Why I, a liberal, disagree with the BML movement

[fireflygmf]

I was recently replying to someone else in another thread that became polluted in racial arguments where none had been brought up initially. While replying, I re-read what I had wrote and found it to be concise enough that I think it summarizes my problems with wokeness in general and BML in particular, (below is paraphrased).

I assume that others like me are tired of racial obsession. Some of us don't need or want to place any emphasis on a person's race as any special qualifier for different treatment, because we see each other as people. Some people we like, because we like how they think and behave, some people we grow tired of because of their antics. Long live MLK! We're all basically the same, why is this so hard to understand?

There is of course the alternative, where we focus primarily on insignificant differences and place enormous importance on that, and start dividing each other on that basis, to demonize the other without regard for who they are beyond their skin colour. I wonder if we can find any examples of the outcomes of this type of thinking in history?

I'd consider carefully what far left activist are trying to achieve and the manner in which they are trying to achieve it. It's for these reasons I reject the BLM movement as a destructive, divisive movement.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Its BLM ...

 

[digitusmedius]

Its BLM ...

Kinda blew his cover right off the bat. I love it when these rightwingers pretend to be "liberals" phonies and out themselves. Saves us a lot of time.

 

[fireflygmf]

Its BLM ...

Thanks, I typed it twice but didn't even notice. My position still stands despite the typo.

 

[digitusmedius]

My position still stands despite the typo.

Yes, you were pegged immediately as a phony and that still stands.

 

[fireflygmf]

Kinda blew his cover right off the bat. I love it when these phonies out themselves. Saves us a lot of time.

I'd invite you to read my post history, I'm liberal on most positions. Also, trying to discredit my character doesn't invalidate my argument. I'd be interested in actual rebuttals to my point.

 

[lwf]

I was recently replying to someone else in another thread that became polluted in racial arguments where none had been brought up initially. While replying, I re-read what I had wrote and found it to be concise enough that I think it summarizes my problems with wokeness in general and BML in particular, (below is paraphrased).

I assume that others like me are tired of racial obsession. Some of us don't need or want to place any emphasis on a person's race as any special qualifier for different treatment, because we see each other as people. Some people we like, because we like how they think and behave, some people we grow tired of because of their antics. Long live MLK! We're all basically the same, why is this so hard to understand?

There is of course the alternative, where we focus primarily on insignificant differences and place enormous importance on that, and start dividing each other on that basis, to demonize the other without regard for who they are beyond their skin colour. I wonder if we can find any examples of the outcomes of this type of thinking in history?

I'd consider carefully what far left activist are trying to achieve and the manner in which they are trying to achieve it. It's for these reasons I reject the BLM movement as a destructive, divisive movement.

You say you disagree with BLM, but your argument is the same as theirs: Race should not be a consideration at all. The only difference is: You assume that it wasn't until BLM made it a factor. The reality is: BLM is reminding you that race is still a factor for racial minorities in many places in America whether you think it should be or not. They are pointing out that an unacceptable number of people, many of whom are in positions of power, still don't share your idealistic view of race, and that this generation does not have the tolerance for this that previous generations had.

 

[fireflygmf]

Yes, you were pegged immediately as a phony and that still stands.

False. I was accused, not proven.

 

[diz]

Thanks, I typed it twice but didn't even notice. My position still stands despite the typo.

Well then, I'm sure that will put a stop to the personal attacks.

We can all look forward to the local progressives engaging on the actual topic of the thread now.

 

[Drowning Man]

I was recently replying to someone else in another thread that became polluted in racial arguments where none had been brought up initially. While replying, I re-read what I had wrote and found it to be concise enough that I think it summarizes my problems with wokeness in general and BML in particular, (below is paraphrased).

I assume that others like me are tired of racial obsession. Some of us don't need or want to place any emphasis on a person's race as any special qualifier for different treatment, because we see each other as people. Some people we like, because we like how they think and behave, some people we grow tired of because of their antics. Long live MLK! We're all basically the same, why is this so hard to understand?

