BLM, ALM, and your friends

[Politesse]

Perhaps you could provide an example of where Rhea has done this. I for one am extremely skeptical.

That statement wasn't directed at Rhea specifically but at the entire Zeitgeist, especially since the death of George Floyd.

Convenient. No calling you on what you say about the "Zeitgeist", I guess, but I hope you don't think your subjective approximation of "what the zeitgeist wants" is especially meaningful to anyone else.

 

[laughing dog]

Prove it.

I just did. I quoted the sentence I wrote, thus proving you failed to understand it.

Nah.

As to how well known #BLM was before Michael Brown, here is the Google Trends timeline for the term "Black Lives Matter".
Nothing registered until second half of 2014, when that "Gentle Giant" robbed the store.
View attachment 28195

I suggest you look at your data more closely. Almost nothing registered until mid 2015. It is a sign of real desperation if you are arguing that almost invisible blip means national recognition. But hey, if it makes you feel better, then fine. You have proven your pointless point.

 

[Derec]

I suggest you look at your data more closely. Almost nothing registered until mid 2015. It is a sign of real desperation if you are arguing that almost invisible blip means national recognition. But hey, if it makes you feel better, then fine. You have proven your pointless point.

I suggest you do too. National recognition in later 2014 does not mean that it did not get even more infamous in 2015 and 2016, buy there is no blips before Mike Brown robbed the store and got shot. That destroys your claim that the movement was well known since Trayvon.

 

[laughing dog]

I suggest you look at your data more closely. Almost nothing registered until mid 2015. It is a sign of real desperation if you are arguing that almost invisible blip means national recognition. But hey, if it makes you feel better, then fine. You have proven your pointless point.

I suggest you do too. National recognition in later 2014 does not mean that it did not get even more infamous in 2015 and 2016, buy there is no blips before Mike Brown robbed the store and got shot. That destroys your claim that the movement was well known since Trayvon.

No, it doesn't, unless you feel that Twitter is the only way to measure importance.

 

[Derec]

No, it doesn't, unless you feel that Twitter is the only way to measure importance.

Google trends, not Twitter. And obviously not the only way to measure how well known something is, but it's a pretty good metric. Can you offer me any evidence that #BLM was widely known before Mike Brown robbed that convenience store?

 

[ruby sparks]

Catchy, but I don't agree. Pride in heterosexuality, appeals to common humanity that conspicuously avoided specific mentions of certain groups, idealized masculinity at the expense of women, and celebration of white history all definitely existed. What changed is that until those resistance movements came into being, we just called all of those things "social studies" and "history". Because the marginalization of gays, women, blacks, and so forth was assumed, rather than stated outright. To this day, many people become outraged when history of non-whites is included in a history curriculum, or a female actor is cast in the principal role of a video game or film, or they see a gay on the TV who isn't acting like a minstrel. They don't think they're asking for something new, they just want things to go back to the "way things used to be". Where history meant white history without ever having to clarify that only Europeans were invited to the show, where appeals "the Common Man" only supposedly meant all of humanity, where "relationships" and "romance" exclusively referred to heterosexual relationships, where references to the virtues of the "virile" or machismo were always to go unquestioned.

Isn't that what the text in the posted image essentially says?

 

[Politesse]

Catchy, but I don't agree. Pride in heterosexuality, appeals to common humanity that conspicuously avoided specific mentions of certain groups, idealized masculinity at the expense of women, and celebration of white history all definitely existed. What changed is that until those resistance movements came into being, we just called all of those things "social studies" and "history". Because the marginalization of gays, women, blacks, and so forth was assumed, rather than stated outright. To this day, many people become outraged when history of non-whites is included in a history curriculum, or a female actor is cast in the principal role of a video game or film, or they see a gay on the TV who isn't acting like a minstrel. They don't think they're asking for something new, they just want things to go back to the "way things used to be". Where history meant white history without ever having to clarify that only Europeans were invited to the show, where appeals "the Common Man" only supposedly meant all of humanity, where "relationships" and "romance" exclusively referred to heterosexual relationships, where references to the virtues of the "virile" or machismo were always to go unquestioned.

Isn't that what the text in the posted image essentially says?

No, because the image suggests that pride in heterosexuality, white skin, masculinty, etc didn't exist before. It did. It definitely did. People worshiped at the foot of the structures of power, wrote novel after novel about the glories of what they considered love, painted murals and frescoes about the way they thought women should be treated, published scientific treatises about the ideal Man and just what his bone structure and hair curl ratio might be. It just wasn't questioned. And it didn't get the copy cat hash-tags until it was questioned. That parts true. But to see only the hashtags is to misunderstand the enormity of what must change in order for all citizens to live freely.

