BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Quantum Erasure

'It’s okay to be white' posters investigated

Avon and Somerset Police said it believed the posters were put up overnight on Saturday.

Supt Andy Bennett, said the force took "any reported hate crime with the utmost seriousness".

"It is inexplicable and unacceptable," he said.

"We are a vibrant, multi-cultural and diverse community. There is no space for hate in Avon and Somerset."

Tell me how

Mr. Karate wrote: »

You can try to spin this as much as you want. It shows that you know nothing about STEM. As I said you either can do the work or you can't. This is a competitive field. The best ones will always get hired.

Someone better than her applied for the same position and company as her and was hired. That's life. It happens. You can't cry victim for everything. The Real World doesn't give 2 ****s about your race, gender, etc. They only care if you can do the job to a high standard or not.

Gees, for someone who doesn't understand how STEM works, I must have been pretty lucky to have been awarded 2 STEM degrees and to have had a 20 year career in industry to this point.

Thanks for laying out the emptiness of your argument in just a few short posts. Empty vessels and all that.

joeguevara

This is a loaded question. As Boards is an Irish platform and going by the recent census, or even by what people say the majority of people here are Irish and White. It is a melting pot which is amazing.

Now, if one of the most progressive black people, Terry crews, who has completely changed his life, realised his dominant misogyny ways effected his family, but now is an advocate for all that is good is receiving backlash for saying that Black Lives Matter but it shouldn’t morph into black lives better, what hope is there for us discussing it. What does the OP want out of it. No matter what people say it can be considered racist. Why does it need to be characterised. Why does everything need an acronym. How about DBAD which stands for Dont be a D1ck

https://www.insider.com/terry-crews-facing-backlash-black-lives-better-tweet-2020-7

the immortals

Surely the movement should be called
Black lives matter in predominantly white Western countries but in Africa and, South America, Asia, we be grand

joeguevara

The OP title is never the question. It usually is BLM or All lives matter.

BLM advocates are constantly explaining that BLM doesn’t mean BLack lives only matter but are trying to get people to understand that they do matter. Any reasonable person would agree.

But any movement which has a philosophy of inclusion and equality where there name causes so much divide even among there own original members must agree that it is an issue.

Chris_Heilong

On a basic level BLM dont want any counter because by saying all lives matter it is taking something away from the special message, suddenly it is not about black people anymore which is why they dislike it, so even though people are arguing this and that it really is just as simple as 'we are only talking about Black lives'.

If it was just a civil rights movement then we could all get behind it as the vast majority of the western world sees everybody of equal worth however the movement has many negative political motivations and these are something that any logical person will reject, 'Defund the Police' is absolute madness as I am sure everyone will agree, we saw what happened in America for the 3 weeks that the CHAZ became police free, Rapes, murders and criminal gangs ruled the streets.

And the amount of excuses for what the group are calling for being made by certain newspapers is shameful, Especially the Guardian saying this like "well they dont mean defund the police..they really mean..." or "well they dont mean just black lives matter, what they actually mean is..." No, they know what they are saying as they are a group of radicals with radical ideology.

joeguevara

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

On a basic level BLM dont want any counter because by saying all lives matter it is taking something away from the special message, suddenly it is not about black people anymore which is why they dislike it, so even though people are arguing this and that it really is just as simple as 'we are only talking about Black lives'.

If it was just a civil rights movement then we could all get behind it as the vast majority of the western world sees everybody of equal worth however the movement has many negative political motivations and these are something that any logical person will reject, 'Defund the Police' is absolute madness as I am sure everyone will agree, we saw what happened in America for the 3 weeks that the CHAZ became police free, Rapes, murders and criminal gangs ruled the streets.

And the amount of excuses for what the group are calling for being made by certain newspapers is shameful, Especially the Guardian saying this like "well they dont mean defund the police..they really mean..." or "well they dont mean just black lives matter, what they actually mean is..." No, they know what they are saying as they are a group of radicals with radical ideology.

Even if it’s not considered what the actions of said group can cause the exact causation of what they are against, the fact that the mere name causing such worldwide issues, even if completely unintentional is damning in its own right. The fact that it’s causing so many issues in the black community is evidence enough that the name should be reviewed. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks.

ExMachina1000

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

'It’s okay to be white' posters investigated

Avon and Somerset Police said it believed the posters were put up overnight on Saturday.

Supt Andy Bennett, said the force took "any reported hate crime with the utmost seriousness".

