Let’s hope that those people will pay sufficient attention to who was actually committing how much of the arson and looting, and why. For example:
Several right-wing groups and “Boogaloo”-type militants have been deliberately inciting chaos during these protests and trusting that queasy quasi-racists in those middle-class suburbs will gullibly assume that all of it was the fault of those scary urban black people and demonic anarchists. Unfortunately, their strategy seems to be working.
Do you believe it’s true? Because your whole post is made up nonsense.
How did you manage to convince yourself that BLM is the cause of violence when the opposite is true?
the view from the overton window is delicious.
Kimstu quoted:
An ‘ANTIFA’ Twitter account that called for looting ‘white hoods’ was actually run by white nationalist group Identity Evropa […]
Yet we see:
Is there ANY reason whatsoever to link ‘Antifa’ to the looting or violence? Or is this meme just some right-wingers’ wet dream?
It’s easy to link looting or violence to ‘Antifa’ if anytime you see looting or violence, you say “There’s antifa again!”
Personally, I have little doubt that:
some of the rioting and looting was the fault of agitators who identify with Antifa or some other left-wing/anarchist movement(s);
some was the fault of people who started out as peaceful protestors and just lost their tempers and their self-control;
some was the fault of opportunistic locals and visitors who swarmed in to see what they could scavenge from the destruction; and
some was the fault of right-wing “Boogaloo” and white-nationalist agitators deliberately bent on promoting mayhem and chaos to further their agendas of government overthrow or Rahowa or some such bullshit.
But I have no way of knowing at present, and I don’t think anybody else does either, how much and which parts of the total criminal activity can be attributed to any of those contributors.
furt is bound and determined to get this wrong. Does that count as reason?
This, exactly. Too many people want to reduce the criminal activity to a single cause: they ant to say it’s all antifa, or all racist provocateurs, or all opportunists, or all anguish. Of course it’s a mixture of things, and as much as it might fit one’s ideology to focus on only one source, it oversimplifies the story and ignores the truth.
Where does Brown Lives Matter fit in?
You mean, in the general discussion of the BLM movement, as opposed to the present thread eddy (threaddy?) on participants in protest-related misbehavior? AFAICT, the “Brown Lives Matter” slogan, on the dangers posed to many Latinx and other POC by persistent systemic societal racism, is pretty closely aligned with “Black Lives Matter”. E.g., in this recent seminar series at the United Church of Christ’s Eden Theological Seminary:
Are you asking, what would be the response to somebody refusing to support the statement “Black Lives Matter” and instead insisting on replacing it with “Brown Lives Matter”, on the grounds that the latter includes the former, “black” being a subset of “brown”?
I can’t speak for BLM activists on that question, but my own feeling is that it comes across as the same sort of behavior we’ve been deprecating here. Namely, “I refuse to affirm the basic human value of this specified group of people, except insofar as those people constitute part of this broader group of people whose basic human value I am willing to affirm.”
I’ve been thinking about this issue in terms of how it appears to people who support using the ALM slogan instead of BLM, and what specifically is problematic about the superficially innocuous generalization of BLM to ALM.
For comparison, suppose you were talking about a different specific group of people, such as Internet trolls. Now, trolls are a well-known pain in the ass and nobody likes them, and it would be better if they weren’t trolls. But I guess we would all grudgingly concur that nonetheless trolls are human beings with the same human rights as other people.
Now, what would happen if some trolls came around with signs asking you to support the movement “Trolls’ Lives Matter”? (And frankly, I’m astonished that they haven’t, because it seems like a quintessentially trollish thing to do.) Me, I’d be somewhat reluctant to affirm that slogan—even though I do think that trolls have the same human rights as other people, since all lives matter—because it seems to imply that I don’t mind people being trolls.
Yes, all lives matter, but being a troll is still a bad thing, and I don’t want to sound as though I think it’s okay. Trolls’ lives matter, but only in spite of their being trolls.