I'll tell you this, you'll never understand the psychology of a gay or trans person until you get that they were obliged to internalize that adulating silent worship of normativity for years, maybe even decades before they fully realized that it would never have a place for them. And I've heard similar thoughts expressed by other marginalized groups. It would be a lot eaiser for everyone if people "didn't care about any of that" until it was challenged, but the truth is that challenging any of it slams you into a WALL that took centuries to construct, out of bricks that are a thousand wicked little lies.

Sorry, it must seem like I am splitting hairs. But these questions are very important to me. I had reposted that very same meme on my Facebook a few days ago before I really had a moment to think about what it was and wasn't saying.

 

[ruby sparks]

Catchy, but I don't agree. Pride in heterosexuality, appeals to common humanity that conspicuously avoided specific mentions of certain groups, idealized masculinity at the expense of women, and celebration of white history all definitely existed. What changed is that until those resistance movements came into being, we just called all of those things "social studies" and "history". Because the marginalization of gays, women, blacks, and so forth was assumed, rather than stated outright. To this day, many people become outraged when history of non-whites is included in a history curriculum, or a female actor is cast in the principal role of a video game or film, or they see a gay on the TV who isn't acting like a minstrel. They don't think they're asking for something new, they just want things to go back to the "way things used to be". Where history meant white history without ever having to clarify that only Europeans were invited to the show, where appeals "the Common Man" only supposedly meant all of humanity, where "relationships" and "romance" exclusively referred to heterosexual relationships, where references to the virtues of the "virile" or machismo were always to go unquestioned.

Isn't that what the text in the posted image essentially says?

No, because the image suggests that pride in heterosexuality, white skin, masculinty, etc didn't exist before. It did. It definitely did. People worshiped at the foot of the structures of power, wrote novel after novel about the glories of what they considered love, painted murals and frescoes about the way they thought women should be treated, published scientific treatises about the ideal Man and just what his bone structure and hair curl ratio might be. It just wasn't questioned. And it didn't get the copy cat hash-tags until it was questioned. That parts true. But to see only the hashtags is to misunderstand the enormity of what must change in order for all citizens to live freely.

I'll tell you this, you'll never understand the psychology of a gay or trans person until you get that they were obliged to internalize that adulating silent worship of normativity for years, maybe even decades before they fully realized that it would never have a place for them. And I've heard similar thoughts expressed by other marginalized groups. It would be a lot eaiser for everyone if people "didn't care about any of that" until it was challenged, but the truth is that challenging any of it slams you into a WALL that took centuries to construct, out of bricks that are a thousand wicked little lies.

Sorry, it must seem like I am splitting hairs. But these questions are very important to me. I had reposted that very same meme on my Facebook a few days ago before I really had a moment to think about what it was and wasn't saying.

No, it doesn't seem like you're splitting hairs. I see now the distinction you are making.

Might we say that the hashtags have at least prompted an increased or more overt stating (of what mainstream/hegemonic views were held before) in the form a a 'louder' backlash, and as such the counter-hashtags are just the latest manifestation of the sort of resistance that has been happening ever since the adversely affected started to voice their cases?

That's how I actually read the meme, but I think I missed what you have added.

 

[Politesse]

Might we say that the 'hashtags' etc have prompted an increased or more overt stating of what was held before, in the form a a 'louder' backlash, against what was already held?

I think there is an element of backlash, certainly. A lot of the things they claim to have always been communal values actually haven't always been values, for instance, or at least haven't been for as long as they claim. Many of the ideas the MAGA crowd trumpets around as Western culture or White culture are no older than the 1950s really (the push to get or keep women out of the workplace for instance), and many are straight up copycat concepts that try to piggyback on the effectiveness of civil rights slogans without understanding what really makes them resonate. And I'm sure that's what the author of the original post meant to express, even if they (in my opinion) ended up overstating things. But I mean, this sort of copy-cat politics does happen sometimes.

They see black history as an intrusion on the college campus, for instance, so they want an equally intrusive trafficking of white nationalist ideas on those same campuses, even if they sort of already had it for most of US history, and have no real plan for what they'll do once they actually secure that sort of platform. The kind of thing they are pushing for when they say "Hey, Why isn't there a White History Month?" wouldn't have occurred to anyone to request in 1915, because the mainstream curriculum was entirely in line with the assumptions they already carried about their racial identity. But in 1995, they are pushing a weirdly exaggerated version not as a serious pedagogical suggestion but as a strained tu quoque argument. They'd fight each other like dogs if they had to actually sit down and write an accreditable course outline of record for a White History Month model curriculum. No blacks or gays required, just the nazi types sitting in a room by themselves would eat each other alive before they ever produced a third draft. I mean, just wait til someone brings up the fact that Marx was a white European and Jesus was not... So those kinds of constructions, since they don't have any real tangible existence outside of the debate itself, definitely were created purely as rhetorical ricochets, after the fact of civil rights, not reclamations of anything that went before.

