3 ms·

I get none of those reactions. BLM are simply asking for equal treatment, not special treatment. Considering the "all lives matter" movement, if you can call it

I get none of those reactions. BLM are simply asking for equal treatment, not special treatment. Considering the "all lives matter" movement, if you can call it that, is more of a spiteful and petty response to BLM, I'm not sure it's a great example. A movement does not need to devolve into "us v. them" and cause those kind of responses you list. The only reason BLM would be offensive and cause those reactions is if this statement is offensive to your being -- black people having equal rights as white people. The "black lives matter" movement is a great example of a movement being required because they have been shut out of a "community" that already exists. That community being their actual community they live in. The community is the problem. All those things you have listed -- fear, disgust, resentment, contempt, despair -- are things black people have experienced against them at the hands of our government/police and that is why BLM exists, and that is why a movement is needed to change the community. Just like the civil rights movement, which is not over. I agree many movements do not have clear goals, but that often speaks to their poor leadership (e.g. occupy wall street), not a problem of movements in general or their grievances. Look at the civil rights movement. I think movements often arrive because the community has failed them. I would be interesting in hearing more practical examples of how a community would better solve some of these problems (or historical 20th century problems) over a movement, or what that distinction truly is or means. Definitely curious!

hosh 9y ago
> The only reason BLM would be offensive and cause those reactions is if this statement is offensive to your being -- black people having equal rights as white people. Yes, that's the obvious response. There is also the other responses: that you can live with white people without fear, resentment, anger, disgust, or despair. Like being able to go onto a bus and not have judgements made on you that you're dangerous or seeing fear flicker in white people's faces, and in turn, put on a blank mask because to get angry will confirm all those fears. (Disclaimer: I'm not black; I people-watch a lot). There's a mirroring effect that happens where you don't know whose fear it is, or whose fear "started" it. > I would be interesting in hearing more practical examples of how a community would better solve some of these problems (or historical 20th century problems) over a movement, or what that distinction truly is or means. Definitely curious! I would too. This is the first time I am trying out these ideas outside my circle of friends, so I'm still working out concrete examples and brainstorming with others. That was why my attempt here started with an empathy-visualization exercise to test the waters. Here's another test: in my yuppie neighborhood I live in within metro Phoenix (which isn't my first choice, but family circumstances ... ) people get very passionate about homeless people on Next Door. There are vocal people who wants to kick them out and a smaller, but just as vocal group that talks about what it is like to be homeless. Some people want to call the cops. Some people reported a soup kitchen as a homeless hangout. (There _are_ people who case homes, or things like use card skimmers to steal credit cards, or try to arrange for a busted tire in order to corner a woman driving alone; it isn't as if this place was crime-free either). Using this frame about community, we can ask these questions: are homeless and vagrants a part of this local community or not? Can you see yourself living with them? Or do you feel disgust and fear? It's best to test for emotional reactions where your personal body and your family -- especially your children -- may actually be under threat. (In the esoteric martial arts, we call this "heart living under the sword": can you _really_ maintain loving-kindness even in face of threat, danger, and aggression?)
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 9y ago
  I don't think movements and communities are mutually exclusive, which you seem to imply (or i'm still misunderstanding). In fact, I would say the movements are often responsible for invigorating and restoring/refurbishing a community. The Lutherans, despite forking from Catholicism, actually also improved Catholicism. The civil rights movement made America better, but it was inherently adversarial because at some point you're going to have to say "hey i'm not being treated as fair as you are!" There is no way to fix a community without identifying its warts. It's like any problem, how do you solve it unless you call it out and identify it and agree mutually that it is a problem? We definitely need better communities, especially as religion becomes less popular in America and that was the traditional community before. Stable life-long jobs and unions are also leaving which are another form of secular community. So people are definitely more isolated. And if we are isolated from people who are different than us, including black people, it will make these kind of fears more pronounced as we often fear the unknown or give in to the loudest stereotypes. I also live in a yuppie neighborhood, in Denver, which has one of the highest homeless rates in the country. My view on the homeless is that I really don't mind them as a group, but some of them are trouble, just like some non-homeless people are trouble. Never had a violent interaction with a "homeless person" or felt scared by the existence of homeless people. The homeless are part of my community, they live in my community. They are people...without homes, but they are still humans. So, you ask whether you can maintain loving kindness in the face of threat/danger/aggression? I'm saying there is no such thing that exists on a daily basis. I don't fear any homeless person unless they approach me in a way that says they mean harm to me personally. I think it's important for Americans to see the homeless in our neighborhoods, ESPECIALLY us yuppies, so that we can be reminded of what a shameful failure it is that the richest country in the world still has a homeless problem this bad. And we can privatize and segregate ourselves as much as possible in our homes and parks to shield us from it, but we can't eject homeless people from a city that we have to share.
  - hosh 9y ago
    Movements and communities are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but there are often movements which polarizes or radicalizes. Because we lost our sense of community (due to modernism), movements today generally do not try to build communities. The split between Lutherans and Catholicism is not a good example of community building. That is an example of exchanges of ideologies and dogma, not really about the exchanges of people and community. A slightly better example might be when my friend brought a group of Thai Theraveda Buddhist monks to visit a colony of Trappist monks outside of Atlanta. They got into the sanctuary and were amazed by the acoustics. The Buddhist monks tried out some chants and then Trappist monks performed some of their own chants. They could do that despite differences in philosophy because there was a sense of ultimately belonging to the greatest whole. It is also not a good example because monks are not ordinary people. Have you read any of the philosophies about modernism? I think you're conflating religions with the traditional modes. Philosopher Ken Wilbur has some great stuff to say about this. One of the characteristics of traditional, pre-modern communities has to do with this idea of the Great Chain of Being. The name is specific to Western ideas, but the generalization of the "Great Chain of Being" covers a lot of ground, even into Eastern philosophies as well as indigenous, tribal cultures. It is this knowing that you are part of a greater whole (and that greater whole is part of an even larger greater whole, and that greater whole is a part of a larger greater whole). Religions used to provide that sense of knowing where you belong -- but so did tribal cultures without organized religions. This sense of belonging used to be normative and now it is not. Stable, long-term jobs and unions were imperfect substitutes for what modernism broke. Our hyper-connectedness has exacerbated that separation. On Facebook, for example, people seek out other like-minded people, not to connect (like you were saying in your homeless example), but more to reinforce psychological ego (the beliefs, narratives, and identities a person develops for a false sense of self). Connection requires opening up, of allowing the social masks to be vulnerable, of mutual impact and sharing. That generally does not happen on Facebook (instagram/snapchat/etc). > So, you ask whether you can maintain loving kindness in the face of threat/danger/aggression? I'm saying there is no such thing that exists on a daily basis. I don't fear any homeless person unless they approach me in a way that says they mean harm to me personally. Like you, I generally don't fear the homeless. When I lived in Seattle, there were many that lived out in the neighborhood I lived at, more easily found there than in Phoenix. (You have to hide from the sun in Phoenix). However, I think you live in a very narrow, and sheltered view. There are places in the world where people do live in fear, on a daily basis. My point is exactly that: threats and aggression to someone's life often brings them much closer to ugly parts of themselves. There are not many people in the world who can actually maintain loving-kindness in face of existential threats. While it is possible, generally, ideals tend to get thrown out the window when the pressure is on and shit hits the fan. > I think it's important for Americans to see the homeless in our neighborhoods, ESPECIALLY us yuppies, so that we can be reminded of what a shameful failure it is that the richest country in the world still has a homeless problem this bad. Americans living in rural areas also have it bad, but are not exactly "homeless". One of the cherished ideals is this idea of self-reliance. From their perspectives, all those city folks are crazy. And rural folks would not see themselves as being a part of the richest country in the world. Much of that wealth-building had passed them by too. Seeing laws and government policies that favor disadvantaged groups -- who are largely city-dwellers, must rub 'em the wrong way in a bad way.