"It is inexplicable and unacceptable," he said.

"We are a vibrant, multi-cultural and diverse community. There is no space for hate in Avon and Somerset."

The horror. Imagine doing such a thing

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks.

Then don't seek to export it to the rest of the world.

Keep your movement entirely about American issues, and focus your efforts completely on achieving genuine equality there.

Leave off with the Black supremacy gig, and double standards, which is what most criticism about BLM comes from. Take on the issues and seek to create objectives that judge people not on the color of their skin, but on the genuine circumstances of each individual case.

BLM is too much focused on blame. It's not going to gain much support outside of the Black community, and the activists because few people are interested in being blamed for things they have no control over. Just as most people who dislike BLM are against it because of the double standards being applied. It's simply an extension of reverse racism, seeking to punish white people for the past, rather than seeking a pure future absent the blame and guilt.

If they really want a better America for everyone, then they would be trying to meet in the middle. Acknowledge the problems within Black culture, recognise how their own behavior influences the perspectives of white people (and police officers), and seek to re-educate their own population towards obeying the laws of the land. At the same time, seek to downplay the racism, while improving understanding within the White community, working together to reduce/limit racism or discrimination. In a helpful manner, rather than a threatening manner.

But that's not going to happen, because that would mean needing to give up their constant role as victims, and also give up the more aggressive ("expressive") aspects of Africa American behaviors.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Then don't seek to export it to the rest of the world.

Keep your movement entirely about American issues, and focus your efforts completely on achieving genuine equality there.

Leave off with the Black supremacy gig, and double standards, which is what most criticism about BLM comes from. Take on the issues and seek to create objectives that judge people not on the color of their skin, but on the genuine circumstances of each individual case.

BLM is too much focused on blame. It's not going to gain much support outside of the Black community, and the activists because few people are interested in being blamed for things they have no control over. Just as most people who dislike BLM are against it because of the double standards being applied. It's simply an extension of reverse racism, seeking to punish white people for the past, rather than seeking a pure future absent the blame and guilt.

If they really want a better America for everyone, then they would be trying to meet in the middle. Acknowledge the problems within Black culture, recognise how their own behavior influences the perspectives of white people (and police officers), and seek to re-educate their own population towards obeying the laws of the land. At the same time, seek to downplay the racism, while improving understanding within the White community, working together to reduce/limit racism or discrimination. In a helpful manner, rather than a threatening manner.

But that's not going to happen, because that would mean needing to give up their constant role as victims, and also give up the more aggressive ("expressive") aspects of Africa American behaviors.

The way that you quoted me makes it look like I think it shouldn't matter what issues the name evokes when my entire point was that it should.

weldoninhio

It should be BLMBOIACOWPKT (Black Lives Matter But Only If A Cop Or White Person Kills Them). I haven't heard them calling for black people to stop killing black people, or protesting in the projects against it.

Slowyourrole

weldoninhio wrote: »

It should be BLMBOIACOWPKT (Black Lives Matter But Only If A Cop Or White Person Kills Them). I haven't heard them calling for black people to stop killing black people, or protesting in the projects against it.

Well you wouldn't because it's not a message aimed at you. How much time do you spend in these low income black American ghettos exactly? There are lots of people, celebrities and politicians and regular people, that spread that message to black people. You don't hear them because you don't live among them.

ELM327

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

'It’s okay to be white' posters investigated

Avon and Somerset Police said it believed the posters were put up overnight on Saturday.

Supt Andy Bennett, said the force took "any reported hate crime with the utmost seriousness".

"It is inexplicable and unacceptable," he said.

"We are a vibrant, multi-cultural and diverse community. There is no space for hate in Avon and Somerset."

Thats shocking.


It's ok to be white.


Being white is not a crime.


I didnt own slaves, you were not a slave, I don't discriminate against anyone based on race color creed etc. But I will not apologize for being white.

Mr. Karate

Tell me how wrote: »

Gees, for someone who doesn't understand how STEM works, I must have been pretty lucky to have been awarded 2 STEM degrees and to have had a 20 year career in industry to this point.

Thanks for laying out the emptiness of your argument in just a few short posts. Empty vessels and all that.

Is it or is it not a competitive field?

Kermit.de.frog

Not sure where this should go but this racist has "resigned" from Cambridge University (in reality he was fired)

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642

Dave0301

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not sure where this should go but this racist has "resigned" from Cambridge University (in reality he was fired)

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642

To be fair, given the current climate, and with emphasis on the bolded part below, it is difficult to argue for him.

