28 votes

It turns out, all those 'woke' White allies were lying

105 comments

  1. [97]
    bub
    Link
    Most of the article focuses on companies not keeping their PR promises, and is completely right that those companies are being scummy, but I'm not addressing the entire article, nor the entire...
    • Exemplary

    And before we get to the “not all white people,” part of the conversation...

    Most of the article focuses on companies not keeping their PR promises, and is completely right that those companies are being scummy, but I'm not addressing the entire article, nor the entire fraught topic. I just wanted to pick out this one statement near the top. This seems to be a common disclaimer preemptively added onto internet statements about racism or other systemic abuse these days.

    Frankly, attempting to put a stopper in any "not all x" counters before they happen seems like a telltale sign that maybe what you're about to say is overly black and white. A progressive might get tired of hearing "not all x" over and over whenever they bring up real and pressing issues, but maybe there's a reason they keep hearing it.

    Should "decent" human beings be out there trying to right the wrongs of the world? By many philosophies, probably yes. Should their good deeds be sincere and untiring? A lifelong dedication? Ideally yes, but let's remember that is the behavior expected of a saint or a savior.

    If a member of a privileged group goes on a few marches, joins in a few protests, engages with their local politics, but ultimately has to get back to their own life at some point, should they be begrudged that? Are they then part of the problem?

    If a privileged person, who has never actively engaged in any kind of abuse, decides to do nothing at all to improve the lives of others, to me they are morally neutral. They can go live in the woods if they want and still not be "part of the problem."

    It makes a progressive argument easier if we can just lump together all members of some group, as if they somehow share responsibility for each other. "Not all x" irritates that kind of thinking, but I think it was lazy and self-defeating thinking in the first place. Vilifying lukewarm allies will not turn them into strong allies.

    37 votes
    1. [26]
      NoblePath
      Link Parent
      I’m not sure you properly characterize what this article is saying. It isn’t just the corporations, it’s all of white America doing less than nothing post protests. Perhaps the biggest mistake you...
      • Exemplary

      I’m not sure you properly characterize what this article is saying. It isn’t just the corporations, it’s all of white America doing less than nothing post protests.

      Perhaps the biggest mistake you meant is to assume this article is meant for you. It’s not. It’s meant to inform black folks, especially those descended from former slaves, that they should not trust the words of white people who say they are supporters, and provides some good reasons why. It rightly points out that white folks in America are far more concerned with propriety than principle.

      If a privileged person, who has never actively engaged in any kind of abuse, decides to do nothing at all to improve the lives of others, to me they are morally neutral

      Hard disagree. The problem is that privilege itself is not morally neutral. Privilege intrinsically means receiving an undeserved benefit to the detriment of others. In the case of race in America, it means if you appear in skin tone, dress, manner and speech, to belong to the appropriate group, you have reduced requirements for access to common resources.

      Which in US means if you look waspy, it’s easier to get better jobs, audiences with the mayor outside official office hours, easier parking, safer housing, etc etc. And availing yourself of these advantages and doing “nothing” is supporting the regime, which in conferring those advantages to you, denies them to others.

      28 votes
      1. [9]
        teaearlgraycold
        Link Parent
        It seems not unlike collective guilt for climate change. If you're participating in modern society and you're not actively throwing away the old energy system then you are part of the problem....

        It seems not unlike collective guilt for climate change. If you're participating in modern society and you're not actively throwing away the old energy system then you are part of the problem. Does that mean you actually can do much? How much would you have to sacrifice? Apparently too much for pretty much 100% of people (myself included).

        My life helps to entrench racism further. I'm not doing anything to change how society is structured. In my own interactions I treat people well. But my reaction to seeing racism first hand has always been inaction and little more than reflecting that yes, society is cruel to a lot of people.

        I think it's important that people that aren't harmed by racism and don't do anything about it acknowledge they aren't doing anything. Adding a progressive slogan to your Tinder profile or re-tweeting a pledge to donate is less than worthless if it makes you think you've done your part. I'm at least still looking for what I should be doing.

        19 votes
        1. [3]
          skybrian
          Link Parent
          I would go further than this and say that hardly anyone is in a position to do anything to reduce police killings. Protests don’t do it and writing articles scolding other people for not caring...

          I would go further than this and say that hardly anyone is in a position to do anything to reduce police killings. Protests don’t do it and writing articles scolding other people for not caring enough doesn’t do it.

          Much of this debate is about whether people should feel guilty about whether they are doing enough symbolic actions. But the fact is that we are all on the outside. Pretending that there is something important for us to do makes the debate seem more important than it is when actually what we say here doesn’t matter much.

          Maybe supporting the right people would get leadership in place that can do something, but that’s vague. The fact is our leaders usually don’t know what to do either. (It seems pretty clear that in Minneapolis they have no clue.)

          Maybe talking about possible solutions in a realistic way would result in coming up with achievable demands? But the debate isn’t very solution-oriented.

          To be a little bit more solution-oriented myself, some cities have pilot programs where non-armed responders take some calls, and I think that seems promising?

          15 votes
          1. [2]
            cloud_loud
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            Unfortunately, now that Facebook and Youtube have made it profitable to be the most outrageous blowhards making the most outrageous statements - I feel that while some progressive leaders have...

            Unfortunately, now that Facebook and Youtube have made it profitable to be the most outrageous blowhards making the most outrageous statements - I feel that while some progressive leaders have learned and made AMAZING progress without a single protest and others have protested a specific law and won in court (following the MLK/Marshall model), those people are getting drowned out by the "social network influencers" who profit from drama and views.

            What has made it worse are the Entertainers-acting-like-news-reporters who gin up outrage for views who aren't accurate in their reporting and rarely (if ever) make corrections.

            I'm hoping that the increased penalties that the GOP is implementing to stop protesters has a positive effect of forcing progressives to learn to move to activism that is thoughtful about the types of protests they engage in.

            8 votes
            1. skybrian
              Link Parent
              One thing we could do on Tildes is find and share links documenting these efforts. Sharing links is what we do, after all. Most of us aren’t exposed to such things by our usual reading habits. You...

              One thing we could do on Tildes is find and share links documenting these efforts. Sharing links is what we do, after all.

              Most of us aren’t exposed to such things by our usual reading habits. You need people who decide that, no really, they’re actually curious enough to follow a particular subject, reading specialist websites, reading “expert Twitter” for that subject, and so on. This goes beyond what you get from reading the news.

              I don’t mean to give people homework, though. I’m only doing this for the pandemic, off and on.

              7 votes
        2. [5]
          vektor
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Off-Topic except on a meta-level: On the thought of collective guilt for climate change, in particular the argument that "your carbon footprint was invented by big oil to shift blame; also, the...

          Off-Topic except on a meta-level:

          On the thought of collective guilt for climate change, in particular the argument that "your carbon footprint was invented by big oil to shift blame; also, the big companies are the big polluters" neglects a few things. One, the big polluters ultimately pollute not in their self-interest, but ultimately in the service of some customer. Customers might be other businesses, the government or a private citizen. Follow the money and all three eventually lead to the citizenry. (^1) So by that reasoning, citizens, collectively, have the ultimate power. Don't like the pollution the steel industry is creating, buy less steel products and stop supporting companies that do.

          Two, politicians who want to push green policy need leverage. People voluntarily not flying or not eating meat or not driving a car will give politicians a lot of leverage.

          Applying this reasoning to the racial justice issue at hand is left as an exercise for the reader.

