zlacker

>>tosh+(OP)
Some bright spots I've noticed in the past month or so in this area, for those who care both about justice and open debate:

- John Carmack signal boosting[1] Sarah Downey's article "This PC witch-hunt is killing free speech, and we have to fight it"[2]

- The critical comments on the obligatory "BLM" post in r/askscience[3]

- Glenn Loury's response[4] to Brown University's letter to faculty/alumni about racial justice.

- The failure[5] of a group of folks to cancel Steven Pinker over accusations of racial insensitivity.

[1] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1279105937404579841

[2] https://medium.com/@sarahadowney/this-politically-correct-wi...

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gvc7k9/black_li...

[4] https://www.city-journal.org/brown-university-letter-racism

[5] https://mobile.twitter.com/sapinker/status/12799365902367907...

>>dnissl+Tr
Carmack's comment on the Cultural Revolution was strange. The greatest problem with the Cultural Revolution, its defining characteristic in most people's minds, was all the mass murder. McCarthyism or something might have been a better historical analog to what is happening, but it would have been pretty tricky to jujitsu that example into a slam against the left, or the kids today, or whatever was being attempted there.

The article he linked to was a little peculiar. As someone who's inclined to agree with the author about the First Amendment, the poorly thought out paragraph about racism - using a link to hate crime statistics to demonstrate the low numbers of "actual racists," but then making a remark like The statement “black lives matter” is easy to agree with if you’re a decent human being, which raises some questions about why we all have so many not-decent people (just indecent, not actual racists?) in our social media feeds - distracted from the overall message.

>>justin+VH
What is “the overall message?” Is it just the plain meaning of the words? Is the idea that we need to reform the police so they stop murdering Black people?

Or is it the New York Times’ claim that “nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery?” https://mobile.twitter.com/maragay/status/116140196616729805....

Or is it that we need to “disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure,” as BLM’s website claims? https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Or is it that “institutions of white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism” are all equivalent evils that must be “abolished,” as BLM’s DC chapter proclaims? https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-an...

Or is it—as the 1619 project claims and which is now being taught in schools—the supposed historical fact that capitalism is an outgrowth of plantation slavery? https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-conspiracy-theory

Or is it applied Marxism?

> No doubt, the organization itself was quite radical from the very beginning. Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and fellow co-founder Alicia Garza as “trained Marxists” in a recently resurfaced video from 2015.

Look at how much the debate has transformed within the last month. It started out with universal condemnation of a murder committed by the police in Minnesota. Now, we are talking about tearing town statues of Abraham Lincoln: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2020/06/26/uw-... (“Students in the UW-Madison's Black student union are calling on university officials to remove the statue of the nation's 16th president.”) My high school, named after Thomas Jefferson, is thinking of renaming itself. We are debating whether the Constitution as a “pro-slavery document.”

I am pro-BLM. To me, it’s a matter of my faith, as well as my personal experience living in places like Baltimore and Philadelphia and realizing that Black people just aren’t getting a fair shake. I think people of every stripe can do something to help finish the job of reconstruction. Libertarians can pitch in to help end police abuse of minorities. Conservatives can help push forward school choice, which the majority of Black people support. Middle of the road people can agree that we need to undo the pro-confederacy monument building that happened during the KKK era.

But I also believe that our country rests on mostly admirable principles and history, and that Marxism is a recipe for suffering while capitalism is uplifting billions of people before our very eyes. I can hardly blame people who are skeptical when they are forced to chant a slogan that was coined by self-avowed Marxists. You can’t blame people for being cautious in their support of a movement that has under the same roof a majority of well-meaning people who simply want to eliminate police brutality and inequality, and a vocal minority of people who view those problems as an indictment of our entire country and it’s institutions. The far left, in characteristic fashion, has taken something most people could agree on, and pushed it further and further until normal people are forced to push back to keep society from crumbling beneath their feet. And that’s a tragedy for everyone, especially people who care about the core concept of fixing policing in America.

>>rayine+ra1
"They're Marxists!". You couldn't make it up. "We want peace"-America will always go down this route it seems.

Haven't you seen the amount of people that are participating in these demonstrations? Of course you're gonna find self-described "Marxists" among them. Doesn't mean that the average protestor is some sort of Stalinist relic from the 1960ths. That's just absurd.

>>jahaja+dm1
I didn't say the average protester was a Marxist. I said exactly the opposite: BLM contains a "majority of well-meaning people who simply want to eliminate police brutality and inequality."

But several of the BLM founders are, by their own description, Marxists, and that is a very different thing from happening to "find self-described 'Marxists' among" the protesters. People with lots of different views can happen to find themselves on the same side of any issue. I do think it's different when you're talking about the founders of an organization that is the de facto figurehead of the movement.

>>rayine+oz1
No it's not. There's no "founders" in the sense that you are trying to present. There's no organization that you join. You're pretty obviously implying that these protests are somehow linked to Marxism, otherwise that entire posts make little sense. I realize that conservatives always want to find some "leaders" to argue with rather than accept that it's a massmovement, not some top-down movement that has some sort of charter that most must directly or indirectly accept.

>>jahaja+6B1
There is a 501(c)(3) called the "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation." That organization created the slogan "black lives matter." That organization has leaders. They're Marxists.

> You're pretty obviously implying that these protests are somehow linked to Marxism, otherwise that entire posts make little sense. I realize that conservatives always want to find some "leaders" to argue with rather than accept that it's a mass movement, not some top-down movement that has some sort of charter that most must directly or indirectly accept.

I am not arguing that we should discredit the narrow goals of the protestors because of the ideologies of the BLM founders. In fact, I said exactly the opposite:

> I am pro-BLM... I think people of every stripe can do something to help finish the job of reconstruction.

But that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about a very specific quote from John Carmack upthread: "the statement 'black lives matter' is easy to agree with if you’re a decent human being." It is disingenuous to the extreme to suggest that one might not reasonably be concerned about the scope of that statement.

>>rayine+xC1
The founders of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation are Marxists in much the same way that the founders of the United States were slavery advocates. That is, both statements are true, but somewhat incidental to the core idea.

If you reject the thought that the United States has slavery built deeply into its ideology, then you should award that same consideration to BLM and admit that the fundamentals of its ideology are not Marxism etc., but that Black people are fundamentally not given a fair shake by society, as you say.

This is leaving aside the point other posters have made, which is that Black Lives Matter as a slogan and idea exists outside this specific foundation. I don't think you can reasonably expect someone asserting "Black Lives Matter" to have made a complete study of this specific foundation and be in agreement with all its aims.