This is a puzzle. The only explanation I have is that "reactionary" means something different to you.

Edit: posted before your reply came through.

Just keep it simple. Someone points out in the context of recent events that black lives matter. Someone else says "all lives matter". Did they react?

That's why it might be useful to clarify what is meant by "reactionary". It wasn't me who used that term.

It's got a particular meaning in Marxist literature. Hence my question.

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists” F Engels, “On Authority”, Almanaco Republicano, 1874

How is that "reactionary" ? — Apollodorus

Again,in what sense could it not be reactionary? It is your use that is in contrast to the definition you invoked.

How could it not be reactionary?

Words mean different things to different people. I asked you if you meant "reactionary" in the Marxist sense illustrated above.

Just keep it simple. Someone points out in the context of recent events that black lives matter. Someone else says "all lives matter". Did they react? — Banno

I'd say that's a reactionary statement. I don't think we need Marxism to help explain this...

If responding to a comment means "reacting" and makes a person "reactionary" then everybody responding to a post is reactionary.

But as I said, "reactionary" can mean different things to different people and can have different results in different circumstances. In some cases, if you called someone "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary" or "Nazi", that person could be dead before you know it. So you need to be careful when you label people.

But as I said, "reactionary" can mean different things to different people — Apollodorus

Dude, it's a reactionary comment. The Humpty Dumpty Defence won't cut it.

it's a reactionary comment. The Humpty Dumpty Defence won't cut it — Banno

I've never heard that used of a comment except in a Marxist or far-left context. Obviously, we are from different villages or parts of the world. But that isn't my fault.

Circling back to the OP:

Friday essay: searching for sanity in a world hell-bent on destruction

“if X said to jump off a bridge would you do it?” — Pinprick

If everyone drinks from the poison well, ought you, too?

we are from different villages or parts of the world — Apollodorus

We are not so different that you do not understand me. You are avoiding the question.

How could that not be a reactionary meme?

Or do you now disavow the meme?

I don't know what you mean by "reactionary". If you mean someone to be stabbed in the leg or have his skull smashed by a gang of far-left thugs, it is one thing. If it means something else it is another. You aren't saying which.

I don't know what you mean by "reactionary". — Apollodorus

Yes, you do.

You perhaps do not care to own the label.

So you mean it in a Marxist or far-left sense then. And that's why I'm not interested in BLM.

How else could it be used? "All lives matter" is the epitome of a reactionary meme. It says "I don't care about black lives". As does

I'm not interested in BLM. — Apollodorus

SO now we can circle back to your comment:

It's a shame that in the 21st century people aren't rational enough to solve policing problems peacefully and without bringing culture and race wars into it. Plus I hear that BLM is being funded by Chinese organizations linked to the Communist Party of China... — Apollodorus

...the downplaying of culture and race in the interests of what you misunderstand as "rationality" in the same paragraph as the insipid repetition of a conspiracy theory.

You were earnest then. So there's nothing more to be said.

The fact is that I've never heard the word "reactionary" except in a political context and what you're saying seems to confirm that this is how it was intended in which case we have nothing to say to each other.

Well, indeed, you have nothing worth listening to.

Well, indeed, you have nothing worth listening to — Banno

Likewise.

All lives matter. — Apollodorus

Sure, I guess.
And "black lives matter" is a part of "all lives matter".
There's some focus on that sub-set because some systemic discrimination has been seen in particular.
By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing.
Red herring? Ignoratio elenchi?

By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing. — jorndoe

For sake of discussion inviting people to throw rocks at me, I'll toss out a counterargument that I already mentioned a little earlier.

There's a lot of bad police behavior in the US. Some of it is racial and some of it isn't. If you define it as a racial problem, you can't solve the problem because you've misdiagnosed it. If you tell black people that "You're being hunted by cops," you don't solve any problems that actually exist; and you encourage a certain percentage of black people to resist arrest, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Dr. King dreamed of a society where people were judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin; in effect, "all lives matter." If you now characterize such a position as racist, or not sufficiently anti-racist, you simply polarize people and make society's problems worse.

Secondly, while it's undeniably true that black lives matter, Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization wholly dedicated to the destruction of the American way of life. This equivocation puts lifelong nonracist people like myself in the position of saying that black lives matter but that I oppose Black Lives Matter; subjecting me to to the charge of racism. And this equivocation is no accident, it's deliberate.

If saying that "All lives matter" is racist, then the word racist has been distorted beyond all meaning and is simply used as a political epithet; as has in fact happened in the present sociopolitical moment.

There's a lot of bad police behavior in the US. — fishfry

See you would be more convincing as an advocate against police brutality if you didn't feel the need to point to "circumstances" of George Floyd's arrest which are not related to the question of whether or not Derek Chauvin is guilty of intentionally killing a person.

Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization wholly dedicated to the destruction of the American way of life. — fishfry

Ahahahaha. Right. The "American way of life", whatever that is.

If saying that "All lives matter" is racist, then the word racist has been distorted beyond all meaning and is simply used as a political epithet; as has in fact happened in the present sociopolitical moment. — fishfry

Hey here is a hint: Displaying the Swastika doesn't identify you as a racist because swastikas have some kind of racist essence that rubs off on you. It's because it has been factually used by racists.

And "black lives matter" is a part of "all lives matter".
There's some focus on that sub-set because some systemic discrimination has been seen in particular.
By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing.
Red herring? Ignoratio elenchi? — jorndoe

This is way better than Banno's effort.