          1: Governments act as direct proxies of the citizenry while business-to-business transactions eventually lead to a citizen buying a product. The latter is the case because all businesses, collectively, pay wage and taxes, while taking in money through sales to govt and citizens. The sum of those two must be equal (plus or minus a few items I might have forgotten that don't change the overall picture). Therefore, all the money that businesses spend to buy products that make the world a worse place or pay people to do the same, all of that money is ultimately coming from a individual citizen or their representing government. Notable caveat: How those business ties intermingle and therefore whether your money supports unsavory business practices is quite intransparent.

          5 votes
          1. [4]
            Thra11
            Link Parent
            I don't think this is correct. While it is true that ultimately the citizens (directly or indirectly) pay for a service (such as energy), the company providing that service has many choices in how...

            One, the big polluters ultimately pollute not in their self-interest, but ultimately in the service of some customer. Customers might be other businesses, the government or a private citizen. Follow the money and all three eventually lead to the citizenry. (^1) So by that reasoning, citizens, collectively, have the ultimate power.

            I don't think this is correct. While it is true that ultimately the citizens (directly or indirectly) pay for a service (such as energy), the company providing that service has many choices in how they deliver it. At the same price to the customer, they can source energy from more sustainable sources, and make a small profit, or they can go for the cheaper, more polluting options, make more profit, pay out large dividends to their shareholders, and undercut competitors. The consumer often has very little choice in the matter. You can't just decide not to pay for energy to heat your home in winter, and paying extra to get your energy from a more ethical supplier is a luxury many can't afford. In the unregulated society that you describe, where people's only real vote is with their wallet, the rich shareholders hold all the power. They decide what the rest of the population can afford to buy, and how it is produced.

            5 votes
            1. skybrian
              Link Parent
              I largely agree but there are also choices directly under consumer control. For example, usually you control the thermostat, can decide to put on more clothing, or can switch to alternate forms of...

              I largely agree but there are also choices directly under consumer control. For example, usually you control the thermostat, can decide to put on more clothing, or can switch to alternate forms of heating like a space heater or electric blanket. There are also larger choices to be made like where you live. Of course that can be constrained by budget and a lot of other considerations.

              But despite a huge amount of choice about what to buy, we usually have little control over what supply chains do. Often we don’t even know what supply chains do because it’s proprietary information. All we know is the price, which summarizes the damage but with a lot of noise and information loss. Even if we did find out more, the amount of information would likely be overwhelming.

              Two choices being the same price is more of an exception than the rule. Often the total cost of an action isn’t known in advance or is only based on a rough guess.

              Prices are based on the outcome of a complicated game and can be wrong. Taxing carbon emissions is a way of changing the price signals so that greener options win out more, throughout all the complex decision-making in the supply chain that’s hidden from us.

              4 votes
            2. [2]
              vektor
              Link Parent
              Completely correct for utilities and some other infrastructure and any market failures. But transportation and food are markets that work reasonably well and offer alternatives. Of course,...

              Completely correct for utilities and some other infrastructure and any market failures. But transportation and food are markets that work reasonably well and offer alternatives. Of course, intransparent business practices notwithstanding.

              It's of course not quite as easy as I outlined. But the narrative that evil businesses pollute without any accountability to us is at least as far from reality.

              1. spctrvl
                Link Parent
                I disagree that those two markets work well, particularly where choice comes in. The food industry is incredibly consolidated, and its most polluting sectors, meat and dairy, are some of the most...

                I disagree that those two markets work well, particularly where choice comes in. The food industry is incredibly consolidated, and its most polluting sectors, meat and dairy, are some of the most heavily subsidized, and the resulting low price and popularity of their products make it substantially harder and more expensive to adopt a less impactful diet than it should be. In no sane world should it be cheaper to repeatedly impregnate cows to keep them lactating and to continuously harvest their milk than it is to grind up some oats and filter the pulp, but that's not at all reflected in the price.

                Transportation is absolutely a market failure in the US. Because of decades of auto industry lobbying, the infrastructure in a solid 85% of the US leaves you with the options of car or car. There is no market choice aside from how efficient a car you buy, which makes some difference, but ultimately mass car ownership is not compatible with seriously taking on climate change, electric or not, and the only thing a person can do about that as a consumer is to move to one of the handful of cities in the country with acceptable public transit, which brings you into the housing market, which is famously a failure.

                I guess my point is that while yes, polluting companies are responding to consumer demand, they're also the ones driving that demand, so they're still the party at fault.

                8 votes
      2. [12]
        bub
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        EDIT: I may have said a stupid and/or triggering thing here, but so as not to try to cover it up, the original is what follows: If I understand your point, then what you're saying is that as a...

        EDIT: I may have said a stupid and/or triggering thing here, but so as not to try to cover it up, the original is what follows:

        If I understand your point, then what you're saying is that as a privileged person lives and takes advantage of the privilege they were born with, it is then that they accrue debt to society? And not at the point of birth?

        Suppose that the absolute epitome of an American-born WASP decides to live an isolated, self-sufficient, and nomadic life in the national forests of the U.S. (being nomadic makes this legal, as far as I know).

        Under your understanding of the issue, that person would not have accrued any of this debt, right? Because they did not ever benefit from the potential privilege they were born with? But if they had, say, gotten a job or bought a house, then they would then have a certain responsibility?

        Is this correct? I'm not trying to catch you in a lawyer trap or anything, I'm just trying to understand everyone's point of view.

        3 votes
        1. [4]
          monarda
          Link Parent
          I don't even know why this argument is being made, but in this hypothetical world, this wasp would be living in lands that were stolen from the original people of this land, and would be...

          I don't even know why this argument is being made, but in this hypothetical world, this wasp would be living in lands that were stolen from the original people of this land, and would be benefiting from that privilege. If they were a man, they would benefit from the privilege of not worrying about running into strange men and being raped. If they were just white they would benefit from running into law enforcement and basically explaining what they are doing and not worry about it escalating. People of color have a harder time in rural america (in case you're wondering our national parks are rural) than waspy americans. Your comment made me so freaking angry, I can't even understand what the heck the point is.

          Edit:
          I don't know why it is so hard to grasp that as white people we not only have better opportunity than many people of color, but that we have benefited from their contributions without paying them. Of course I didn't make this world, but I do benefit from it. I don't know what the heck I am supposed to do to make it right, and maybe that is why so many people angry in being called out - we don't know what to do. There's no leader saying "Please do this." But the Black community is impacted everyday and we are not.

          8 votes
          1. [3]
            bub
            Link Parent
            I'm sorry that I've said foolish or insensitive things. I'm honestly not trying to be combative. I was offering that contrived and oversimplified example person as a way to try to clarify (for my...

            I'm sorry that I've said foolish or insensitive things. I'm honestly not trying to be combative.

            I was offering that contrived and oversimplified example person as a way to try to clarify (for my own understanding) other points of view. To me it seems that a person like that bears no responsibility to anyone else, but disagreement was welcome. Not that it matters, but I do know a couple people that live that way, which is where I was drawing some of that from.

            5 votes
            1. monarda
              Link Parent
              I appreciate your apology :)

              I appreciate your apology :)

              3 votes
            2. elcuello
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Don't apologize. You made every possible attempt to ask a question nicely. The current online climate for online discussion just dictates that a lot of people gloss over that because they're so...

              Don't apologize. You made every possible attempt to ask a question nicely. The current online climate for online discussion just dictates that a lot of people gloss over that because they're so invested in their own argument and beliefs.

