I 100% agree for the meme, but just warning that this isn’t really a strong argument. I’m going to straw man here, but: “I’m against the Protect the Children Act”, “You’re literally saying you’re against protecting children.” “No, I just disagree that the Act is actually about protecting children and is more about government surveillance and corporate control.” In their heads, they’ve already prepared the argument.
Basically, by them seeing it as a unified organization that stands for more than just being opposed to fascism, they see it as a crafted doublethink instead of realizing they are the victims of a different doublethink, to butcher the use of the term. It’s hard to cut through that.
Most people know better. It’s completely bad faith arguing.
Being against the Patriot Act does not mean you’re not a patriot. Being against Black Lives Matter does not mean you think black lives don’t matter. Same can be said about Antifa’s actions; plenty of reasons to oppose them that do not involve supporting facism.
Also, there’s the common fallacy of composition / division. Being against the Civil Rights Act doesn’t mean you support segregation. Being against the Big Beautiful Bill does not mean you’re against child tax credits.
College educated people know better, but still leverage dishonesty for political points. It’s tiring.
Why would you be for using the death of a young kid for personal gain? That would be one reason to be against the organisation, while not being against equal rights and treatment for black people.
No one specified which it was though, did they? And in any case, it was an example. You present the world as black and white, even though thats never been the case. Like Churchill, big hero against the nazis. But if you were Indian, he saw you the same way Hitler saw Jewish people. Which is a big yikes.
This is the reality of human beings. We are all complicated as fuck.
Absolutely. There are reasons to be against BLM while still believing that black lives matter. Examples:
It’s primarily an anti-police movement. Many people believe more police will help save black lives.
They made zero effort to reduce gang-related homicides which accounts for the majority of black homicides. So their sincere value for black life is questionable.
They engage in lots of riots and non-peaceful methods of protesting, many of which destroy black neighborhoods.
It’s primarily an anti-police movement. Many people believe more police will help save black lives.
They made zero effort to reduce gang-related homicides which accounts for the majority of black homicides. So their sincere value for black life is questionable.
Increasing the police presence in black neighborhoods does not help save black lives, and the communities that are affected the most by gang-related homicides know this intuitively because we have increased police presence and budgets in those neighborhoods as a matter of routine and it has made their lives worse, not better.
They engage in lots of riots and non-peaceful methods of protesting, many of which destroy black neighborhoods.
“A riot is the language of the unheard.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
The majority of BLM protests were peaceful, and the minority that did turn violent were overblown by a media ecosystem biased against them, and do not discredit the aims and methods of the movement.
There is some legitimate criticism to be made of the non-profit organization going by the same name as the movement, but if you care about black lives then the BLM protest movement deserves your support.
Though you might sincerely believe that black lives matter, you clearly seem to think the opinions of those personally affected by police and gang-related violence (not all that different, really) don’t.
Increasing the police presence in black neighborhoods does not help save black lives
More police presence reduces number of homicides. This is well-documented. People’s “intuition” is irrelevant.
Now, it also increase more low-level arrests. So if people are wanting to get away with drug possessions, shoplifting, or other low-level crimes, then they are going to have to deal with higher homicide rates. But if they want that exchange, they don’t really care about black lives.
you clearly seem to think the opinions of those personally affected by police and gang-related violence (not all that different, really) don’t.
I trust people to identify their problems, but not to identify the solutions. Many people have problems partially because they keep trying the wrong solutions (eg. buying lotteries tickets to get out of poverty). Experts are often needed for solutions.
The BLM founders are so far removed from the problem in their $6 million dollar mansion, they cannot be expected to understand the problem let alone come up with solutions.
I 100% agree for the meme, but just warning that this isn’t really a strong argument. I’m going to straw man here, but: “I’m against the Protect the Children Act”, “You’re literally saying you’re against protecting children.” “No, I just disagree that the Act is actually about protecting children and is more about government surveillance and corporate control.” In their heads, they’ve already prepared the argument.
Basically, by them seeing it as a unified organization that stands for more than just being opposed to fascism, they see it as a crafted doublethink instead of realizing they are the victims of a different doublethink, to butcher the use of the term. It’s hard to cut through that.
Most people know better. It’s completely bad faith arguing.
Being against the Patriot Act does not mean you’re not a patriot. Being against Black Lives Matter does not mean you think black lives don’t matter. Same can be said about Antifa’s actions; plenty of reasons to oppose them that do not involve supporting facism.
Also, there’s the common fallacy of composition / division. Being against the Civil Rights Act doesn’t mean you support segregation. Being against the Big Beautiful Bill does not mean you’re against child tax credits.
College educated people know better, but still leverage dishonesty for political points. It’s tiring.
Are you sure about that?
Why would you be for using the death of a young kid for personal gain? That would be one reason to be against the organisation, while not being against equal rights and treatment for black people.
There’s a difference between the movement and the organization going by the same name.
No one specified which it was though, did they? And in any case, it was an example. You present the world as black and white, even though thats never been the case. Like Churchill, big hero against the nazis. But if you were Indian, he saw you the same way Hitler saw Jewish people. Which is a big yikes.
This is the reality of human beings. We are all complicated as fuck.
Absolutely. There are reasons to be against BLM while still believing that black lives matter. Examples:
It’s primarily an anti-police movement. Many people believe more police will help save black lives.
They made zero effort to reduce gang-related homicides which accounts for the majority of black homicides. So their sincere value for black life is questionable.
They engage in lots of riots and non-peaceful methods of protesting, many of which destroy black neighborhoods.
Increasing the police presence in black neighborhoods does not help save black lives, and the communities that are affected the most by gang-related homicides know this intuitively because we have increased police presence and budgets in those neighborhoods as a matter of routine and it has made their lives worse, not better.
“A riot is the language of the unheard.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
The majority of BLM protests were peaceful, and the minority that did turn violent were overblown by a media ecosystem biased against them, and do not discredit the aims and methods of the movement.
There is some legitimate criticism to be made of the non-profit organization going by the same name as the movement, but if you care about black lives then the BLM protest movement deserves your support.
Though you might sincerely believe that black lives matter, you clearly seem to think the opinions of those personally affected by police and gang-related violence (not all that different, really) don’t.
More police presence reduces number of homicides. This is well-documented. People’s “intuition” is irrelevant.
Now, it also increase more low-level arrests. So if people are wanting to get away with drug possessions, shoplifting, or other low-level crimes, then they are going to have to deal with higher homicide rates. But if they want that exchange, they don’t really care about black lives.
I trust people to identify their problems, but not to identify the solutions. Many people have problems partially because they keep trying the wrong solutions (eg. buying lotteries tickets to get out of poverty). Experts are often needed for solutions.
The BLM founders are so far removed from the problem in their $6 million dollar mansion, they cannot be expected to understand the problem let alone come up with solutions.
Extremely blessed Lemmy moment of opening the comments to find the hot one is what you opened the comments to post yourself