What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

An Amorphous Slogan To Adopt, A Policy Unquestioned - #BlackLivesMatter (1 Viewer)

rockaction

Footballguy
So the Black Lives Matter hashtag been fully adopted by the media and mega-conglomerates and corporations everywhere. Can anybody tell me the policy impetus behind it? Or who was funding the marches? What exactly is the policy agenda that I must drink my morning cup of coffee to while nodding my head?

De-fund the police? Disband them? Abolish, I've seen...

Are we to have candidates and primaries like the Tea Party, with a specific focus on "black" issues? What black issues? However shall we feel about them?

I dunno. Sounds like such a simple slogan, so much behind it complicated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Thinking
Reactions: rct
I support the general idea behind BLM -- that the life of a random black person is just as valuable as mine, and we should implement criminal justice reform to reflect that reality.  But I can't help but notice that the more closely a person* identifies as a BLM-adjacent activist, the less likely I am to agree them on much of anything else.

Edit: Referring to folks I encounter elsewhere on the internet, not in this forum.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the policy impetus behind it involves a desire to reform certain law enforcement practices -- for example, choking people to death -- that are perceived as disproportionately affecting black people.

As far as I know, marching is free.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dunno. Black Lives Matter is now running commercials. I doubt they're free. Like marching needs to be organized, so do commercials need to be paid for. Next excuse up! 

 
  • Thinking
Reactions: rct
And now they've come out supporting the destruction and looting in Chicago. Am I the only here that didn't reflexively support or disavow this movement? It just seems very decentralized, with a ton of conflicting policy requests yet seems to have its leaders desire an obeisance to its slogan before one can even meet with them and discuss things.

I mean, yeah, great, black lives matter. We can all agree that all human lives matter, and black ones must matter also in order for that to happen. What's the policy thrust, then? It's a slogan looking for adherence with policy to be determined. Not my gig. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the Black Lives Matter thread I had asked the following;

From an organizational perspective, what could the movement do to better position itself for success? 

Do you see BLM as having a known core leadership team that can speak for the movement no matter the location?   If not, do you agree that this help?

While organization is certainly not the primary focus (nor should it be), I wonder how more tangible results/changes could have been made in the past 6 years.

If this is meant to be a singular movement with purpose, it needs the leadership to do so and act accordingly - decentralized groups with incompatible actions likely will not work.  

 
And now they've come out supporting the destruction and looting in Chicago. Am I the only here that didn't reflexively support or disavow this movement? It just seems very decentralized, with a ton of conflicting policy requests yet seems to have its leaders desire an obeisance to its slogan before one can even meet with them and discuss things.

I mean, yeah, great, black lives matter. We can all agree that all human lives matter, and black ones must matter also in order for that to happen. What's the policy thrust, then? It's a slogan looking for adherence with policy to be determined. Not my gig. 
Where have you seen this, rock? 

 
Thanks.   Some of those clothes are loony.  

“I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats,” Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. “That makes sure that person has clothes.”

AGAIN - not condoning this or making excuses, so let's not go down that route.    I am curious though, what means the bolded?    

 
Yeah, not clicking that.  
The riots started in Chicago Sunday after an exchange of fire between an armed black man and two officers left the 20-year-old man wounded and in police custody for attempted murder. Before he was even charged, rumors spread that the man was an unarmed teenager shot by police despite him shooting at the officers first. Looting was seemingly coordinated as a U-Haul was used to ram through store windows and cars dropped off looters by the dozens. By the end of the night, downtown Chicago was in shambles and at least 13 officers were injured.

In the wake of all this destruction, Black Lives Matter Chicago organized a rally less than 24 hours later in support of the looters and in criticism of the police department. One of the rally’s organizers, Ariel Atkins, said in reference to the looting, “That is reparations. Anything they want to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.” She said she didn’t care if people robbed Nike or Gucci or Macy’s because “that makes sure that person eats.”

At the rally, protesters held up a banner defending the looters that said, “Our futures have been looted from us … loot back.” Monday’s rally was not just about protesting the imprisonment of the looters but a defense of their actions as legitimate.

 
Thanks.   Some of those clothes are loony.  

“I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats,” Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. “That makes sure that person has clothes.”