 

[ruby sparks]

Might we say that the 'hashtags' etc have prompted an increased or more overt stating of what was held before, in the form a a 'louder' backlash, against what was already held?

I think there is an element of backlash, certainly. A lot of the things they claim to have always been communal values actually haven't always been values, for instance, or at least haven't been for as long as they claim. Many of the ideas the MAGA crowd trumpets around as Western culture or White culture are no older than the 1950s really (the push to get or keep women out of the workplace for instance), and many are straight up copycat concepts that try to piggyback on the effectiveness of civil rights slogans without understanding what really makes them resonate. And I'm sure that's what the author of the original post meant to express, even if they (in my opinion) ended up overstating things. But I mean, this sort of copy-cat politics does happen sometimes.

They see black history as an intrusion on the college campus, for instance, so they want an equally intrusive trafficking of white nationalist ideas on those same campuses, even if they sort of already had it for most of US history, and have no real plan for what they'll do once they actually secure that sort of platform. The kind of thing they are pushing for when they say "Hey, Why isn't there a White History Month?" wouldn't have occurred to anyone to request in 1915, because the mainstream curriculum was entirely in line with the assumptions they already carried about their racial identity. But in 1995, they are pushing a weirdly exaggerated version not as a serious pedagogical suggestion but as a strained tu quoque argument. They'd fight each other like dogs if they had to actually sit down and write an accreditable course outline of record for a White History Month model curriculum. No blacks or gays required, just the nazi types sitting in a room by themselves would eat each other alive before they ever produced a third draft. I mean, just wait til someone brings up the fact that Marx was a white European and Jesus was not... So those kinds of constructions, since they don't have any real tangible existence outside of the debate itself, definitely were created purely as rhetorical ricochets, after the fact of civil rights, not reclamations of anything that went before.

Yes. And it seems to be the case across a number of issues (race, sexuality, gender, etc).

 

[ruby sparks]

To add...

Something that always annoys me is the claim that identity politics (in its recent incarnation) was the cause of the backlash. No, that's not it, because in a way it was and is the cause of at least some of the backlash. What annoys me is the claim that the fault lies with those who raised the identity political issues. I am sure it is quite possible that the Dems may have embraced IP a bit too much at times, but imo that's not enough of an explanation, for the swing to the right, and Trump. The people who swung to the right and enabled Trump need to own their own reactionary shit and not blame it on scapegoats, imo. And that might include some who merely didn't turn out to vote at all.

That said, I'm not against the Dems dialling it back a little, because in some cases I think they were approaching the foothills of Fetish Mountain, and not paying enough attention to, for example, poor whites, whose neglected causes (and thus votes) Trump just came in and hoovered up, quite possibly without the slightest hint of genuine concern for them (other than that they had white concerns).

 

[bigfield]

But I think that to emphasize ALM over BLM today is to firstly demonstrate poor timing, inability to listen to current events,

It is a refusal to kowtow to the increasingly intolerant Left.

That's a very selfish self-centred libertarian view.

I see this same kind of attitude in my brother. He doesn't care whether #BlackLivesMatter is a good cause, he just wants it to stop because it bothers him.

 

[ruby sparks]

I see this same kind of attitude in my brother. He doesn't care whether #BlackLivesMatter is a good cause, he just wants it to stop because it bothers him.

Sometimes, and I don't necessarily mean in Derec's case, it feels like general cynicism, or at other times as if it's possibly a case of 'well, the world is not sufficiently sympathetic to or doing enough about me or MY problems, so why should I extend a lot of sympathy to others in the world regarding theirs?' Which I reckon is arguably a common human trait, possibly understandably so. I don't think one would have to be a bad person to feel that way. We can all get wrapped up in our own perspectives and struggles and pains (which we all have) and indeed easily feel that no one cares enough about them, or us.

In a way it might, for some people, boil down to being about sharing, or perceptions about that.

 

[bigfield]

Sometimes, and I don't necessarily mean in Derec's case, it feels like general cynicism, or at others times as if it's a case of 'well, no one is sufficiently sympathetic to or doing enough about MY problems, so why should I extend sympathy to others?' Which I reckon is arguably a common human trait, possibly understandably so.

That makes sense. Reciprocity is a pretty common strategy.

 

[Elixir]

I see this same kind of attitude in my brother. He doesn't care whether #BlackLivesMatter is a good cause, he just wants it to stop because it bothers him.