hosh 9y ago

> The only reason BLM would be offensive and cause those reactions is if this statement is offensive to your being -- black people having equal rights as white people. Yes, that's the obvious response. There is also the other responses: that you can live with white people without fear, resentment, anger, disgust, or despair. Like being able to go onto a bus and not have judgements made on you that you're dangerous or seeing fear flicker in white people's faces, and in turn, put on a blank mask because to get angry will confirm all those fears. (Disclaimer: I'm not black; I people-watch a lot). There's a mirroring effect that happens where you don't know whose fear it is, or whose fear "started" it. > I would be interesting in hearing more practical examples of how a community would better solve some of these problems (or historical 20th century problems) over a movement, or what that distinction truly is or means. Definitely curious! I would too. This is the first time I am trying out these ideas outside my circle of friends, so I'm still working out concrete examples and brainstorming with others. That was why my attempt here started with an empathy-visualization exercise to test the waters. Here's another test: in my yuppie neighborhood I live in within metro Phoenix (which isn't my first choice, but family circumstances ... ) people get very passionate about homeless people on Next Door. There are vocal people who wants to kick them out and a smaller, but just as vocal group that talks about what it is like to be homeless. Some people want to call the cops. Some people reported a soup kitchen as a homeless hangout. (There _are_ people who case homes, or things like use card skimmers to steal credit cards, or try to arrange for a busted tire in order to corner a woman driving alone; it isn't as if this place was crime-free either). Using this frame about community, we can ask these questions: are homeless and vagrants a part of this local community or not? Can you see yourself living with them? Or do you feel disgust and fear? It's best to test for emotional reactions where your personal body and your family -- especially your children -- may actually be under threat. (In the esoteric martial arts, we call this "heart living under the sword": can you _really_ maintain loving-kindness even in face of threat, danger, and aggression?)