AGAIN - not condoning this or making excuses, so let's not go down that route.    I am curious though, what means the bolded?    
I think it's self-explanatory.  Someone who considers herself in the movement that helps organize protests.  BLM isn't the type of organization with a traditional structure with board members and stuff of course.

 
I think it's self-explanatory.  Someone who considers herself in the movement that helps organize protests.  BLM isn't the type of organization with a traditional structure with board members and stuff of course.
Correct.  This is a problem with BLM it seems - there is not one voice.   So if this is just a "BLM organizer" in the sense that she got a group together via FB that is for sure a distinction that should be made so people don't think this is all of BLM or the top level of people who started BLM.  

 
And everyone knows damn well if this was the Tear Party, who were branded as racists by people who couldn't even solve who said a bad word for a million dollars, you can be sure the blame would be leveled at the entire Tea Party, not just a random "organzier" of a movement who knows not its policy.

Which is my point, why am I getting behind an amorphous slogan with an organization that can't even speak for itself. Seems like a perfect storm of insularity.

Questioner: Why did they do that in your name
Answer: Modern day reparations!
Interpreter: Well, she doesn't speak for them, merely is one cog in the organization and nobody speaks in the name of Black Live Matter, but everybody agrees with what they have to say.


Yeah, that makes sense, KP. 

 
I think KP prefectly expresses my point, only coming from a support point of view. We don't know what it means, we can't speak for it, it has no concrete organization or direction, but dammit, we agree with it!

 
I support the general idea behind BLM -- that the life of a random black person is just as valuable as mine, and we should implement criminal justice reform to reflect that reality.  But I can't help but notice that the more closely a person* identifies as a BLM-adjacent activist, the less likely I am to agree them on much of anything else.

Edit: Referring to folks I encounter elsewhere on the internet, not in this forum.


And everyone knows damn well if this was the Tear Party, who were branded as racists by people who couldn't even solve who said a bad word for a million dollars, you can be sure the blame would be leveled at the entire Tea Party, not just a random "organzier" of a movement who knows not its policy.

Which is my point, why am I getting behind an amorphous slogan with an organization that can't even speak for itself. Seems like a perfect storm of insularity.

Questioner: Why did they do that in your name
Answer: Modern day reparations!
Interpreter: Well, she doesn't speak for them, merely is one cog in the organization and nobody speaks in the name of Black Live Matter, but everybody agrees with what they have to say.


Yeah, that makes sense, KP. 
I am basically where Ivan is. :shrug:

I support the general idea behind it, or what I thought and I believe most people think are general ideas behind it.  

I stand behind my statement that there is a difference between Joe Organizer saying something and a movement as a whole being about that or agreeing with it.  I also said it's an issue that the tweet from BLM Chicago says something,  and it's not just Jane Organizer, and something is bot said to counter that.  

 
I am basically where Ivan is. :shrug:
And Ivan is basically saying this: I think I know what it means, I can't speak for it, it has no concrete organization or direction, but dammit, I agree with the basics!

I agree with IK on so many things that when we disagree there's just a disconnect of sorts often. I think what I'm trying to say is that we know what #Black Lives Matter is against, and we are against it, too. But that's only one element of a largely amorphous and sweeping statement that I think will, in the future, portend to have far-reaching and sweeping policy declarations. And I suspect those will be radical. Nothing coming out of their mouths has suggested anything even remotely or conscionably different. They've been for defunding and abolishing, never strongly condemned looting, and supported it when it came to the crux of the matter.

I get they're decentralized and that they'll have conflicting policy goals among members and within their hierarchy. I understand the efficacy and drawbacks of decentralization and confederate structures.

But here's what I think: On an issue so important and as far-reaching as this, I'm not throwing in my lot with the radical left's conception of how it should be. On an issue as important as this, before we line up behind the generators of a particular slogan, we should ask exactly what we're getting. Are we getting true dissent and social policy awareness? Or are we getting socks with police pigs on them?

And that's the rub. It seems with black lives matter, we get the whole kit and caboodle. And I want no part of that and am loath to see people rush to support that which is unconscionable. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Sad
Reactions: rct
And Ivan is basically saying this: I think I know what it means, I can't speak for it, it has no concrete organization or direction, but dammit, I agree with the basics!