              3 votes
        2. [7]
          NoblePath
          Link Parent
          @monarda explained some reasons why your particular example is faulty, but there are bigger issues. First, it presupposes a Randian notion of individuality which I and many black folks do not...

          @monarda explained some reasons why your particular example is faulty, but there are bigger issues.

          First, it presupposes a Randian notion of individuality which I and many black folks do not share.

          Being conceived, let along born, "white" in America confers advantages derived from disadvantages applied to others not white. There is no escape. Perhaps, in the Randian world, it is the parents who bear the moral obligation, but it nevertheless exists. That it somehow pre-exists us makes no difference; just like taxes, interstates, national forests and f-35's and death.

          There are some small ways to pay back. I was on the street one time and a young black kid walked up to me and said "get out of my way white boy." I glared at him but complied. I was complaining about the incident to a black colleague of mine (without relaying the kids race). Her question was, "Was he black?" And when I affirmed, she said, "Reparations, white boy."

          And she's right. That kid's life is worse because mine is better. It's nearly infinitesimal, but giving that kid his agency to be angry, costs me just a little and lets him reclaim a taste of his dignity. Now when it happens (and it does still happen), I bow my head and say, "Of course, sir." He's earned it.

          3 votes
          1. [4]
            Kuromantis
            Link Parent
            If I may nitpick: I feel this is an oddly zero-sum view of reality? If anything it feels like the kind of thing used to justify racism, or more accurately the economic excuse for it.

            If I may nitpick:

            That kid's life is worse because mine is better.

            I feel this is an oddly zero-sum view of reality? If anything it feels like the kind of thing used to justify racism, or more accurately the economic excuse for it.

            6 votes
            1. [3]
              NoblePath
              Link Parent
              You’re not wrong, and I am saying it is a socially imposed, capricious, and morally reprehensible condition.

              You’re not wrong, and I am saying it is a socially imposed, capricious, and morally reprehensible condition.

              1. [2]
                Kuromantis
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                As in, his life was made worse so yours could be better? That would make more sense, albeit it's somewhat simplified.

                I am saying it is a socially imposed, capricious, and morally reprehensible condition.

                As in, his life was made worse so yours could be better? That would make more sense, albeit it's somewhat simplified.

                1. NoblePath
                  Link Parent
                  That’s correct, at least with regard to racial privilege. If you offer something to someone who is white under a privilege regime, you are necessarily denying it to someone who is not white. This...

                  That’s correct, at least with regard to racial privilege. If you offer something to someone who is white under a privilege regime, you are necessarily denying it to someone who is not white.

                  This happens a million little ways and quite a few big ones in America, policing is just one violent example.

                  2 votes
          2. [2]
            bub
            Link Parent
            I aspire to behave as you describe. I think the disagreement comes from the idea of "obligation" that's imposed on another. Under my sense of morality, when I have been given much privilege, I...

            I aspire to behave as you describe. I think the disagreement comes from the idea of "obligation" that's imposed on another. Under my sense of morality, when I have been given much privilege, I should give to others, or give back, or make reparations. I agree. This is moral.

            But I hesitate to call it an obligation on behalf of other people. This crosses some kind of line for me, if that makes sense. The question of enforcing morality under law is more complex, to me, than the question of what is moral.

            4 votes
            1. NoblePath
              Link Parent
              You disagree that oppression creates a moral obligation on the oppressir?

              You disagree that oppression creates a moral obligation on the oppressir?

              1 vote
      3. [4]
        sal
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        This is either a slippery slope you're going on. Or you are not talking about the same thing. Privilige is maybe not morally neutral. (As a system). That doesn't mean a priviliged individual can't...

        If a privileged person, who has never actively engaged in any kind of abuse, decides to do nothing at all to improve the lives of others, to me they are morally neutral

        Hard disagree. The problem is that privilege itself is not morally neutral. Privilege intrinsically means receiving an undeserved benefit to the detriment of others.

        This is either a slippery slope you're going on. Or you are not talking about the same thing.

        Privilige is maybe not morally neutral. (As a system). That doesn't mean a priviliged individual can't be morally neutral. For example: A toddler can be priviliged and usually is not actively trying to improve the lives of others but would you say that they would have been living an immoral life?

        7 votes
        1. Gaywallet
          Link Parent
          You cannot compare a toddler to an adult. A toddler is still learning about the world and cannot be held responsible for the education and knowledge they cannot possess. There's a distinct...

          You cannot compare a toddler to an adult. A toddler is still learning about the world and cannot be held responsible for the education and knowledge they cannot possess. There's a distinct difference between someone who has the understanding of the impact they leave on the world and someone who doesn't.

          12 votes
        2. [2]
          NoblePath
          Link Parent
          Surely you are not comparing white racial privilege in America to toddlers privilege to pee their pants.

          Surely you are not comparing white racial privilege in America to toddlers privilege to pee their pants.

          3 votes
          1. sal
            Link Parent
            No for example a white toddler with rich parents.

            No for example a white toddler with rich parents.

    2. [47]
      Adys
      Link Parent
      Was about to write something similar. It felt like the article used one salient and addressable point (corporation PR bullshit) to complain about "white people being white". It's pretty gross and...

      Was about to write something similar. It felt like the article used one salient and addressable point (corporation PR bullshit) to complain about "white people being white".

      It's pretty gross and I can't imagine how it helps.

      I remember a similarly worded article a few months back about some parallel issue, and pointing out that wording things like this is at least problematic if not outright racist. The response was that "you have to feel uncomfortable in order to change".

      But now rereading it in another context I'm realizing it's not discomfort I felt then nor now. It's just straight up gross. It makes me roll my eyes and dismiss the whole thing by association.

      What and who was this written for? White people, or black people? Or both? I'm pretty sure if I were a loosely involved white person (a lukewarm ally, as you describe), all this article would do is damage my opinion of BLM. It even crossed my mind that this might be exactly the type of Russian propaganda written explicitly to fuel American division, but the author seems to check out.

      25 votes
      1. [46]
        dubteedub
        Link Parent
        I think that @bub is mischaracterizing the quote from the top of the article because the rest of the sentence is obviously incredibly salient to the point being raised. Here is the research to...

        I think that @bub is mischaracterizing the quote from the top of the article because the rest of the sentence is obviously incredibly salient to the point being raised.

        And before we get to the “not all white people,” part of the conversation, let’s be clear, the reports are based on studies that showed that the vast majority of white people didn’t just not do anything. According to stuff like math and science, the levels of white support are lower than they were before demonstrations swept the country last summer.

        Here is the research to back that up.

        Like other racial groups, white Americans were more supportive of B.L.M. following Mr. Floyd’s murder. This sentiment, however, did not last long and, as with Republicans, support eventually plunged. This movement among Republicans and white Americans helps us understand why aggregate support for Black Lives Matter has waned since last summer.

        In both cases, the deterioration in support is noteworthy because we do not merely observe a return to pre-Floyd opinion levels. Rather, since last summer, Republicans and white people have actually become less supportive of Black Lives Matter than they were before the death of George Floyd — a trend that seems unlikely to reverse anytime soon.

        Important Graph - https://imgur.com/a/24ufrOy

        So yes, white people have gotten noticeably worse on racial justice since last summer and it is important and accurate to call that out. While some white people are obviously still supportive, as a population white people are now worse on racial justice.

        I find it really frustrating that this position is being called gross. If the wording makes you feel uncomfortable, then we should be doing more to get white people supportive of racial justice and not be upset at the author for being right.

