shel311 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:56 pm
Marcellus Wiley with a very strong take.
It really highlights the difference between saying "black lives matters" and the actual Black Lives Matter" group. Those 2 statements really don't share the same goals, as broken down here by Wiley:
https://twitter.com/sfy/status/1278064470435090438?s=21
There are about 20-30 different things that go through my mind when I try to take in everything that's going on in the social and politic climate today. I don't mess around on Facebook much, but I'll actively engage here, within a group of about 14 personal friends of widely mixed backgrounds and with a larger group of 'gaming' friends. The underlying cause that needs to be addressed is what many want to resolve at heart. But the methods and intentions of people that control the narrative, that influence the direction and that are at the top of this, are also what holds the movement back. I'm just going to fire off points, some unrelated to others, but I'll put it out there to think about and nitpick.
- If you understand nothing else in the following statements, understand the when I use the term liberal, I'm not referring to all Democrats. There are liberals, moderates (on both sides) and conservatives. (TBH, there's kind of liberals on the right and conservatives on the left, but some of those quadrants are strange)
- The greatest risk/opposition to improving the racial divide is NOT conservative white males. Conservative white males are being used as the label and representation of far right racist pieces of crap. The greatest risk segment are mid-high income white liberals. This statement right here is worth 20 pages of hate coming back at me. The underlying implication is that white conservatives are behind systematic racism. In more simple terms, white guys are intentionally holding back black people in the workplace. The supporting evidence usually includes stats such as frequency of interview calls for ethnic names vs traditionally white names. While it's an issue, it's not systematic racism that is driving systemic racism. This political breakdown of people in corporate business is quite close. Systemic racism is the true pain point, but it covering that properly doesn't get as much interest as just tying systematic racism to white conservatives. As for the far right pieces of crap, the quantity of them and their influence in the grand scheme is negligible at best. That's why those controlling the story using white conservatives as the symbol of those assholes. Meanwhile, your 40 year old white "liberal" is happy to post her black square on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tiktok and every other place, because she supports the cause! Well, that is until she's walking alone in a store by 2 black male teens and she clutches that purse extra tight. Or she's called out for being entitled, then plays the race card on someone. The enemy that the black community knows (far right racist) is no where near as dangerous as the enemy that they don't know (mid-high income white liberals).
- I've said it for years, the identity politics of liberals can't sustain. It is a collection of "the enemy of my enemy, is my friend." Women's rights and LGBTQ initiatives don't jive with Muslim support. Supporting low-mid class workers (unions, min wages, etc) doesn't work with loosened illegal immigration policies. Intense social services don't serve the purpose of assisting, they give (and they also take, which leads to another economic issue). These are just quick examples with tons more. But the larger point is that when things go past a certain point or reach a specific level, then that "identity" reacts as if they are greater than all. In the case of racial advancement risk, mid-high income liberals are all about giving lip service and even pushing some strategies or laws to assist the cause, but that's because it doesn't impact them directly. When it hits their pocket, when it shows up on their doorstep, the tune changes. (See the Seattle mayor that wasn't too happy about folks paying her a visit)
- Many of our social policies are enablers. I mentioned it above, but they go beyond assistance. Dem politicians play minorities and low income individuals for votes. It's that simple. Offer a system, offer all kinds of goodies and when the time comes for elections, dangle that carrot. It's disgusting. The only real comparative act by Republicans are their "tax cuts on the working class." Which, to be fair, after years of adding more spending through social programs, those taxes do increase. That makes it easy bait for Republican politicians. The fundamental point here is that our programs should be there to offer assistance, while encouraging the individual to advance. Whether that's through time/value restrictions, education/training or something else, there should be an end for everything that isn't related to a lifelong situation.
- Back to the racial divide... if you want 'white conservatives' to openly support 'black lives mattering,' then the movement needs to disassociate with "Black Lives Matter." Wiley touched on the mission statement, but it goes so far beyond that. You'll find that many white conservatives understand that DWB is a crime in white suburbia and rural areas. But there is no chance that they are going to openly stand beside the greater cause when the cause is so closely tied to a highly politically driven group with radical ideas. No one with common sense will look at what happened in Minneapolis and say that's ok. But you're not going to see white conservatives running around chanting "fuck 12" or "A C A B." If we really want change, then get the radical non-sense out of the way and lets move forward with some stuff that makes sense.
- But of course, that's not going to happen, because the people that control the narrative don't make money on cooperation and good news. "Those that control the cure, make the disease." Racism sells. Crazy ass ideas sells. Tension sells.
- TLDR: You'll find that there's a pretty straight-forward theme to most of this. Most conservatives will be pretty straight-forward about where they stand and that stance doesn't tend to move very much. Most liberals are all about the whatever the flavor of the month is, that's not conservative, until that clashes with their own personal agenda or true feelings. Not a fan of painting people with a broad brush, but my personal experience has proven time and again that most liberals are ultimately fake. Usually they are moderates that are putting on show to look good in front of others or to boost their own ego and convince themselves that they are a wholesome person.
Looking forward to some high quality "you're the real problem" and "you're an old white guy so you don't know anything, shut up and listen" reponses.