Do you see how it can come across that way when you refuse to affirm the statement “Black Lives Matter” except insofar as it’s implied by the more general “All Lives Matter”? It sounds as though you’re conceding that black people do have human rights, but in spite of being black. You recognize that black people are human beings, but you refuse to affirm that in a way that suggests you think that being black is okay.
But take what you’re saying about “how it can come across” and “as it’s implied”. I’ve seen plenty of folks get accused of implying that Only Black Lives Matter; and I’ve then seen those folks patiently explain that, oh, no, don’t infer that; we’re not trying to imply that; I know that some people say it’s coming across like that, but I can assure you that (as you just said, twice, in the copy-and-pasted quote), yes, all lives matter, even though I’m emphasizing that Black Lives Matter.
Some people — some of them disingenuously; but some of them, I’m guessing, with perfect sincerity — have said that, when they hear Black Lives Matter, they wonder if the speaker is implying that All Lives Matter. Not me, you understand; I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt; but if somebody else, who wouldn’t give the benefit of the doubt, gets asked whether Black Lives Matter, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear them agree by specifying that, oh, hey, just to be clear: All Lives Matter.
ISTM that if you are actually trying to convey that you agree with the statement Black Lives Matter, you accomplish that by, you know, explicitly agreeing with it. Not by deflecting to an affirmation of a more general statement.
If I say to you “It’s a nice day out today” and you say “All days are nice”, you’re not exactly agreeing with the statement I made.
Kimstu my position may seem crass to you but a slogan is a marketing tool selling the idea of support for actions you want to see accomplished. Not an academic exercise. When a slogan requires a prolonged intellectual analysis and back and forth discussion to be understood by those who need to sold (and then is often not) then it is not a best slogan choice. It is not effective as a messaging tool outside of those who are already bought in. (Motivating turnout is good but not enough.)
But it is the slogan. That accepted, having it result in BLM supporters objecting to the people saying “all lives matter” moves it from a not super effective slogan for making that sale into a complete fail.
Would you dispute that there are white voters in communities across this nation who actually do believe that all lives, Black, brown, white, poor, rich, all matter, and who in the face of the Floyd video are very willing to sign on to the desperate need for systemic reforms of policing with much greater accountability, better training on avoiding excessive use of force, and more of a sense of serving us as opposed to viewing us as the enemy them, and who feel that is an issue not just for Blacks alone in this country but us all, them included?
Would you dispute that there are whites who feel that they are not very privileged in this society, who feel that society treats them as if their lives don’t matter, who may, may, be open to considering that racial inequality amplifies economic and educational inequalities but who are going to be less eager to support a movement even if it includes goals they endorse if it sounds as if it completely ignores their lived realities as being of any concern?
All Votes Matter. “Black Lives Matter” is the slogan and it must be respected as the slogan. The reality that profiling of Blacks occurs and that excessive force is used more against Black males than whites needs to be recognized. And advocacy for the needed structural and systemic reforms needs to be sold in ways that are inclusive to those who are needed allies. IF the trolls create a circumstance in which those specific whites feel that their being supporters and allies means accepting a premise that they and their real lived problems are undeserving of any empathy or recognition, then the trolls win, and you will have helped them win.
I saw this thread title and thought, “Oh, I wonder if this person is complaining about the far left’s reluctance to get behind Joe Biden, or how they make anyone who doesn’t agree with their policies completely the enemy, how they don’t understand consensus-building and compromise is necessary in politics, and how the the only reason the right has amassed so much power in this country that is not commensurate with American views on specific positions is that evangelicals will still support a philanderer, Libertarians will still vote for an authoritarian, Log Cabin Republicans will get behind Trump despite notoriously anti-gay Pence as his Veep. The right is terrible but they are smart enough to play the game and lefties don’t.”
That’s what I thought I’d see. Instead I see whining about cancel culture.
Yawn.