        13 votes
        1. [6]
          vektor
          Link Parent
          There's as usual a lot of fuckery with statistics. I wonder what they're hiding behind normalizing every demographic to be +-0 at one point in time. And the part you bolded, about Republicans...

          There's as usual a lot of fuckery with statistics. I wonder what they're hiding behind normalizing every demographic to be +-0 at one point in time.

          And the part you bolded, about Republicans being much less supportive? The flipside of that is also in the article: Democrats have become more supportive, and long-term so. Wonder how white democrats are looking. I mean, you can decry that white republicans are less supportive than before but (depending on methodology) this is only predictable backlash that was always going to happen and is no indiciation that "woke white allies were lying". These people were "allies" only in the interim of George Floyd's death and the ensuing riots.

          13 votes
          1. [5]
            dubteedub
            Link Parent
            Well instead of complaining about potential hypothetical fuckery you could always search the original data set and look at it for yourself. Here is the Civiqs survey data on Black Lives Matter...

            Well instead of complaining about potential hypothetical fuckery you could always search the original data set and look at it for yourself.

            Here is the Civiqs survey data on Black Lives Matter support. If you search Civiqs BLM it is literally the first hit.

            https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true&trendline=true&race=White

            I have highlighted the "white" race metric in this link. It shows that 48% of all white people oppose BLM now, compared to just 38% that support. For comparison, 84% of black people support BLM and 6% oppose, 61% of hispanic/latino people support BLM and 25% oppose. White people are the clear outlier here.

            Here is an album of screenshots to show the differences by race - https://imgur.com/a/ACua3pk

            You can read on their methodology here - https://civiqs.com/methodology.

            8 votes
            1. vektor
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              That data is actually a lot more comprehensive and accessible than I would have thought. I would've expected a bit of documentation on the methodology and maybe a few more visualizations. I'm...

              That data is actually a lot more comprehensive and accessible than I would have thought. I would've expected a bit of documentation on the methodology and maybe a few more visualizations. I'm surprised.

              On topic, it turns out that what I suspected is not the case: White america did not predominantly support BLM most of the time. Well, turns out, smoke does not imply fire.

              On the prediction about democrats, I'm on the money as far as I can tell. Support climbed to 90%, by about 10-20% depending on when you consider "before". Fell by about 2% in the year since. Those are the actual allies. Someone who voted for trump and then flip-flopped on the BLM issue for 3 days after George Floyd's death is hardly an ally, and it's unfair to characterize white allies as liars because of these people.

              18 votes
            2. [2]
              Adys
              Link Parent
              Support has increased, so has opposition. Both of those came out of the "Neither support nor oppose", also known as "I haven't heard about it" or sometimes simply "my favourite pundit hasn't given...

              Support has increased, so has opposition. Both of those came out of the "Neither support nor oppose", also known as "I haven't heard about it" or sometimes simply "my favourite pundit hasn't given an opinion about it so I don't have one because I can't have opinions of my own". In other words, more people know about BLM now or have an opinion about it, than two years ago.

              You'll notice that in May 2019, a full 20% more of whites who answered were opposed rather than in support. Two years later, that gap has halved (after a brief period where it was "hip" to support BLM and "uncool" not to).

              Look, these stats are depressing yeah, but … I fully agree with @vektor that the way they're interpreted is fucky and agenda-based.

              14 votes
              1. Kuromantis
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                By that poll, it actually seems better to conclude that opposition is actually the exact same and probably made up of mostly conservatives who were already opposed to BLM and just forgot the...

                By that poll, it actually seems better to conclude that opposition is actually the exact same and probably made up of mostly conservatives who were already opposed to BLM and just forgot the movement existed until George Floyd, rather than a contingent of newly radicalized moderates as some like to claim, given that at Charlottesville, half of white people opposed BLM and today that percentage is that same, while it was it's lowest just before the protests, when undecidedness was highest. When you look at it this way, especially given that, looking at these same times, support for BLM went up 8%, we actually won more support overall, probably by convincing our share of unaware people, like myself.

                6 votes
            3. psi
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Thanks for the link. On the whole, white support for BLM has decreased since the death of George Floyd. But looking through the data, it does seem to heavily suggest white opposition to BLM is...

              Thanks for the link. On the whole, white support for BLM has decreased since the death of George Floyd. But looking through the data, it does seem to heavily suggest white opposition to BLM is almost entirely driven by Republicans (4% support/84% oppose). White independents are split on the matter, whereas white Democratic support for BLM remains strong (88% support, though it has waned slightly since last summer, as you said).

              Moreover, although 84% of Black respondents support BLM, only 20% of Black Republican respondents do. In fact, the splits between Democrat vs Republican (87% vs 5% support) or even Democrat vs Black Republican (87% vs 20% support) are noticeably greater than the split between Black vs white (84% vs 38% support).

              Basically party affiliation appears to be a much stronger predictor than race. I suspect if the respondents had instead been asked to rank their support from 1-10, white support would've been bimodal with the peaks determined by political ideology.

              12 votes
        2. [39]
          NaraVara
          Link Parent
          Funnily enough, according to that graph everyone is less supportive of Black Lives Matter today than a peak (which I assume was right when the murder happened), including Black people. White...

          So yes, white people have gotten noticeably worse on racial justice since last summer and it is important and accurate to call that out. While some white people are obviously still supportive, as a population white people are now worse on racial justice.

          Funnily enough, according to that graph everyone is less supportive of Black Lives Matter today than a peak (which I assume was right when the murder happened), including Black people. White people just have the most marked shift.

          What that suggests, to me, is that something is driving the regression besides just race. It is probably the shift in tone/coverage to where BLM stopped being associated with it's actual cause and started being associated with specific groups of activists and general civic disorder.

          Basically I don't think this graph tells us much and it would be more instructive to look at crosstabs of where people live.

          Edit: This link you posted tells the story doesn't it? It seems like most of the shift happened from previously undecideds shifting into the "Oppose" category rather than supporters having flipped, as the article claims.

          13 votes
          1. [37]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. NaraVara
              Link Parent
              Yeah it really does seem that way. I've had a fair number of conversations with suburbanites trying to argue with me about the state of my own neighborhood when I tell them these stories they're...

              The idea that "American cities have been burnt to the ground by BLM", which any rational person knows isn't true, has permeated into the psyche of the average conservative or moderately conservative American.

              Yeah it really does seem that way. I've had a fair number of conversations with suburbanites trying to argue with me about the state of my own neighborhood when I tell them these stories they're hearing are extremely exaggerated.

              It actually makes me somewhat pessimistic about the potential for non-violent resistance to have any sort of impact at all. Any big gathering of angry people is going to have some corners of it getting out of hand. It's literally impossible to maintain that sort of discipline in a crowd like this, and that's even without "false flag" conservatives and the police themselves trying to act as provocateurs getting involved. But the media landscape is such that a single photo of a broken store window or a burning trash can is enough to convince people it's complete bedlam and distract from the core issue.

              I don't actually know what the fix is. All I know is that when peaceful protest becomes impossible increasingly violent protest becomes inevitable so I guess that's gonna be where we're all headed.

              11 votes
            2. [35]
              Akir
              Link Parent
              Oh my god, if you've actually read 'conservative' media, you don't even have the half of it. According to conservative media: BLM is a monolithic organization; everyone who takes part in their...

              Oh my god, if you've actually read 'conservative' media, you don't even have the half of it.

              According to conservative media:

              • BLM is a monolithic organization; everyone who takes part in their demonstration is a part of it.

