with gun violence. That's a topic I won't touch here with a ten foot pole due to its complexity.