Quote:
|
This is where anyone with even a tiny bit of self-awareness would have stopped typing.
|
I'm familiar up close with what BLM opposes. "Social justice" is Occupy Wall Street repackaged. It's too broad, too polluted with grievance addicts and losers.
Quote:
|
Which groups of people seeking equality do you believe are undeserving? Or are you, as usual, just reacting to words you don't understand? Hint: It's shorthand for a bunch of specific movements, not a rallying cry.
|
"Social justice" is a McVocabulary. Lingo of any kind drives me nuts, be it corporate (synergies, "baked in," etc.) or social ("[insert issue] shaming," "'splainin,'" etc.). I am a language bigot. Whatever one you speak, speak it well, not like someone whose exclusive form of communication is texting or Snapchat.
Quote:
|
So queer and native people, immigrants and Muslims and everyone else can just fuck off then?
|
No. But they can all take a page from the gay rights movement. That is the template for how equality is achieved today. In that instance, smart people targeted certain states, got laws passed, anticipated a SCOTUS challenge and framed the issue as one of basic human dignity. There was a tight, coherent argument: Gay people stand in an identical position to straight people, and deserve all the same rights in terms of ability to have a state sanctioned marriage. They had the science and law on their side, their advocacy was simple and compelling, and their strategy was shrewd.
All of those same strategies and arguments can be applied to BLM. In fact, it might even be easier to effect criminal justice reform. A huge change in sentiment, and elected officials making policy, could be reached by simply giving felons the right to vote. Six million felons do not have that right today. A targeted effort to give them back the vote (which, by the way, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum and other principled Rs support) could provide the difference in a Presidential election, and numerous state elections that have a direct impact on policing and justice administration.
Bundling all these causes together and protesting, or being drug into street skirmishes with Nazi morons, is not effective. Calling every slight racism is not effective.
You eat the elephant one bite at a time. BLM's concerns are most acute. Address them, then address the lesser acute issues in order of severity. I think you'll find addressing BLM's concerns, perhaps by getting felons the vote, will create an environment where it will be easier to subsequently address Islamaphobia.
Quote:
|
It's not. Lots of people are opposed to greater efforts to combat inequality exactly because they think it means giving money to black people. Heck, Reagan ran on the idea.
|
You don't frame it as fighting "inequality." That's the language that lumps you in with the Occupy Sorts and grievance fetishists. You frame the argument as "Justice Reform," and you describe the problem accurately: "We are jailing and killing black people in what is clearly a racist justice system. We jail more people per capita than China. This is a grotesque failing on par with those addressed during the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, it is part of the Civil Rights Movement. For some reason, we failed to adequately address it then. We need to do so now." Those are facts. People cannot argue with facts. And the Right wingers who'll try will fail as badly as the dimwits who argued against gay marriage on the basis it violated their "religious liberty."