              • BLM is a terrorist organization who only exists to provide reasons to riot

              • BLM exists to spread communism because the 'founder' is a "trained marxist" (and yes, this is mentioned in literally every single piece covering them for some reason).

              • The "head" of BLM is dipping from their vast funds to buy extravagant mansions across the country (which, of course, she is not - she bought one house in a relatively expensive area for less than the median house price for that area, and the other properties were tiny vacation spots. And she bought them with the money she made with the film deal she made with Warner Brothers. )

              I swear to you that they are actively spending every minute of every day trying to find ways to deligitimize the entire movement. They have written a narrative so incredibly divorced from reality that it would only make sense that these people are up to no good. The entire reason why they keep confusing the Black Lives Matter movement with the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation is because it allows them to spin any number of stories about an evil Goliath that that is out to destroy civilization as we know it.

              11 votes
              1. [33]
                kfwyre
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                This is spot on, and well worth considering for anyone here whose kneejerk reaction to the linked article is one of distaste. If you think that the linked article is unfair in its treatment of...

                This is spot on, and well worth considering for anyone here whose kneejerk reaction to the linked article is one of distaste. If you think that the linked article is unfair in its treatment of white people (and for the record, I do believe that it is), then take a look at how conservative media treats BLM and you will get REALLY mad. The spin against BLM is shockingly unfair and unfailingly consistent.

                I’m not saying this as justification (i.e. two wrongs don’t make a right, and the last thing I want to support is whataboutism), but more that we should keep a sense of proportionality. If this article grates against your paradigms for truth and fairness, then so should the constant lies and manipulations being put out about there about BLM across multiple media organizations, many of which I believe are directly responsible for the shifts in public opinion that this article is addressing.

                Unfortunately, articles like this seem to get disproportionate attention, where we all pile on to critique an overgeneralization or a misrepresentation by a minority against a majority culture, all while the majority culture’s widespread misrepresentations about minority cultures don’t receive greater or even comparable critique.

                15 votes
                1. [32]
                  Adys
                  Link Parent
                  Well, it was posted here. At least to me, that means it needs more scrutiny than random articles on the web, and certainly means it's more deserving of attention than the random BS conservative...

                  Unfortunately, articles like this seem to get disproportionate attention

                  Well, it was posted here. At least to me, that means it needs more scrutiny than random articles on the web, and certainly means it's more deserving of attention than the random BS conservative media is spouting about BLM.

                  I live in a country where the movement isn't covered by the media. So my base opinion of it is neutral to favourable. I suspect it's the same for most of my fellow citizens, if they've even heard of it.

                  So as a neutral observer, I can't help but feel that articles like these would only tarnish its reputation. Because as a potentially interested party, when presented an article on Tildes, somewhere I trust, what I see is … well, honestly, casual racism and misinterpreted data (potentially on purpose, too).

                  I know better than to think this person is representative of the movement. But not everyone does.

                  In other words, for someone who hasn't been fed the ridiculous conservative propaganda about BLM, this article does absolutely nothing to increase their trust in the movement, and potentially decreases it. Same article that complains about the levels of support from the white population. I meeeaaaannnn…?

                  That there is propaganda on the other side is not relevant to the quality of this piece, IMO. Sometimes, especially in politics, if the other side plays dirty, it's normal to even the playing field rather than always strive to be pure. But it's not the case here. What does it achieve, exactly?

                  No really, I asked this three times in this thread: What positive outcome is achieved by this article? It at least generated good discussion here on Tildes, but I'd credit Tildes for that, not the article.

                  8 votes
                  1. [27]
                    cfabbro
                    (edited )
                    Link Parent
                    Venting of fully justified feelings of frustration and anger about the current situation, and history of racial injustice in America (and elsewhere). Giving voice to the justifiably pessimistic...
                    • Exemplary

                    What positive outcome is achieved by this article?

                    Venting of fully justified feelings of frustration and anger about the current situation, and history of racial injustice in America (and elsewhere). Giving voice to the justifiably pessimistic views of a minority group currently seeing very little tangible progress being made despite a massive wave of protests, and continued media attention of unjustified police shootings. Inspiring others to take more concrete action, continue to pressure politicians on this issue, and not allow themselves to get complacent. Etc.

                    So now let me pose a question to you. What does Tildes users' habit of cherry-picking individual sentences out of every article written from the perspective of a minority group that gets posted here, and then the majority of commenters focusing their own critique on those sentences or the article headline (while also often ignoring and/or misrepresenting the rest of the article), accomplish?

                    Because in my view, all that does is drive people who sympathize/empathize with the views being expressed in the article away from the goddamn site... while also making it look like, at best, this place is filled with privileged pedants who can't empathize with those still being abused, oppressed, and/or extra-judicially murdered. Especially given how often those exact same types of comments crop up here, and even worse, how often they get the most votes in the comments section, and exemplary labeled to boot.

                    See, once again: Tildes is pushing out the minority voice
                    See also: White fragility (which I suspect is a factor in this)

                    p.s. I'm now ignoring this topic so it doesn't keep popping up in my activity feed and constantly making me angrier.

                    7 votes
                    1. [25]
                      Adys
                      Link Parent
                      Nothing of interest, but this isn't what's happening here. Look, I've explained and justified my problems with this article. I don't appreciate the implication that me finding this particular...

                      What does Tildes users' habit of cherry-picking individual sentences out of every article written from the perspective of a minority group that gets posted here, and then the majority of commenters focusing their own critique on those sentences or the article headline (while also often ignoring and/or misrepresenting the rest of the article), accomplish?

                      Nothing of interest, but this isn't what's happening here.

                      Look, I've explained and justified my problems with this article. I don't appreciate the implication that me finding this particular piece being low quality meaning that I can't empathize with BLM as a whole, Blacks' plight in america (and elsewhere), or the problems of systemic racism at whole.

                      In fact, let me reword that: Please don't put words in my mouth. This is (IMO) a bad article. Black lives matter regardless. One can think both those things.

                      11 votes
                      1. [24]
                        Gaywallet
                        Link Parent
                        It's absolutely exactly how I've felt about the tone of comments on this article. I'm glad you are not receiving the same vibes from this discussion, but you should not assume that everyone else...

                        this isn't what's happening here.

                        It's absolutely exactly how I've felt about the tone of comments on this article. I'm glad you are not receiving the same vibes from this discussion, but you should not assume that everyone else shares the same thoughts as you.

                        7 votes
                        1. dubteedub
                          Link Parent
                          100% same The top comment and vast majority of the discussion here is arguing over half of a sentence taken out of context It is incredibly frustrating and disheartening that the focus seems on...

                          100% same

                          The top comment and vast majority of the discussion here is arguing over half of a sentence taken out of context

                          It is incredibly frustrating and disheartening that the focus seems on tone-policing a single line (that based on the data seems seems justifiable)

                          7 votes
                        2. [22]
                          Kuromantis
                          (edited )
                          Link Parent
                          Just for good measure, how do you (three, @dubteedub and @cfabbro) feel about the chain of comments here? It does seem to be perhaps a good way to interpret the article. Edit: if cfabbro gets a...

                          Just for good measure, how do you (three, @dubteedub and @cfabbro) feel about the chain of comments here? It does seem to be perhaps a good way to interpret the article.

                          Edit: if cfabbro gets a ping from a thread he has ignored, I am sorry for that.

                          1. [20]
                            dubteedub
                            Link Parent
                            I think that line of comments are bullsht personally. I think calling the author extremist and anti-white is wrong. I don't think anything stated in this article is extreme. The author is...