I agree with IK on so many things that when we disagree there's just a disconnect of sorts often. I think what I'm trying to say is that we know what #Black Lives Matter is against, and we are against it, too. But that's only one element of a largely amorphous and sweeping statement that I think will, in the future, portend to have far-reaching and sweeping policy declarations. And I suspect those will be radical. Nothing coming out of their mouths has suggested anything even remotely or conscionably different. They've been for defunding and abolishing, never strongly condemned looting, and supported it when it came to the crux of the matter.

I get they're decentralized and that they'll have conflicting policy goals among members and within their hierarchy. I understand the efficacy and drawbacks of decentralization and confederate structures.

But here's what I think: On an issue so important and as far-reaching as this, I'm not throwing in my lot with the radical left's conception of how it should be. On an issue as important as this, before we line up behind the generators of a particular slogan, we should ask exactly what we're getting. Are we getting true dissent and social policy awareness? Or are we getting socks with police pigs on them?

And that's the rub. It seems with black lives matter, we get the whole kit and caboodle. And I want no part of that and am loath to see people rush to support that which is unconscionable. 
Hi, rock.  To be clear, I honestly know very little about "BLM: The Organization."  I had a very negative experience several years ago with the Minneapolis branch of BLM when they threatened to disrupt the Twin Cities Marathon, but that's one branch of a relatively shapeless umbrella organization that I don't know it relates to any other franchise.  In other words, I'm skeptical about BLM as a formal organization even if I'm okay with the spark that set all this off.  Maybe another way of putting it is that "black people deserve to be treated well by law enforcement" is an unobjectionable and obvious fact for libertarians / classical liberals / whatever, but the movement that grew out of that has morphed over toward an illiberal direction that you and I would both have a problem with.

I don't think you and I really disagree that much here.  I tend to look at the overarching philosophical angle that we both agree with and emphasize that point, and you're looking at the more problematic institutional angle that we both agree is a negative.  Neither of us is really wrong IMO.

 
Let me just say, really quickly, given rct's sad face to my comment is that I personally still remain vehemently opposed to the use of police force as currently stands. I decry the militarization of our civilian protectors, often in the name of a drug war that I most certainly do not support.

I pop into the police brutality threads from time to time to remember victims of the police. I remember and honor the lives of Kelly Thomas, Eric Garner, and those like them, too often repeated and seemingly too endless (and anonymous) to name. George Floyd should be breathing today. People should not fear for their lives every time police stop them. Perhaps if our energies were focused here, and not on the identity politics aspect of it (it's even in the name! And yes, "All lives matter" is stupid but telling about their choice in names to begin with. Why not "Our lives matter. All of us. End Police brutality?") and as with all things that start in identity, it becomes very fraught with certain unsupportable elements.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And Ivan is basically saying this: I think I know what it means, I can't speak for it, it has no concrete organization or direction, but dammit, I agree with the basics!

I agree with IK on so many things that when we disagree there's just a disconnect of sorts often. I think what I'm trying to say is that we know what #Black Lives Matter is against, and we are against it, too. But that's only one element of a largely amorphous and sweeping statement that I think will, in the future, portend to have far-reaching and sweeping policy declarations. And I suspect those will be radical. Nothing coming out of their mouths has suggested anything even remotely or conscionably different. They've been for defunding and abolishing, never strongly condemned looting, and supported it when it came to the crux of the matter.

I get they're decentralized and that they'll have conflicting policy goals among members and within their hierarchy. I understand the efficacy and drawbacks of decentralization and confederate structures.

But here's what I think: On an issue so important and as far-reaching as this, I'm not throwing in my lot with the radical left's conception of how it should be. On an issue as important as this, before we line up behind the generators of a particular slogan, we should ask exactly what we're getting. Are we getting true dissent and social policy awareness? Or are we getting socks with police pigs on them?

And that's the rub. It seems with black lives matter, we get the whole kit and caboodle. And I want no part of that and am loath to see people rush to support that which is unconscionable. 
Again, the rub is that I would guess a lot of people aren't in support of the part that you  consider unconscionable.   I honestly don't know where that leave us or the movement.  I guess it will start turning off more and more people as what happens in Chicago takes center stage.  

