Okay so according to your information (whatever that is), the BLM virtual village isn't a thing. So why do you find it troubling if it isn't happening? This isn't amounting to a coherent position, even an ugly one.

I find it troubling that anyone would preach such piffle, when the opposite might be the better cause. Does that make sense to you?

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. BLM website

Sounds like a utopian society to me.

I find it troubling that anyone would preach such piffle, when the opposite might be the better cause. Does that make sense to you? — NOS4A2

Well, no. I confess my first thought when I heard of George Floyd's murder was not: "This wouldn't be happening if black people cared less for one another."

But why does it make sense to you? Even if you believe that the individualistic nuclear support structure suits you, to the extent that you would not want any involvement in any kind of support network, why do you believe that it must be championed by everyone, including those in very different situations to you for whom a support network might be useful? What troubles you about the idea of people helping one another? Too commie? Black people might benefit from it? Not useful to you so shouldn't be allowed? Too reminiscent of the African village structures the idea is derived from? I'd list some positive possible motivations but I can't find any.

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. BLM website

Sounds like a utopian society to me. — Wheatley

By the looks of it, black people thriving is not everyone's idea of Utopia.

By the looks of it, black people thriving is not everyone's idea of Utopia. — Kenosha Kid

Yep. A lot of people don’t give a shit about what happens to black people. They’re constantly dehumanized and called names.

This is a tiresome deflection. It does not invalidate in any way, shape or form the issue of police brutality.

Edit: here's an analogy: after the twin towers, how many people said "but why aren't you angry and sad about how many Americans kill each other in gun massacres?" I imagine not many.

No, I wouldn't say they much in common except irrelevant, generic categorisations.

Yawn. Still dodging.

No, I wouldn't say they much in common except irrelevant, generic categorisations. — DingoJones

Okay.

Well, no. I confess my first thought when I heard of George Floyd's murder was not: "This wouldn't be happening if black people cared less for one another."

But why does it make sense to you? Even if you believe that the individualistic nuclear support structure suits you, to the extent that you would not want any involvement in any kind of support network, why do you believe that it must be championed by everyone, including those in very different situations to you for whom a support network might be useful? What troubles you about the idea of people helping one another? Too commie? Black people might benefit from it? Not useful to you so shouldn't be allowed? Too reminiscent of the African village structures the idea is derived from? I'd list some positive possible motivations but I can't find any.

"The idea of people helping one another" doesn't trouble me, but the idea of disrupting "the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement" does. It troubles me for reasons I've already stated. And it true that it is a little too commie for my blood.

I know that the issues are different, but you'd think a movement dedicated to the welfare of black people would be concerned with a category of homicides which kill 4-5x more lives a year than police do. We're fundamentally talking about homicides here.

Let's take it as a given that crime and poverty are strongly correlated then black on black violence isn't an issue of race but a consequence of it, or at least I consider poverty of blacks a direct consequence of systemic racism and black on black violence a secondary consequence.

Second, how about white on white crime? People tend to kill people in their own communities. It's not a black pathology of increased violence amongst blacks.

There's also a rather important difference between being murdered by a criminal and being murdered by a cop; the latter isn't supposed to do it, has qualified immunity and for some weird reason is believed in court more readily than regular citizens.

There's more but it's just diversionary and distracting. If victimised men start a "no more rape by women" group, why demand they should protest against rape of women as well, because it's more prevalent? In fact, why do you feel the need to tell people what they should be worrying about?

"The idea of people helping one another" doesn't trouble me, but the idea of disrupting "the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement" does. — NOS4A2

Why? It doesn't disrupt it for you: you seemed to agree that people having such networks doesn't hurt your right to be left alone and let everyone else gft. It disrupts it for people for whom it's a problem, or is insufficient.

And it true that it is a little too commie for my blood. — NOS4A2

If your ideology casts helping one another as a sin rather than a virtue, you've got a pretty rotten ideology.

Why? It doesn't disrupt it for you: you seemed to agree that people having such networks doesn't hurt your right to be left alone and let everyone else gft. It disrupts it for people for whom it's a problem, or is insufficient.

Because I believe it is a bad idea. I’m not going to stop them or impede their choices, but I’m not going to support them either.