                            I think that line of comments are bullsht personally.

                            I think calling the author extremist and anti-white is wrong. I don't think anything stated in this article is extreme.

                            The author is frustrating by corporations run by white executives and shareholders that promised support and charity for racial equity and came up short. Companies offered lip service and little else once attention waned. That is not extreme or anti-white, its frustration about their hypocrisy.

                            The author is angry that the majority of white people don't think police treat black people differently. That isn't anti-white to state that fact. It shows a tremendous amount of ignorance or worse on behalf of most white people in this country.

                            He is angry that white people voted for a racist authoritarian yet again in the 2020 election.

                            The author ends the piece saying that BLM support and apparent mobilization last summer towards promoting racial justice was a fad.

                            Also, for fucks sake, calling Michael Harriott analogous to Malcolm X? Really? He points out that civil rights and MLK Jr faced overwhelming opposition from white American at the time. MLK Jr. himself is famously quoted as saying that "the great white moderate" is what has really held black people back. These are not extreme positions and it is not-anti-white to state the obvious.

                            I believe that the reaction here shows a tremendous amount of white fragility. I am amazed that so many people are taking offense at this piece instead of taking self-reflection.

                            7 votes
                            1. [16]
                              vektor
                              Link Parent
                              Maybe tell us what kind of self-reflection you would expect, because I have the emotional intelligence of a rock. First, let me start with the readily apparent: The article raises a bunch of valid...

                              I believe that the reaction here shows a tremendous amount of white fragility. I am amazed that so many people are taking offense at this piece instead of taking self-reflection.

                              Maybe tell us what kind of self-reflection you would expect, because I have the emotional intelligence of a rock.

                              First, let me start with the readily apparent: The article raises a bunch of valid points. Those were partly explicitly and partly implicitly acknowledged here. Corporations suck. His anger is justified. Black lives matter. I think everyone here agrees.

                              But the article also makes some claims barely supported by the evidence. Apparently, white allies were lying when they voiced support last year, because other white people later turned against BLM because of the riots and copious amounts of FOX news. Now, I don't know about you, but I can rationally tell myself I'm not addressed there because he's generalizing to populations rather than individuals. I can tell myself that all day long, but emotionally, I'm already on the defensive here. Irrationally, of course. I'm not even represented in the data he used. But he still called my political stance on BLM a lie. I don't like that, in fact he could've removed "white" from the title and (tone remaining the same) I would've felt the same. Could've been a white author telling me the same. I'm included in the mentioned demographic (to an extent, I suppose), and the tone seems hostile as fuck. Of course I'm going to feel defensive. Of course I'm going to pick the argument apart to point out "look, there. That's where you went wrong, why I'm not a liar." Is that a good stance to have? Nahh. Fragile? Sure, I guess. Understandable? I would hope so. Could the same message have been transported without causing the same emotional state? Absolutely.

                              I guess that's why messaging is important. And of course substance is at least as important, but fuck if I'm not policing my own messaging more than the author.

                              Ahhh fuck, this ended up way less eloquent than I'd hoped. I've redacted a bunch of it. In fact I almost didn't post it because I'm sure I am going to be attacked on messaging rather than message, but here goes. Writing this has taken enough out of me, might as well post it.

                              9 votes
                              1. [8]
                                Gaywallet
                                Link Parent
                                I think there are some important musings in this message and I appreciate that you posted it. In particular, I find this part an awesome little bit of self reflection It's incredibly easy for any...
                                • Exemplary

                                I think there are some important musings in this message and I appreciate that you posted it. In particular, I find this part an awesome little bit of self reflection

                                but fuck if I'm not policing my own messaging more than the author.

                                It's incredibly easy for any of us to get emotional. You are recognizing here and throughout your comment that you are emotionally charged by this article. That this article is making you respond, as a human does, to the emotions it's designed to make you feel.

                                It's important that you are able to recognize this affect it has on you and it's equally as important that you're able to realize how this changes your mental state - how it's making you exhausted, making you less eloquent, making you self-censor. It's important that you recognize all of this, because this is how many black people feel all the time because enough people in the world treat them with the same language that they are using on you. I think it's important to point out that not everyone treats them that way and very often the people who do treat them that way get ostracized for doing so, but even when they are (such as many commenters are doing in these comments) it doesn't take away the hurt, it doesn't take away the anger, it doesn't take away the suffering and it doesn't change the message.

                                I think we need articles like this to make us reflect on how we respond. We need articles like this to give us a glimpse into the life of people we cannot understand because we do not live the same life. You're right to vent your frustration and anger and be upset at the way the message is delivered, but it's equally important that you reflect upon your own response and how it's mirroring the response they often get at the world. We need to have compassion to allow them to vent how the world makes them upset, even if the way they vent about it makes us upset too. And we need to take the message to heart - this is what they deal with all the time and when we get just a glimpse of it look at how upset we get! Can you imagine living this every day? This is a call to do more by reminding us how painful and how interrupting it can be to be treated as less than.

                                8 votes
                                1. [3]
                                  vektor
                                  Link Parent
                                  Huh, Curious. That was the one sentence that almost didn't make the cut. Almost thought I was going to get a lashing over that one. Thank you for your reply. As someone far removed from the...

                                  Huh, Curious. That was the one sentence that almost didn't make the cut. Almost thought I was going to get a lashing over that one. Thank you for your reply. As someone far removed from the situation (but hey, what's the atlantic among friends) I kind of do not see the ways in which what you said applies to black people - that they are forced to self-censor, carefully choose their words, or else white boy is going to get angry. I guess that's something to keep an eye out for.

                                  Huh, looks like this mess was good for something after all.

                                  Also, after reading

                                  In particular, I find this part an awesome little bit of self reflection

                                  I thought for a second it was going to be about

                                  I have the emotional intelligence of a rock.

                                  5 votes
                                  1. [2]
                                    cfabbro
                                    Link Parent
                                    This video was pretty eye opening to me in that regard: Meyne Wyatt's monologue on racism on Q+A: 'Silence is violence. Complacency is complicity'

                                    I kind of do not see the ways in which what you said applies to black people - that they are forced to self-censor, carefully choose their words, or else white boy is going to get angry. I guess that's something to keep an eye out for.

                                    This video was pretty eye opening to me in that regard:
                                    Meyne Wyatt's monologue on racism on Q+A: 'Silence is violence. Complacency is complicity'

                                    3 votes
                                    1. vektor
                                      Link Parent
                                      Wow. This left me speechless.

                                      Wow. This left me speechless.

                                      2 votes
                                2. [4]
                                  elcuello
                                  Link Parent
                                  God dammit, Mr. Homosexual Moneybag. I'm getting pretty tired of your thoughtful perspectives on matters I don't fully understand. I was making up my mind and zeroing in on my sum game when you...

                                  God dammit, Mr. Homosexual Moneybag. I'm getting pretty tired of your thoughtful perspectives on matters I don't fully understand. I was making up my mind and zeroing in on my sum game when you dropped this think bomb. Can we please go back to arguing because I don't think I can handle this...

                                  4 votes
                                  1. [3]
                                    Gaywallet
                                    Link Parent
                                    Sorry my friend, but life is never as black and white as we like to paint it and I firmly believe that the better we can place ourselves in the shoes of our fellow human, the better we can make...