 
Hi, rock.  To be clear, I honestly know very little about "BLM: The Organization."  I had a very negative experience several years ago with the Minneapolis branch of BLM when they threatened to disrupt the Twin Cities Marathon, but that's one branch of a relatively shapeless umbrella organization that I don't know it relates to any other franchise.  In other words, I'm skeptical about BLM as a formal organization even if I'm okay with the spark that set all this off.  Maybe another way of putting it is that "black people deserve to be treated well by law enforcement" is an unobjectionable and obvious fact for libertarians / classical liberals / whatever, but the movement that grew out of that has morphed over toward an illiberal direction that you and I would both have a problem with.

I don't think you and I really disagree that much here.  I tend to look at the overarching philosophical angle that we both agree with and emphasize that point, and you're looking at the more problematic institutional angle that we both agree is a negative.  Neither of us is really wrong IMO.
Hey Ivan, FWIW, it's something I was going to edit (the putting of words in your mouth and the direct address of you) but I saw you were likely responding (not stalking, just noticed per the software) so I figured I'd let you comment. I don't mean to put words in there even if you lodge no complaint about that, really. I thought better of what I had typed, but it was too late to edit for posterity's sake. I don't think you'll find me doing that very often unless I'm really generally simpatico with the person, and I should watch that (one never knows).

On to the substance: I think my comment that I typed while you were typing should clear up anything I think about the institutionalized violence at the hands of police. This is a beat that I've sort of been on as a (now former) right-winger for years, as a former daily Reason reader (I still follow Radley Balko on Twitter, though I've never made a Twitter comment or tweet), this feeling that these unjust practices and the institutions that permit or even tacitly endorse them must go.

So back to IK, you're right, we probably don't disagree on much. I always appreciate your comments. I have a different temperament and often strive to amend it; I strive towards more dispassionate writing like yours. 

 
Again, the rub is that I would guess a lot of people aren't in support of the part that you  consider unconscionable.
Do you mean the people in the organization or the general public? Because we'd likely be in total agreement if we thought the general public did not support it. I think we'd be in disagreement if we posit the claim that the organization was dedicated to avoiding looting and rioting. You'd be pretty sure it was dedicated to such, I'm hardly as sanguine. 

I can't help but shake Tom Wolfe's central work in Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.

Instruction manuals still are in operation today, I think. 

 
this is as good a place to say this as anywhere on FBG, i guess - Malcolm X & MLK (as well as Fred Hampton, who was poised to be their successor in leadership but ended up very quickly becoming their successor in assassination only) would all be utterly embarrassed by BLM now leading the course of America's racial politics as well as the general condition of black protest & organization since their demises.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now we've taken to wandering around streets forcing people to accept and adhere to a slogan that is ill-defined and has policy implications many don't agree with. This was always dangerous when a slogan became paramount in discourse rather than the ideology behind it.

The cornering of people and compulsory adoption of the slogan makes me sick. The left is full-blown loony ### these days. Especially when it's white people cornering other white folks. That's a sign of intolerance, pure and simple, and I have no "understanding" or "compassion" for it. It's intimidation by thugs, plain and simple. 

 
from BLM webstie 

BLM’s #WhatMatters2020 Goals and Focus

BLM’s #WhatMatters2020 aims to vigorously engage underrepresented communities in the electoral process, educate the Black community about candidates and the issues that impact Black voters most, promote voter registration among Millennials, Generation Z, the Black community, and allies, and combat the increased threats of disinformation during this election cycle affecting BLM constituents and the public at large.

Campaign Goals

1.
Vigorously engage our communities in the electoral process:

Millions of Black Americans are repressed within the democratic process, yet data shows Black voters tipped the balance in the 2018 midterm elections. Moving towards 2020, we seek to increase the power of our voices and votes.

2.
Educate our constituents about candidates and the issues that impact us most:

We will amplify and do a deep dive into the issues that affect our communities most and hold our candidates accountable on these issues.

3.
Promote voter registration among Generation Z, the Black community, and our allies:

Demographic shifts means that in the 2020 election, non-whites will account for a third of voters and one in ten voters will be members of Generation Z. We will encourage and provide resources for those seeking to vote.