eeeeeeeeeeeee 9y ago
I don't think movements and communities are mutually exclusive, which you seem to imply (or i'm still misunderstanding). In fact, I would say the movements are often responsible for invigorating and restoring/refurbishing a community. The Lutherans, despite forking from Catholicism, actually also improved Catholicism. The civil rights movement made America better, but it was inherently adversarial because at some point you're going to have to say "hey i'm not being treated as fair as you are!" There is no way to fix a community without identifying its warts. It's like any problem, how do you solve it unless you call it out and identify it and agree mutually that it is a problem? We definitely need better communities, especially as religion becomes less popular in America and that was the traditional community before. Stable life-long jobs and unions are also leaving which are another form of secular community. So people are definitely more isolated. And if we are isolated from people who are different than us, including black people, it will make these kind of fears more pronounced as we often fear the unknown or give in to the loudest stereotypes. I also live in a yuppie neighborhood, in Denver, which has one of the highest homeless rates in the country. My view on the homeless is that I really don't mind them as a group, but some of them are trouble, just like some non-homeless people are trouble. Never had a violent interaction with a "homeless person" or felt scared by the existence of homeless people. The homeless are part of my community, they live in my community. They are people...without homes, but they are still humans. So, you ask whether you can maintain loving kindness in the face of threat/danger/aggression? I'm saying there is no such thing that exists on a daily basis. I don't fear any homeless person unless they approach me in a way that says they mean harm to me personally. I think it's important for Americans to see the homeless in our neighborhoods, ESPECIALLY us yuppies, so that we can be reminded of what a shameful failure it is that the richest country in the world still has a homeless problem this bad. And we can privatize and segregate ourselves as much as possible in our homes and parks to shield us from it, but we can't eject homeless people from a city that we have to share.
- hosh 9y ago
  Movements and communities are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but there are often movements which polarizes or radicalizes. Because we lost our sense of community (due to modernism), movements today generally do not try to build communities. The split between Lutherans and Catholicism is not a good example of community building. That is an example of exchanges of ideologies and dogma, not really about the exchanges of people and community. A slightly better example might be when my friend brought a group of Thai Theraveda Buddhist monks to visit a colony of Trappist monks outside of Atlanta. They got into the sanctuary and were amazed by the acoustics. The Buddhist monks tried out some chants and then Trappist monks performed some of their own chants. They could do that despite differences in philosophy because there was a sense of ultimately belonging to the greatest whole. It is also not a good example because monks are not ordinary people. Have you read any of the philosophies about modernism? I think you're conflating religions with the traditional modes. Philosopher Ken Wilbur has some great stuff to say about this. One of the characteristics of traditional, pre-modern communities has to do with this idea of the Great Chain of Being. The name is specific to Western ideas, but the generalization of the "Great Chain of Being" covers a lot of ground, even into Eastern philosophies as well as indigenous, tribal cultures. It is this knowing that you are part of a greater whole (and that greater whole is part of an even larger greater whole, and that greater whole is a part of a larger greater whole). Religions used to provide that sense of knowing where you belong -- but so did tribal cultures without organized religions. This sense of belonging used to be normative and now it is not. Stable, long-term jobs and unions were imperfect substitutes for what modernism broke. Our hyper-connectedness has exacerbated that separation. On Facebook, for example, people seek out other like-minded people, not to connect (like you were saying in your homeless example), but more to reinforce psychological ego (the beliefs, narratives, and identities a person develops for a false sense of self). Connection requires opening up, of allowing the social masks to be vulnerable, of mutual impact and sharing. That generally does not happen on Facebook (instagram/snapchat/etc). > So, you ask whether you can maintain loving kindness in the face of threat/danger/aggression? I'm saying there is no such thing that exists on a daily basis. I don't fear any homeless person unless they approach me in a way that says they mean harm to me personally. Like you, I generally don't fear the homeless. When I lived in Seattle, there were many that lived out in the neighborhood I lived at, more easily found there than in Phoenix. (You have to hide from the sun in Phoenix). However, I think you live in a very narrow, and sheltered view. There are places in the world where people do live in fear, on a daily basis. My point is exactly that: threats and aggression to someone's life often brings them much closer to ugly parts of themselves. There are not many people in the world who can actually maintain loving-kindness in face of existential threats. While it is possible, generally, ideals tend to get thrown out the window when the pressure is on and shit hits the fan. > I think it's important for Americans to see the homeless in our neighborhoods, ESPECIALLY us yuppies, so that we can be reminded of what a shameful failure it is that the richest country in the world still has a homeless problem this bad. Americans living in rural areas also have it bad, but are not exactly "homeless". One of the cherished ideals is this idea of self-reliance. From their perspectives, all those city folks are crazy. And rural folks would not see themselves as being a part of the richest country in the world. Much of that wealth-building had passed them by too. Seeing laws and government policies that favor disadvantaged groups -- who are largely city-dwellers, must rub 'em the wrong way in a bad way.