There is of course the alternative, where we focus primarily on insignificant differences and place enormous importance on that, and start dividing each other on that basis, to demonize the other without regard for who they are beyond their skin colour. I wonder if we can find any examples of the outcomes of this type of thinking in history?

I'd consider carefully what far left activist are trying to achieve and the manner in which they are trying to achieve it. It's for these reasons I reject the BLM movement as a destructive, divisive movement.

It's very convenient to ignore race. I'm sure you're comforted by your beliefs.

I challenge you to read, "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander.

 

[digitusmedius]

I'd invite you to read my post history, I'm liberal on most positions. Also, trying to discredit my character doesn't invalidate my argument. I'd be interested in actual rebuttals to my point.

Give it up. We see your type every five minutes on this site. Here's the rebuttal: BLM is a non-violent movement. The violence has been inflicted on it and other elements: some from rightwing and/or anarchist agitators who come to the peaceful protests and marches and many instances of the police deliberately provoking it*. And it only takes a couple of them to do it. Any true liberal would know these facts.

How US police used military tactics to turn peaceful protests violent | WIRED UK

 

[fireflygmf]

You say you disagree with BLM, but your argument is the same as theirs: Race should not be a consideration at all. The only difference is: You assume that it wasn't until BLM made it a factor. The reality is: BLM is reminding you that race is still a factor for racial minorities in many places in America whether you think it should be or not. They are pointing out that an unacceptable number of people, many of whom are in positions of power, still don't share your idealistic view of race, and that this generation does not have the tolerance for this that previous generations had.

Thanks for your considered response. I agree with you in that there are problems, but I've become convinced that these tactics further divide rather than unite, I suppose that's my main fear.

 

[Drowning Man]

Thanks for your considered response. I agree with you in that there are problems, but I've become convinced that these tactics further divide rather than unite, I suppose that's my main fear.

Ignoring the problems is what has divided us.

 

[americanwoman]

I could care less about anyone else's "movement" or their interpretation of anything. Black lives matter to me - period.

 

[Grim17]

I'd invite you to read my post history, I'm liberal on most positions. Also, trying to discredit my character doesn't invalidate my argument. I'd be interested in actual rebuttals to my point.

They have to resort to that tactic because they lose so often on battlefield of ideas. They're just playing the odds.

.

 

[Master Debator]

Thanks for your considered response. I agree with you in that there are problems, but I've become convinced that these tactics further divide rather than unite, I suppose that's my main fear.

What exactly is wrong with division? What's to unite between people who think BLM and people who don't? Maybe what we need is to do excise the gangrene that is white wing culture from the rest of America.

 

[digitusmedius]

False. I was accused, not proven.

We didn't have to prove anything. You outed yourself from the start.

 

[fireflygmf]

Give it up. We see your type every five minutes on this site. Here's the rebuttal: BLM is a non-violent movement. The violence has been inflicted on it and other elements: some from rightwing and/or anarchist agitators who come to the peaceful protests and marches and many instances of the police deliberately provoking it*. And it only takes a couple of them to do it. Any true liberal would know these facts.

How US police used military tactics to turn peaceful protests violent | WIRED UK

Trying to discredit my character doesn't invalidate my argument. I'd be interested in actual rebuttals to my point. Liberal to me is a dedication to truth, respect, reason and science. My take on BLM might be wrong, but supply an argument, as lwf did.

 

[Moot]

I was recently replying to someone else in another thread that became polluted in racial arguments where none had been brought up initially. While replying, I re-read what I had wrote and found it to be concise enough that I think it summarizes my problems with wokeness in general and BML in particular, (below is paraphrased).

I assume that others like me are tired of racial obsession. Some of us don't need or want to place any emphasis on a person's race as any special qualifier for different treatment, because we see each other as people. Some people we like, because we like how they think and behave, some people we grow tired of because of their antics. Long live MLK! We're all basically the same, why is this so hard to understand?