By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing. — jorndoe

You're arguing from ignorance there. I haven't "refused" anything. Please read my posts before butting in. It was a reply to @Banno's unfounded charge that by linking BLM with China I somehow thought that racial equality is not a worthy cause. Both of you are totally wrong and you're deliberately distorting what people are saying which is what far-left activists usually do. No different from Nazis. That's why you call people "reactionary", i.e. "enemy".

lot of bad police behavior in the US — fishfry

Two wrongs make a right? Nah. Still need to address systemic discrimination.

Marxist organization — fishfry

Either way, we still need to address the social/cultural problem, systemic discrimination.

If saying that "All lives matter" is racist — fishfry

I wouldn't say it is. Except perhaps in reaction to "black lives matter"?

, the comment was kind of memerific, often seen out there, as a reaction, which seemed to be what you were doing. No need to diverge off to semantics.

1. Observer/activist: "black lives matter"
2. Responder: "all lives matter" ← doesn't really say much (except perhaps to ignore 1)

If the commies are taking advantage of the situation, then that still doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

Wasn't it Obama that once said something about cultural DNA, heritage, legacy, something like that, a lingering problem that needs addressing...?

Wasn't it Obama that once said something about cultural DNA, heritage, legacy, something like that, a lingering problem that needs addressing...? — jorndoe

You mean white cultural DNA, heritage, legacy, etc. being a problem that needs addressing, don't you? So, perhaps we should start building concentration camps to get rid of all that white cultural DNA, etc.? Some might see that as the fastest final solution.

Was Donald Trump "guilty", "blame-worthy", or "responsible" for the capitol riot? His role was clearly provocative, without being literally responsible--the way a general may be responsible for a failed defense. Provocation, though, establishes a connection between the provocateur and the agents. While DT didn't lead the charge into the capitol building, he also did nothing (at the critical time) to prevent continued rioting. So yes, he is blame worthy. — Bitter Crank

In hindsight, I think Trump was a bad example to use. He was blameworthy for his actions. I’m more interested in how people are blamed for things they didn’t do. It would be like blaming Trump for murder if the rioters had killed someone. That’s what I have a hard time getting on board with.

We are both self-responsible agents and can often be swayed to act against our better judgment. There is, after all, a large industry (marketing) bent on swaying our behavior toward buying stuff we do not need or even want. Some people tend to be highly influenced by other people. Others are not. — Bitter Crank

That’s obviously true, but it’s unfair to blame McDonald’s for the obesity epidemic. We’re all influenced to greater or lesser degrees, but are expected to use good judgement when we choose to act. There’s an assumption of free will that we as a society endorse in most cases, so I don’t understand why in other cases we make exceptions. Was Manson so extraordinary that others were unable to resist his persuasions? I understand making exceptions for severely mentally ill or disabled individuals and for children. These are people who aren’t deemed capable of comprehending the consequences of their actions. Medical and psychological explanations can account for those type of cases.

There was a case a few years back where a woman was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for texting her suicidal boyfriend that he should just get on with it. After her seemingly loving encouragement he killed himself with carbon monoxide in a Kmart parking lot. Though he died by his own hand, by his own volition, the court deemed her guilty of homicide as if a person could kill another by text message.

This is an age-old, superstitious problem that few have spoken about: an overestimation of the power of words. One can see it everywhere once one notices it. — NOS4A2

I remember seeing that case as well, and having a similar reaction. It’s concerning to think that our legal system seems to have no issue equating speech and actions. Free speech has slowly been chiseled away at, and may soon be a relic of the past. I hope not, but that seems to be the direction things are trending at the moment. I have a difficult time imagining how society, a supposed free society, can truly function if free speech isn’t maintained. Especially when it comes to the idea of justice.

Two wrongs make a right? — jorndoe

I didn't say that and didn't bother to read further.

Free speech has slowly been chiseled away at, and may soon be a relic of the past. I hope not, but that seems to be the direction things are trending at the moment. I have a difficult time imagining how society, a supposed free society, can truly function if free speech isn’t maintained. Especially when it comes to the idea of justice. — Pinprick

IMO that's where the problem lies with modern "liberal democracy" and with liberalism in general. Liberalism started as a movement aiming to win freedom for certain social and economic groups. However, political power is a limited commodity. You can only acquire some for yourself by restricting the power of others. From a minority group, the liberals gradually became the majority and now that they hold most of the power they are beginning to take away whatever power the others have left. We are now getting close to full circle when we are reverting to a situation where freedom is becoming more and more limited. And this isn't just in the USA.

This may seem very unphilosophical but.

In the game Assassins Creed I vaguely remember a character explaining how assassin's are just daggers hired to kill, it is the wielder/person who hired that is the killer.
I get its a justifiable means of assassination given the context but the ideology is not to dissimilar.

This concept is very direct in relation to the post's example so ill try to explain a bit further:
If one were to directly ask you to do something then its easily understandable intent from both perspectives.
But if one were to influence you to do something through bias manipulation/deception then only the influencer would be aware of the intent which masks the intent from the influenced.

If you manipulated the individual culture of an person in a way that is accepting of certain ideology it can lead to that person acting out that ideology through cultural bias.
If an individual is raised closed minded it can lead to easier manipulation because the idea of considering other perspectives or willingness to consider other idea's is just not part of how they are raised/influenced.

Which is why a influencer can claim innocent but they are so so far from innocent.

Yes, it is. Perhaps its purpose was different. But it also had no noticeable effect on Apollodorus, going by his reply.

Apparently in society, if someone is actually dumb enough to jump off a bridge because they were told to, it’s the other person’s fault. — Pinprick

Tort law is specifically centred around that principle.

We are responsible, according to articled and tested law, for the safety and well-being of others as much as for our own.

(A corollary of this is conscription or drafting soldiers: the duty of care may require a patriot to give up his life for others in his community, and he can get punished for failing to do so, such as in court-marshalling a defector.)