                                    Sorry my friend, but life is never as black and white as we like to paint it and I firmly believe that the better we can place ourselves in the shoes of our fellow human, the better we can make decisions about the world. I'm glad you found it useful and spoke up about it. I often find myself questioning why I'm here and continuing to advocate in the way I do and receiving words of praise help remind me that it does make a difference. 💜

                                    2 votes
                                    1. vektor
                                      Link Parent
                                      Fwiw, I'm still digesting your comments here. Once I'm done I'll be sure to poop into your inbox. But I can already say you've changed my perspective.

                                      Fwiw, I'm still digesting your comments here. Once I'm done I'll be sure to poop into your inbox. But I can already say you've changed my perspective.

                                      3 votes
                                    2. elcuello
                                      Link Parent
                                      Don't undersell yourself. You are making a huge difference here.

                                      Don't undersell yourself. You are making a huge difference here.

                                      2 votes
                              2. [7]
                                dubteedub
                                (edited )
                                Link Parent
                                I think an important start is understanding what White Fragility is. Here is the original paper by Robin DiAngelo on the subject. https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116 Here is...

                                Maybe tell us what kind of self-reflection you would expect, because I have the emotional intelligence of a rock.

                                I think an important start is understanding what White Fragility is. Here is the original paper by Robin DiAngelo on the subject.

                                https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

                                Here is the first paragraph for context:

                                White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. This paper explicates the dynamics of White Fragility.

                                I think it would be valuable to consider DiAngello's comments on white fragility in light of your comment here.

                                Now, I don't know about you, but I can rationally tell myself I'm not addressed there because he's generalizing to populations rather than individuals. I can tell myself that all day long, but emotionally, I'm already on the defensive here.

                                I think the first step is if you read something that talks about white people as a population and think it is attacking you as an individual is to take time to reflect why you are angry or mad by the statement.

                                DiAngello's basic argument is that white Americans deal with issues related to their race so infrequently that any pushback on whiteness causes defensiveness, outbursts, and argumentation. Again, quoting from White Fragility here:

                                White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. Fine (1997) identifies this insulation when she observes “… how Whiteness accrues privilege and status; gets itself surrounded by protective pillows of resources and/or benefits of the doubt; how Whiteness repels gossip and voyeurism and instead demands dignity” (p. 57). Whites are rarely without these “protective pillows,” and when they are, it is usually temporary and by choice. This insulated environment of racial privilege builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress.

                                A couple years ago DiAngelo came out with a book, White Fragility, discussed a bit in this article here that also shares her thoughts on overcoming white fragility.

                                DiAngelo wants white people to abandon ideas of racism as a matter of individuals being good or bad, moral or immoral. To accept that we surely have unconscious investments in whiteness—investments we might not yet fully understand. To seek out the perspectives of people of color, embrace the discomfort that might result, and avoid confusing that discomfort with literal danger. To start uncomfortable conversations with family and friends. To breathe slowly. And, perhaps most important, to remember that we should do all this not for people of color, but instead for ourselves, in the spirit of honesty and truth-telling. If white people truly did what it took to shed their fragility, DiAngelo argues—perhaps skipping a few steps—"not only would our interpersonal relationships change, but so would our institutions ... because we would see to it that they did."

                                4 votes
                                1. [6]
                                  vektor
                                  Link Parent
                                  Alright, I'll put it on the pile of papers I really should be reading. You're next in line right after my supervisor. </s> ...unless.... no, actually, </s> From a superficial reading, white...

                                  Alright, I'll put it on the pile of papers I really should be reading. You're next in line right after my supervisor. </s> ...unless.... no, actually, </s>

                                  From a superficial reading, white fragility reads as having aspects of a "Totschlagargument" as we call it here. Meaning an argument which "beats (the discussion) dead". A tacky and cheap argument that preempts any retort, while also being quite unsound. Again, superficial reading. I'll sleep on this, and I haven't sorted out whether it's a unsound argument in the case of white fragility, but basically, if I react to a racial conflict in any way except to acquiesce, I'm fragile. Discussion/argument? Fragile. Bailing out? Fragile. Getting angry? Fragile. "Yes, sir, of course sir, you're right sir."? Not fragile. The problem is that even if the minority position were wrong, it leaves no way of criticizing it that isn't "fragile". So in any given racial conflict, I could either completely acquiesce or I'll risk being fragile. That seems like a shitty situation to be in. I also kind of implicitly assume that the options are listed are exhaustive (or at least any extras fall into the same pattern).

                                  The devil's in the details here because ultimately, whether this Totschlagargument is a fallacy of sorts also depends on it's context to a huge degree. Sometimes, one reaction might actually be fragility when in a different situation the same might not be. Accusing the latter of white fragility would then of course be a Totschlagargument.

                                  Maybe I'm also "over-scoping" the thesis of white fragility. I'm assuming here that it applies to any situation permitted by your post, i.e. any time a white person retreats, lashes out or argues in any racial conflict, it's always fragility, no further questions. Might be wrong.

                                  All that said, irrespective of it's possible use as a Totschlagargument, there is value here, I just want to make that clear. The concept smells. Does it stink? Not sure yet. Not entirely I think.

                                  Also, can we briefly acknowledge that "white fragility" and "toxic masculinity" and probably a bunch of other concepts have a stupefyingly bad name, as far as messaging goes? I used to think "feminism" was bad, considering it's ultimately an egalitarian movement. But "feminism" at least doesn't call out the "bad" group of people by name to (seemingly?) ascribe them some unsavory qualities. And all that considering the people who most need to hear about white fragility and toxic masculinity are white people and men specifically. Hey, now. There's another angle I could be coming at this from: I'm totally over the term toxic masculinity. Doesn't touch me. I've engaged with it enough to know it (mostly, heh) doesn't apply to me, so I can just acknowledge it's existence without feeling attacked.

                                  I think the first step is if you read something that talks about white people as a population and think it is attacking you as an individual is to take time to reflect why you are angry or mad by the statement.

                                  Is that meant as a "why do you feel like this is talking about you?" or is it a "This is talking about you, why do you feel attacked by this?"

                                  Let me sleep on all of this. This train of thought isn't properly cooked yet, so don't let me wake up to a clusterfuck of an inbox tomorrow. Please?

                                  Also, why the fuck have jews not ported Totschlagargument over into common US English usage? You need a German phrase in English once, and you first have to give this whole spiel of explanations. And then you run into words like "spiel" in common use in English, which were ported over for barely a reason at all when there's such a wealth of amazing words to choose from. To add a semblance of substance onto the joke that is this footnote, here is the supposed english equivalent term, but the details differ a good deal. Killer Argument is another phrase I've seen as a translation, but I've never seen it used in english.

                                  Whew, that was a lot of work. Good night.

                                  7 votes
                                  1. [4]
                                    kfwyre
                                    (edited )
                                    Link Parent
                                    It's possible to use accusations of white fragility as a discussion-ending argument, but it's worth noting that white fragility as a concept is actually aimed at identifying exactly that from the...
                                    • Exemplary

                                    It's possible to use accusations of white fragility as a discussion-ending argument, but it's worth noting that white fragility as a concept is actually aimed at identifying exactly that from the other side.

                                    One of the ways white fragility manifests itself is that in racial conversations, white people often center their own feelings. What this means is that when a person of color expresses something about their experience as a person of color or comments on race, white people often tend to center themselves in that disclosure, even when they're the least affected party regarding that issue. This often acts as a discussion-ender for the person of color, because the conversation fundamentally pivots onto the terms introduced by this recalibration.

