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? — NOS4A2
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
Yep. A lot of people don’t give a shit about what happens to black people. They’re constantly dehumanized and called names.By the looks of it, black people thriving is not everyone's idea of Utopia. — Kenosha Kid
Okay.No, I wouldn't say they much in common except irrelevant, generic categorisations. — DingoJones
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. — NOS4A2
And it true that it is a little too commie for my blood. — 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.
If your ideology casts helping one another as a sin rather than a virtue, you've got a pretty rotten ideology.
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
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
It’s a rotten lie that I cast “helping one another as a sin”. — NOS4A2
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
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
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
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'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
So you support a network of black people helping one another now?
I think everyone should help one another. It’s a brilliant idea. — NOS4A2
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
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?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.