There is of course the alternative, where we focus primarily on insignificant differences and place enormous importance on that, and start dividing each other on that basis, to demonize the other without regard for who they are beyond their skin colour. I wonder if we can find any examples of the outcomes of this type of thinking in history?

I'd consider carefully what far left activist are trying to achieve and the manner in which they are trying to achieve it. It's for these reasons I reject the BLM movement as a destructive, divisive movement.

MLK said a lot of things....

".... Martin Luther King Jr. suggested that looting, rather than being an opportunistic means of acquisition, demonstrated a keen understanding of a political economy organized around repression, exploitation, and disenfranchisement: “Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.… Alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights.”....

In Defense of Destroying Property | The Nation​

 

[digitusmedius]

Well then, I'm sure that will put a stop to the personal attacks.

We can all look forward to the local progressives engaging on the actual topic of the thread now.

You mean the constant meme from the rightwing falsely charging BLM with being a violent organization?

 

[Visbek]

I assume that others like me are tired of racial obsession.

I'm tired of living in a racist society. Does that count?

Some of us don't need or want to place any emphasis on a person's race as any special qualifier for different treatment, because we see each other as people.

Uh... Not sure how to tell you this, but you're completely missing the point of the BLM protests.

They aren't asking for special treatment. They aren't saying "black lives matter more than anyone else's." They're trying to stop police brutality and the use of state force against blacks, which results in killing black people on the regular, often without any consequences for the officers. Their point is that society doesn't act like black lives matter.

Demanding justice is not asking for special favors.

Long live MLK! We're all basically the same, why is this so hard to understand?

Because society doesn't treat everyone the same. Structural racism results in damaging discrimination against minorities.

I mean, really. We live in a time when even the KKK doesn't want to admit that they are racist. It is only in the most obscure and anonymous corners of the Internet where people openly admit their racism. Merely saying "I'm not a racist" while discriminating against black people does not magically exculpate you from your racism.

By the way, Martin Luther King Jr was reviled by most whites when he was alive, primarily because he was advocating the same kinds of things as BLM is today. He did not approve of political violence, but it is highly likely he would have agreed with the goals of BLM -- as he said, "We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality."

So it kind of sounds like you aren't really up to speed on what BLM is demanding. Perhaps you should educate yourself on that point before saying you disagree, no...?

 

[digitusmedius]

Trying to discredit my character doesn't invalidate my argument

You succeeded doing that in your OP.

I'd be interested in actual rebuttals to my point. Liberal to me is a dedication to truth, respect, reason and science. My take on BLM might be wrong, but supply an argument, as lwf did.

Already done, by me and several others here. See, we're long used to rightwing phonies like you pretending to be "liberals." You've got a signature that's easily recognized.

 

[tres borrachos]

I was recently replying to someone else in another thread that became polluted in racial arguments where none had been brought up initially. While replying, I re-read what I had wrote and found it to be concise enough that I think it summarizes my problems with wokeness in general and BML in particular, (below is paraphrased).

I assume that others like me are tired of racial obsession. Some of us don't need or want to place any emphasis on a person's race as any special qualifier for different treatment, because we see each other as people. Some people we like, because we like how they think and behave, some people we grow tired of because of their antics. Long live MLK! We're all basically the same, why is this so hard to understand?

There is of course the alternative, where we focus primarily on insignificant differences and place enormous importance on that, and start dividing each other on that basis, to demonize the other without regard for who they are beyond their skin colour. I wonder if we can find any examples of the outcomes of this type of thinking in history?

I'd consider carefully what far left activist are trying to achieve and the manner in which they are trying to achieve it. It's for these reasons I reject the BLM movement as a destructive, divisive movement.

Is BML Canadian for something?

 

[Mr Person]

Some of us don't need or want to place any emphasis on a person's race as any special qualifier for different treatment, because we see each other as people.

Well, that's stupid race-baiting swill. Everyone knows that BLM just means "black lives matter just as much as anyone else's."


Note: didn't you have your lean as liberal just a moment ago?

 

[Xilnik]

Is BML Canadian for something?

Buy Me Love. I am against that too because I agree with The Beatles.