BLM is racist by definition. One group is singled out as preferred. Same as NAACP.
Really? So when the NAACP was created, around the time MLK Jr was alive, they were suppose to just sit back accept the racism thrown at them for centuries? Slavery, Jim Crow, being prevented from voting, segregation… The U.S. was formed on protest in order to be heard. It’s in the First Amendment and even the NAACP and BLM have that right. I’ve sat in on NAACP meetings and they are hardly racist. They fight racism and if you don’t like fighting against racism, what does that make you?
If corporations are people, then wouldn’t a city also be a person? And people have the right to speech. So painting BLM is protected speech. There is nothing hateful about the message. It may be trolling for a reaction from the t rump, but he trolls others on a rather constant basis.
If you and I can't talk about what we think is just, then we can't petition our lawmakers to make just laws. I guess we could petition separately but I think democracy works better if we could talk
Justice is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Every lynching was deemed to be justice by those doing the lynching.
Posting a racist slogan in proximity to a specific individual’s property is NOT justice nor will it bring about justice. It is a demonstration of hate and can only bring about an unfavorable response.
One of our principles is that we want no dynasties established in this nation. This is why we do not allow royal-type titles. We do not condone setting one man (or woman) above another. The recent move to remove monuments and change names of places which offend minorities is in line with our principles.
I suggest it is very likely that every famous person has done something offensive to someone in society. Perhaps our best move will be to remove all monuments to actual persons and change the name of all places named for a person. Only in this way will we assure we offend no one now or later. Our Muslim citizens consider all images of living or dead beings to be idols and should not be produced. We must strive to not offend them as we strive to avoid offending other minorities.
I suggest we should remove the all the paintings and statues of persons in all public buildings and in all spaces which can be seen from public spaces. And we should change the names of all public spaces named for a person. And we should not allow images of persons on our documents, paper currency and coinage.
We will need new names for Pennsylvania, Washington (both the State and the city, William and Mary College, Harvard, a host of streets, highways, bridges, parks, rivers and lakes, including a large number of Martin Luther King boulevards. We will need to rename or tear down the Washington monument and the Lincoln Memorial as well as the MLK monument. Ellis Island and the Hudson River must be renamed of course as well as Houston, San Diego, and Charleston. In fact we will need to find a new name for both North and South America.
@ibelieveinlogic No one is going to change the names of streets, bridges, etc named after MLK Jr. I don’t see how you think that will happen just because the Emancipation statue was/is being removed. Now, in KC they did rename the Paseo MLK Jr without a vote, then they changed it back to the Paseo because of that, but they are looking for a new street to rename MLK Jr. No one is going to change the name of anything that’s been named after MLK Jr though.
BLM is NOT a racist slogan. It is an anti-racist slogan. It seems racist to you, I suppose, because it may threaten the status quo of white privilege over minorities' privilege.
… We do not condone setting one man (or woman) above another ...
Wrong. Of course we DO, in fact, honor certain persons, at certain times for actions or characteristics that we admire. We no longer, collectively admire historical figures who took part in racial subjugation.
Some historical figures were worse than others in that respect. For example, there is much to be admired about Thomas Jefferson. I would favor keeping monuments about him, but add the truth that he was also a slave owner who took sexual advantage of at least one of his slaves.
Most of the people who took part in our most deadly war to try to maintain slavery, should not continue to have public monuments in their honor. Many of those were put up during a time in our history when lynching blacks from trees was still a regular occurrence.
Justice is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Every lynching was deemed to be justice by those doing the lynching.
"Justice, in its broadest sense is the principle that people receive that which they deserve; with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness."
from Wikipedia
Granted that what a society deems to be justice can change. News flash: Not only is lynching, no longer considered just (except by the most incorrigible of philosophies.) Systemic injustice is ALSO, quickly coming to be considered no longer acceptable by the not so silent majority of Americans.
Bob, you are using atgumentum absurdism, which is logically valid, except you are using it really poorly, so you’re wrong. Vonnegut did a piece on this, I find it for you when I have time
No one is going to change the name of anything that’s been named after ...
Your hero. But what about the heroes of others, they just don't matter because they offend you?
You want us to correct what offends you, but not what offends some others. Prejudice, bias, racism. What’s done for one must be applied for all, right?
Of course BLM is a racist slogan. The fact is that the “B” in the slogan qualifies the slogan as racist by excluding anything other than “B”. If you want to make the slogan not racist, you must delete the “B”. Racism is not a one-way street.
These two statements contradict each other. Please explain.
No contradiction. Those doing the lynching were wrong. Mob rule, without concern for law and order, was wrong then and its wrong today.
Painting the racist slogan in proximity to the President’s property is an obvious attempt to harm him. Not as deadly as a lynching, but done in the same spirit of mob rule and wrong.
What I hope my post shows is the absurdity of preference in removing offending symbols from our society. Eliminating such preference must be applied universally or it is simply another form of systemic discrimination.
Actually, I think eliminating all images and names from public places and spaces would be a good thing. It would permanently solve what seems to be recognized as a problem. If we are to do for some, let us do the same for all.
What you, and others, are calling systemic injustice is not systemic injustice; it is no longer encoded into our society or our law as it once was. What you call systemic and rail against is what people think and the way they act. We can limit what people do, within defined circumstances. I really hope we will never be able to control what people think.
@ibelieveinlogic If you have to ask whether or not WLM isn’t a racist slogan and that BLM is a racist slogan, then you totally don’t get BLM and that it is trying to fight for equality and justice in the legal system. We MLK Jr racist for wanting equality? BLM is also fighting for equality.
What you call systemic and rail against is what people think and the way they act.
Let's say that people acting according to a system that allows them to do things that hurts black people disproportionally and get away with it over and over and over, is a "systemic" dysfunction. (What the cops think is up to them, but if it leads them to do bad behavior, the bad behavior must not be sustained by the "system".)
Let’s say that people acting according to a system that allows them to do things that hurts black people disproportionally and get away with it over and over and over, is a “systemic” dysfunction.
Sounds logical but you have to firstly explain what causes people to act according to that system; and, secondly, lay out the system structure so we understand how it operates.
(What the cops think is up to them, but if it leads them to do bad behavior, the bad behavior must not be sustained by the “system”.)
On one hand, we have the cop; and on the other, we have the "system". What about the black guy in the mix? Does what he thinks and his bad behavior have any impact on the cop and the system?