Campaign Focus

BLM’s #WhatMatters2020 will focus on the following issues:

Racial Injustice

Police Brutality

Criminal Justice Reform

Black Immigration

Economic Injustice

LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights

Environmental Conditions

Voting Rights & Suppression

Healthcare

Government Corruption

Education

Commonsense Gun Laws

What We Believe

Four years ago, what is now known as the Black Lives Matter Global Network began to organize. It started out as a chapter-based, member-led organization whose mission was to build local power and to intervene when violence was inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

In the years since, we’ve committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive.

Black Lives Matter began as a call to action in response to state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Our intention from the very beginning was to connect Black people from all over the world who have a shared desire for justice to act together in their communities. The impetus for that commitment was, and still is, the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state.

Enraged by the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman, and inspired by the 31-day takeover of the Florida State Capitol by POWER U and the Dream Defenders, we took to the streets. A year later, we set out together on the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride to Ferguson, in search of justice for Mike Brown and all of those who have been torn apart by state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Forever changed, we returned home and began building the infrastructure for the Black Lives Matter Global Network, which, even in its infancy, has become a political home for many.

Ferguson helped to catalyze a movement to which we’ve all helped give life. Organizers who call this network home have ousted anti-Black politicians, won critical legislation to benefit Black lives, and changed the terms of the debate on Blackness around the world. Through movement and relationship building, we have also helped catalyze other movements and shifted culture with an eye toward the dangerous impacts of anti-Blackness.

These are the results of our collective efforts.

The Black Lives Matter Global Network is as powerful as it is because of our membership, our partners, our supporters, our staff, and you. Our continued commitment to liberation for all Black people means we are continuing the work of our ancestors and fighting for our collective freedom because it is our duty.

Every day, we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside comrades, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported.

We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.

We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.

We intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.

We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.

 
Now we've taken to wandering around streets forcing people to accept and adhere to a slogan that is ill-defined and has policy implications many don't agree with. This was always dangerous when a slogan became paramount in discourse rather than the ideology behind it.

The cornering of people and compulsory adoption of the slogan makes me sick. The left is full-blown loony ### these days. Especially when it's white people cornering other white folks. That's a sign of intolerance, pure and simple, and I have no "understanding" or "compassion" for it. It's intimidation by thugs, plain and simple. 
the issue is...this isn't "the left".  Its a group claiming to be part of BLM acting terribly.  The downside of BLM is that there is no real structure to call out such things.  Yes...the leaders out there in the communities need to be speaking out against this stuff as well.  But lets be real...calling this the left is as bad as calling white supremacy "the right".

 
the issue is...this isn't "the left".  Its a group claiming to be part of BLM acting terribly.  The downside of BLM is that there is no real structure to call out such things.  Yes...the leaders out there in the communities need to be speaking out against this stuff as well.  But lets be real...calling this the left is as bad as calling white supremacy "the right".
I would say that BLM's mission statement has the buzzwords of the left in it, acts like the left in its tactics, and has an ideology that can only be described as a sort of modern academic Marxism. If that's not left, I don't know what is.

We always lump in white supremacy with the right. I think we're getting into a usage thing here.

Let's say that the radical part of the BLM-influenced (maybe not BLM itself) movement is acting in loony ways.

 
I would say that BLM's mission statement has the buzzwords of the left in it, acts like the left in its tactics, and has an ideology that can only be described as a sort of modern academic Marxism. If that's not left, I don't know what is.

We always lump in white supremacy with the right. I think we're getting into a usage thing here.

Let's say that the radical part of the BLM-influenced (maybe not BLM itself) movement is acting in loony ways.
Yes...I agree they are left in their thoughts...that does not make them "the left".  That is my point.  And yes...we lump white supremacy in as part of the right because that has (like BLM with the left) been where they lean.  But its wrong to label white supremacists as "the right".  That is my point.  Its not putting a lean to the group...but assigning the group as representative of the whole left or right that is the problem.

 
Yes...I agree they are left in their thoughts...that does not make them "the left".  That is my point.  And yes...we lump white supremacy in as part of the right because that has (like BLM with the left) been where they lean.  But its wrong to label white supremacists as "the right".  That is my point.  Its not putting a lean to the group...but assigning the group as representative of the whole left or right that is the problem.
Sure. Like I said or tried to imply, my usage wasn't exacting. It was colloquial. I'm fine with what you're saying.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top