Sometimes, and I don't necessarily mean in Derec's case, it feels like general cynicism, or at other times as if it's possibly a case of 'well, the world is not sufficiently sympathetic to or doing enough about me or MY problems, so why should I extend a lot of sympathy to others in the world regarding theirs?' Which I reckon is arguably a common human trait, possibly understandably so. I don't think one would have to be a bad person to feel that way. We can all get wrapped up in our own perspectives and struggles and pains (which we all have) and indeed easily feel that no one cares enough about them, or us.

In a way it might, for some people, boil down to being about sharing, or perceptions about that.

I see ALM pretty much like this - which I have posted to other social media and have never seen a cogent response from any ALM type:

 

[ruby sparks]

I see ALM pretty much like this - which I have posted to other social media and have never seen a cogent response from any ALM type:

View attachment 28203

That is the way it tends to be portrayed by its critics, yes, and I don’t doubt that in many cases it’s accurate, that there is, effectively, nothing for the person on the right to complain about. They have no reason other than a lack of empathy to deny the injured person their support.

As I’ve said, I’m not a fan of ALM as a response to BLM. But I’ve offered some possible nuances/caveats in my previous posts.

Then there are some who only object to the more radical and unsavoury elements within BLM, such as the groups of BLM protesters chanting ‘what do we want? Dead police! When do we want it? Now!’ Because that is negatively caricaturing the police in pretty much the same way in reverse as some police generalise blacks.

In other words, BLM runs the risk of being (a) inconsistent (see above), (b) too simplistic (vulnerable white people are also treated badly by police, and indeed sometimes shot dead, or indeed in some cases killed by police over-restraining them, an example was posted) and (c) potentially divisive, or perceived as such.

I would emphasise that those are caveats, not rebuttals, or denials of the underlying validity of BLM, though it may seem so to some.

Bottom line: we should all embrace BLM, imo.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 28192

Wrong. They're all backlashes against supposed efforts towards equality that go too far.

Note that this is the norm with social movements--they swing past a reasonable middle ground and become the opposite problem to whatever they started out against.

 

[ruby sparks]

The literature on backlashes is quite extensive. There tend to be more or less automatic backlashes even if the efforts etc are reasonable and modest. Resistance from those being asked to concede something is a normal, usual feature. Those resisting tend to like the status quo.

I do not think it is just the efforts going too far.

If people like you were less inclined to be racism denialists/minimisers, there might be more scope for peaceful progress. I am baffled as to why you do it, and have been ever since I joined the forum, because in most other respects you seem to be an entirely reasonable guy.

My guess is that you feel you need to counter what you see as the over-zealousness of the ‘other side’ and that in doing so, you misrepresent your own, possibly more moderate views a bit.

I have a sneaking feeling that a lot of people here do that. I probably do it myself, when I get caught up in things. Disagreement seems to be much more popular and easy (and possibly fun) than agreement, even though we probably all agree on quite a lot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The literature on backlashes is quite extensive. There tend to be more or less automatic backlashes even if the efforts etc are reasonable and modest. Resistance from those being asked to concede something is a normal, usual feature. Those resisting tend to like the status quo.

I do not think it is just the efforts going too far.

If people like you were less inclined to be racism denialists/minimisers, there might be more scope for peaceful progress. I am baffled as to why you do it, and have been ever since I joined the forum, because in most other respects you seem to be an entirely reasonable guy.

My guess is that you feel you need to counter what you see as the over-zealousness of the ‘other side’ and that in doing so, you misrepresent your own, possibly more moderate views a bit.

I have a sneaking feeling that a lot of people here do that. I probably do it myself, when I get caught up in things. Disagreement seems to be much more popular and easy (and possibly fun) than agreement, even though we probably all agree on quite a lot.

Not all backlashes go too far. However, successful social movements almost always go too far and thus provoke legitimate backlashes.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not all backlashes go too far. However, successful social movements almost always go too far and thus provoke legitimate backlashes.

I have no idea what you would securely base that on. It seems to me (correct me if I am misinterpreting you) as if you are essentially choosing to say that one sort of thing (effort/protest) is generally more problematical than the other (resistance/backlash). This is what constantly baffles me about you. The obviously reasonable and accurate way to say it is that both the efforts/protests can go too far (or have a 'wing' that goes too far) and the resistance/backlash can go too far (or have a 'wing' that goes too far), and not broadly distinguish between the two, because I really, really think, in fact I'd bet money on it, that neither you nor anyone has the objective or conclusive data or evidence to show that one sort of activity is worse or more problematic than the other, all things considered.

As I said, to me, it's baffling, because I know you are not against progress and change. I know you're not on the far right and I'm sure you're not a racist. But maybe I have misunderstood what you said there.

Also, what slightly worries me is that the things you tend to say are pretty much exactly the things that people who are not themselves particularly adversely affected by the issues involved would say, when they are mainly only seeing things from their own perspective.