If your ideology casts helping one another as a sin rather than a virtue, you've got a pretty rotten ideology.

It’s a rotten lie that I cast “helping one another as a sin”.

Because I believe it is a bad idea. I’m not going to stop them or impede their choices, but I’m not going to support them either. — NOS4A2

How's the act of misrepresenting them as an attempt to make them look bad not an attempt to impede or stop them? Or do you just do that for shits and giggles?

I don’t need to misrepresent them. I can quote them directly from their website and interviews.

Because I believe it is a bad idea. I’m not going to stop them or impede their choices, but I’m not going to support them either. — NOS4A2

That doesn't sound like "troubling". It sounds like "irrelevant to me".

It’s a rotten lie that I cast “helping one another as a sin”. — NOS4A2

You said you found it "troubling" and that part of the reason is it's a bit "commie". Perhaps "sin" is too conotative a word in parts of the world where communism and black people helping one another are things to be troubled about. What's a better word to describe the dim view taken of people who help one another where you're from?

self-avowed marxists start disrupting families — NOS4A2

Blatant misrepresentation as pointed out which you refuse to own up to. You don't have integrity or a backbone do you?

I just don’t find your opinions compelling or interesting.

Again, no one has a dim view of “helping one another”. That would be what is known as a lie where I’m from.

I'm not talking to you for your benefit.

Again, no one has a dim view of “helping one another”. That would be what is known as a lie where I’m from. — NOS4A2

So you support a network of black people helping one another now?

Let's take it as a given that crime and poverty are strongly correlated then black on black violence isn't an issue of race but a consequence of it, or at least I consider poverty of blacks a direct consequence of systemic racism and black on black violence a secondary consequence. — Benkei

Are you saying that black on black violence is a result of poverty? This doesn't entirely bear out because we don't see the same homicide rates in other parts of the country with similar poverty rates.

Second, how about white on white crime? People tend to kill people in their own communities. It's not a black pathology of increased violence amongst blacks. — Benkei

Yes, when whites murder they disproportionately choose to murder other whites. When homicide is done it's overwhelmingly within that same ethnic group. The reason I bring up black on black crime is because you would think an organization that is concerned with black lives should be a little more tuned into a phenomenon which is killing black men at a much greater rate than police violence.

There's also a rather important difference between being murdered by a criminal and being murdered by a cop; the latter isn't supposed to do it, has qualified immunity and for some weird reason is believed in court more readily than regular citizens. — Benkei

There are some instances where cops are perfectly within their rights to kill. If we look at instances where cops did kill in 2019 you'll see in the vast majority of those instances the subject was armed.

I acknowledge it's still a problem though, but if we had to devote our time and resources towards either eliminating black on black crime or police violence towards blacks I would honestly choose the former. Make no mistake about it, it is a discussion in the black community and it has been a discussion for decades. Why BLM pays seemingly no attention to it is beyond me.

There's more but it's just diversionary and distracting. If victimised men start a "no more rape by women" group, why demand they should protest against rape of women as well, because it's more prevalent? In fact, why do you feel the need to tell people what they should be worrying about? — Benkei

Alright, lets go with this example. Lets imagine a group called "Men's Bodies Matter" started a nationwide movement that solely concerned itself with women-on-male rape. I mean we're all against rape, right? But what about male on male rape, which happens more to men than women on male? Obviously women on male rape is wrong, but I think we'd both agree the explicit and sole focus only on female perpetrator/male victim would be super bizarre. I'd be tempted to call it an anti-woman movement and I'm not even much of a feminist.

Make no mistake about it, the explicit focus on some aggressors but not others is very political.

So you support a network of black people helping one another now?

I think everyone should help one another. It’s a brilliant idea.

I think everyone should help one another. It’s a brilliant idea. — NOS4A2

Great. So you support BLM's "supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another" at least in principle, even if you disagree that it exists in practise?

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=5508484140a84023a1e2d8b080e14d0a#detail

I'll just leave that here and say I don't feel like going through all these motions again.

Alright, lets go with this example. Lets imagine a group called "Men's Bodies Matter" started a nationwide movement that solely concerned itself with women-on-male rape. I mean we're all against rape, right? But what about male on male rape, which happens more to men than women on male? Obviously women on male rape is wrong, but I think we'd both agree the explicit and sole focus only on female perpetrator/male victim would be super bizarre. I'd be tempted to call it an anti-woman movement and I'm not even much of a feminist. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I can see how you're tempted since you have been struggling with BLM as well.