What gets me is the “Cops kill more white people than black people!” responses to Black Lives Matter. As if this is supposed to make it OK?? If anything, you should be more angry with the police than we are!
Except that it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near a “complete fail”:
ISTM that a pretty significant majority of people already do understand the problems BLM is trying to address, and the slogan does resonate with them. I’m just not sure how much additional effective “selling” of the slogan is truly going to be accomplished by solicitously courting people who are really digging in their heels on the “say ALM but refuse to say BLM” stance.
There are evidently lots of voters, most especially younger voters, who already get how the obstinate “say ALM but refuse to say BLM” stance comes across as grudging and unsupportive. Maybe it will ultimately be a more effective “selling” point just to let the cluelessness, genuine or feigned, of some other voters expose itself for what it is.
“Those people shouldn’t be saying Black Lives Matter, they should be saying All Lives Matter!” “OK boomer.” 
Huh?
The issue at hand is not the movement or the cause and specifically it is not anybody saying “people shouldn’t be saying Black Lives Matter, they should be saying All Lives Matter!”. (Does anyone say that?) It is the tactic of condemning those who say “All Lives Matter.” That specific tactic.
Condemning anyone who says “Refuse to say Black Lives Matter!” is a no-lose thing to do. And you hear that as the implied message. But that is not what is being actually said, even if you hear it implied, even if that is what the trolls are baiting you to hear and to respond to. They are instead baiting you to condemn the sentiment that all lives matter, a sentiment that most reasonable people agree with, at least explicitly. And you are obliging.
Over Trump’s presidency there has been a huge rise in explicit tactics by the alt-Right empowered by the divider-in-chief. This specific poll highlighted in the article reflects the public mood in response to the extreme and graphic proof contained within the Floyd video and Trump’s horrific responses to it. That there are any who do not recognize that racism is a problem with it so explicitly on display and sold by the Trump presidency is incredible and sad.
Note from the article
Trump is not saying all lives matter. Trump is saying Black lives don’t matter, in words and deeds.
You want to move those disgusted independents, the disappointed seniors, from transient Trump disapproval to solid support of the policies that deliver real change. You want the tent to include them. And to get those who are in the tent out actually voting at local levels and on up for those who will push for the changes. Objecting to a sportscaster tweeting that all lives matter does not reform systems.
Is anybody really employing this as a “tactic”, though? Certainly it didn’t seem to me that the responses to Grant Napear were “tactical”. He wrote what he wrote, some of his Twitter correspondents rolled their eyes and expressed irritation with it, and a lot of other Twitter followers also got irritated about it. Are you saying that there ought to be some kind of organized clampdown on people expressing their irritation with that?
Would you say that “Finger lickin’ good” was a bad slogan for KFC, because vegans make dishonest aspersions about it?
BLM does not need any intellectual exercise, much less prolonged to understand. he fact that people question it, and it has to be explained over and over is not a detraction from the slogan, is is a detraction from those who insist that their interpretation of someone else’s slogan is the proper one. The back and forth is them saying, “This is what you mean.” and the BLM supporters simply saying, “No, it is not.”
“All lives matter” was specifically created by people who were not against the slogan “Black Lives Matter” but against the very concept itself. By tearing at the slogan, they tear down the movement, and that is their goal. No matter the slogan, they would be against it, and coming up with a way to be upset that it wasn’t all about them.
You saw it with gay rights, “What, so gays get special rights?” Anytime a group of people tries to assert their right to be treated equally, those who would rather not see that will attack, and it will not matter what the slogan is, they will object to the fact that it doesn’t include them.
That there is some number of white voters that are confused by this back and forth is unfortunate, but it is not the fault of the BLM proponents. It is entirely the fault of those who deliberately confuse the issue with the goal of undermining support for the movement.
Do you have a slogan in mind, one that you are sure could not be co-oped and questioned by those who are looking to prevent the goals? If so, put it out there, it may be very useful. But I doubt that any of us are clever enough to come up with something that they would not find a way to insist is objectionable.