Starkey told an online show hosted by conservative commentator Darren Grimes that slavery was not genocide, because of the survival of "so many damn blacks".

I appreciate that Cambridge defended another academic and her comments on "whiteness" but she was savvy enough to leave herself some wiggle room.

DavidLyons_

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not sure where this should go but this racist has "resigned" from Cambridge University (in reality he was fired)

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642

Absolutely correct decision.

A real life, genuine, vile racist getting his comeuppance.

joe40

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Absolutely correct decision.

A real life, genuine, vile racist getting his comeuppance.

I would say his views would be quite common in British upper class society.
Most would be smart enough not to be so direct, but plenty would still see the British empire and the great global benefactor, and gloss over to odd atrocity here and there.

Not everyone obviously and there does seem to be more of an acceptance to acknowledge history, warts and all.

That is not the same as guilty or blame, just an honest acceptance of history. Good and bad.

weldoninhio

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Well you wouldn't because it's not a message aimed at you. How much time do you spend in these low income black American ghettos exactly? There are lots of people, celebrities and politicians and regular people, that spread that message to black people. You don't hear them because you don't live among them.

They don't seem to be getting through to them. Have they tried looting and rioting in these areas??

weldoninhio

Dave0301 wrote: »

To be fair, given the current climate, and with emphasis on the bolded part below, it is difficult to argue for him.



I appreciate that Cambridge defended another academic and her comments on "whiteness" but she was savvy enough to leave herself some wiggle room.

"White lives don't matter. AS white lives" and "Abolish Whiteness" don't leave much wriggle room. But it's not abusive to abuse a cracker, i guess.

Dave0301

weldoninhio wrote: »

"White lives don't matter. AS white lives" and "Abolish Whiteness" don't leave much wriggle room. But it's not abusive to abuse a cracker, i guess.

I don't agree with what she said, and I think she knew what she was doing would incite a response.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not sure where this should go but this racist has "resigned" from Cambridge University (in reality he was fired)

So, he was racist for saying "so many damned blacks in...? Or is it something else he said?

Billy Mays

The holocaust wasn't genocide. Have you seen how many damn jews there are in Israel and New York?

Billy Mays

Billy Mays wrote: »

The holocaust wasn't genocide. Have you seen how many damn jews there are in Israel and New York?

Big difference between death camps, and slavery. That you would make such a comparison just shows how little you appreciate the fact.

You know, you could have just answered my question, rather than making such a disgusting example?

Billy Mays

If Starkey had said the above about jews would you be questioning whether it's anti semetic?

Billy Mays

Billy Mays wrote: »

If Starkey had said the above about jews would you be questioning whether it's anti semetic?

As I said, I don't see the comparison between the holocaust and slavery to be acceptable. The holocaust was the planned genocide of Jews and undesirables. Slavery had a far different objective/intention.

But, forget it. I can see that my question won't actually be answered.

Billy Mays

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, I don't see the comparison between the holocaust and slavery to be acceptable. The holocaust was the planned genocide of Jews and undesirables. Slavery had a far different objective/intention.

But, forget it. I can see that my question won't actually be answered.

Do you think what Starkey said was racist?

Billy Mays

Billy Mays wrote: »

Do you think what Starkey said was racist?

Honestly? Not really. I think it was insulting or badly worded, but not actually racist. It's not something I would say though.

Billy Mays

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly? Not really. I think it was insulting or badly worded, but not actually racist. It's not something I would say though.

I disagree

I think context is key here. If, whilst discussing slavery, someone uses the term "damn blacks" I'd 100% consider it racist.

Same as someone saying "damn jews" whilst discussing the holocaust. 100% anti semetic

Billy Mays

Billy Mays wrote: »

I disagree

I think context is key here. If, whilst discussing slavery, someone uses the term "damn blacks" I'd 100% consider it racist.

Same as someone saying "damn jews" whilst discussing the holocaust. 100% anti semetic

I agree. Context is important. The context being the circumstances. The Holocaust being the intentional destruction of the Jewish people. Slavery, on the other hand, was the transportation of those enslaved to another area. Those who died on the way meant less profits for the slavers/traders. So killing them wasn't the intention.

As for damn, I just saw it as inappropriate rather than racist. Not defending him by the way. Any such topic like slavery should be carefully considered in the language being used, especially when put on the internet/media.