I wouldn't think it's super bizarre. In fact, the Netherlands has (or had) a group solely focused on rape of men by women because it's totally unrepresented and not taken seriously. After all, men are supposed to be stronger. So no, I think it probably says more about what you've been exposed to in your life and the society you live to feel the need to judge people for standing up for an injustice.

There's always something bigger or more important, politically speaking, or we can take the nihilist approach and say it all amounts to nothing any way. Or the third way is just to listen to what people have to say.

If you are worried about black on black crime then do something about it other than telling people who are already working on combating injustice that they should fight another injustice just because to think it's more important. At the end of the day those protesters are doing a lot more than either of us.

Can women even rape a man where you guys are? Here you have to have a penis. Bloody British patriarchy, can't even rape unless you're male.

@BitconnectCarlos, Black Lives Matter only exists because certain white people with power (state power, power in numbers, power to act unjustly) act like black lives don't matter. A point of contact might be men campaigning to have men-on-men rape taken seriously as an issue, and indeed that is happening in the same countries where BLM operates. By comparing BLM to a campaign on an issue that matters less than another unchampioned issue, when in fact that issue is championed in the real world, makes it sound like black lives don't matter as much, which I'm sure is not your view. The actual analogy for the women-on-men rape cause is... White Lives Matter, which does campaign hypocritically for the visibility of lesserproblems while not just ignoring but opposing campaigns around greater ones.

Also, you might disagree with Benkei and BLM that poverty is a correlate of local violent crime, but it would be dishonest to say that therefore BLM are not concerned with the issue. I'm pretty sure hydrogen is the right approach to low-carbon vehicles rather than electric, but I'd be lying to say that therefore electric car manufacturers are uninterested in the problem.

As I'm sure you are aware, changing the subject to black-on-black crime when people want to talk about the state-sanctioned murder of black people is a common trope, and probably not one you'd want to associate with. The extent to which BLM does not, in your view, sufficiently cover local violent crime is not an extent to which people should shut up about nationwide white-on-black violence, particularly when that violence is not at the hands of some local gang away from oversight but at the hands of the actual law enforcers in plain sight who are supposed to protect people from violent crime, and particularly when they have the approval and encouragement of their Head of State.

Of course, this is a naked self-contradiction, since "the idea of people helping one another" (i.e. in our community, beyond our immediate family) is precisely what is meant by "disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement"- so one cannot accept one but not the other with consistency. Though I certainly appreciate that logical consistency is not something you're likely to be interested in either.

Unfortunately, by opposing such self-evident goods as the notion that we should care about or support people besides just our nuclear family, that black lives matter, or that transgender discrimination is bad, you're just removing yourself from serious discussions about the present political/social situation in the US. Well, not you specifically since you were never part of them to begin with, but, you know, people in general. If you lack common sense or basic decency, and you're quite explicit about it, people will be increasingly less interested in talking to or hearing from you in any serious or substantive context. Then again, points for honesty, I guess?

The nuclear family was a reaction to a requirement for mobility following the industrial revolution.
Prior to that families were what we would call extended, including grandparents and near relatives in a more or less settled household. The move to a smaller family unit left the elderly to care for themselves, resulting in the aged care industry we see today.

The family continues to fragment, with even the nuclear family not being small enough to survive as a unit.

The nuclear family is a symptom of a broken economic system that disenfranchises and isolates people by treating them as economic units.



They are not a good thing.

Great. So you support BLM's "supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another" at least in principle, even if you disagree that it exists in practise?

I think it’s a great idea to support others, especially those in need of family. What I don’t agree with is to do so to disrupt the “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement”.

I don't like BLM but your line of argumentation about this "why only black lives" is pretty weak. BLM is a group that is focused on how the state treats black people. That doesn't mean that they don't care about every other issue that's remotely related to being black in America.

The whole "all lives matter" counterargument misses the point, it's like saying to a feminist "don't all rights matter?" Yeah, they do, but a feminist is focused on women's rights, generally.