                                    I think the concept of "fragility" in general might be easier for you to see if we move away from Harriot's piece here and even race in general. Here's an example of fragility with regards to gender that I experienced in my own life:

                                    A few years ago, at the height of the #MeToo movement, I was in a bar with a mixed gender group of friends and acquaintances, and our group conversation turned to the movement. At the time, a prominent male actor (I genuinely don't remember who), had said something on Twitter that he intended to be supportive of the movement but had done it in a clumsy way and faced a lot of blowback for it.

                                    The male members of the group were very focused on this event, and were incredibly frustrated at the unfair treatment they felt this actor received. He was just trying to help, and here he was getting cancelled at large!

                                    The women in the group, meanwhile, kept trying to move the conversation away from the guy and back to the issue at hand -- widespread sexual assault of women -- but the men in the conversation kept coming back to the movement's treatment of the actor. The conversation actually ground to a full halt because the men kept demanding some sort of satisfactory explanation or answer for what the actor faced.

                                    Let's unpack this for a moment, to see the fragility in action:

                                    In this conversation, the men were calibrated to identify injustice as it affected the actor. The backlash he received, a now bog-standard Twitter bullying, did genuinely feel unfair, so the men identified a legitimate injustice from their perspective.

                                    However, their focus on that particular injustice pulled focus from the injustice that women were facing and that was the basis for the whole conversation in the first place. The men also prioritized their need for satisfaction regarding their identified injustice (the bullying of the actor) over the women's need for satisfaction regarding their identified injustice (sexual assault).

                                    The whole conversation completely derailed because the men's fragility was activated. They needed their injustice responded to, addressed, and resolved before they would even allow the other to be considered. As such, the greater injustice -- sexual assault -- went unexamined in favor of a lesser one. Fragility shut down the conversation.

                                    The second piece here is that fragility caused the men to believe that they were "under attack" via proxy of the actor on Twitter. This meant that women had to pivot to an accommodating or understanding tone, because to do otherwise (shutting the men down or refusing their refocusing of the conversation) would have made the men feel attacked even more directly, thereby verifying their feelings.

                                    From an internal perspective it makes perfect sense, but externally it makes no sense whatsoever. #MeToo was a movement about bringing awareness to men literally attacking women, but the dynamics of this particular conversation inverted that and made these men feel that they were under attack AND that this "attack" was the priority issue.

                                    Even if we accept that some women did legitimately attack the actor on Twitter (and they did), we can see how those attacks still pale in comparison to actual sexual assault. But, the conversation about sexual assault of women completely inverted to focus on lesser attacks on men.

                                    If you want to think about fragility in less accusatory terms, think of it this way: fragility is when a lesser injustice pulls focus from a greater one because the lesser one impacts people who are less used to dealing with injustice. It's a matter of stamina: people who are not accustomed to discomfort are less able to abide it than those who regularly experience it.

                                    What the men could have done instead was prioritize the women's disclosure, affirm the women's identified injustice, or used the sense of outrage they felt about the actor's mistreatment as an empathetic tool to help them understand why so many women feel so strongly about mistreatment of women. All of those would have allowed the conversation to maintain its focus and would have centered the more severe injustice over lesser ones. In order for that to happen though, the men would have had to be able to abide their own discomfort. The women were all able to do this and patiently listened and redirected, demonstrating incredible emotional intelligence and fortitude. They sat with their discomfort regarding the sexual assault of women and still made the time and effort to hear the men out. They modeled the opposite of a fragile response, putting aside their identified injustice and deeply felt pain in order to hear and genuinely process someone else's frustration.

                                    The twist of the knife here is that fragility often creates a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. By patiently listening to the men, the women yielded the conversation to them and effectively enabled their fragile responses, but if they hadn't, as previously identified, the men would have felt attacked. Imagine if one of the women had said something like "getting shit-talked on Twitter is not the same thing as getting raped" or "we are not going to prioritize men's feelings on women's abuse" or "this isn't about you". Would the men have heard that and processed it, or would they have just felt dismissed and dug in their heels further?

                                    White fragility specifically means that on racialized conversations, white feelings often take priority. The article that has spawned all of these comments is a person of color speaking about racism from a place of frustration and hurt. It's someone who is feeling the sting of legitimate and longstanding injustice. How many of the comments here acknowledge that? How many demonstrate that they understand any of that pain or frustration?

                                    You talked about how accusations of fragility make it feel like you can't give adequate criticism. I encourage you to think about how if the only thing you're meeting something with is criticism, then that itself might genuinely be a fragile response. Consider how someone might respond to this author by affirming the pain, horror, and injustice of racism and only then levy their criticism within that context. Or, alternately, consider how someone might have legitimate criticism of this author but choose not to say it because it centers on an injustice that is less important than letting the author convey his pain borne out of far greater injustice.

                                    I have my issues with this article. Harriot's title does say "all" and his argument regularly conflates "many" and "most" with "almost all". Also, he's a professional writer, so he definitely has a command of language and knows how words work, and he's choosing to use words in a way that comes across as deliberately inflammatory. I think he's intentionally taking a swipe at white people here.

                                    And I think a lot of us felt that swipe and its commensurate discomfort, and we responded in genuine frustration.

                                    I think it is incumbent on us, however, to consider why Harriot might be taking that swipe in the first place. I think we need to consider how he might be speaking from a place of genuine frustration. I think it is entirely possible for his swipe at white people to be unjust but also unworthy of such forceful pushback because, in terms of racial justice, it is far less important to counter than the other, much, MUCH worse unfairnesses out there.

                                    11 votes
                                    1. [3]
                                      Kuromantis
                                      Link Parent
                                      This is a very helpful comment, thanks for explaining the concept in detail. Notably, what you're describing is entirely intersectional, and can apply to any 2 or more groups sorted...

                                      This is a very helpful comment, thanks for explaining the concept in detail. Notably, what you're describing is entirely intersectional, and can apply to any 2 or more groups sorted hierarchically. It's also generally pretty self-explanatory what "we", as the ones who need to have something explained to them have to do differently, that being, since you're the ones who have it worse and are actually (hyperbolic for disproportionately) affected by whatever you want to talk about, sit back and let you run the conversation, and what not to do (honestly, just don't not do 1 in this case.)

                                      I guess the final question is, why exactly does it need to be an either/or? What's stopping me, or "us, white people" (in this case) from talking about our lesser problems without getting in your way? I'm pretty sure the people here all know you have it much worse and noone here has tried to dispute that fact, so this nitpicking definitely wasn't made to advance racism or anything.

                                      3 votes
                                      1. [2]
                                        kfwyre
                                        Link Parent
                                        Good observation and question! Fragility is definitely an intersectional thing, and it’s also a lot messier in practice than my example. I chose that one in particular for its clarity, but it is...

                                        Good observation and question! Fragility is definitely an intersectional thing, and it’s also a lot messier in practice than my example. I chose that one in particular for its clarity, but it is rarely so clear cut. It’s very easy to get into the weeds with fragility since there are many different axes for it, and even then we shouldn’t assume that there’s always a right or a wrong or that it breaks down neatly along identity lines.

                                        Also, I might be reading your comment wrong but it sounds like you might be thinking I’m a person of color, which I’m not! I’m white, but a lot of my understanding of minority experience comes from growing up gay in a very anti-gay culture. I saw a lot of “straight fragility” relative to that, for example, which helps me understand white fragility as a framework. That said, it’s worth noting that I myself can identify a TON of times I’ve responded from a place of white fragility without realizing it. So, I’ve been both the recipient and perpetrator of fragility, as I suspect many of us have given the complexity of humans and our relationships and societies.

                                        As for what you can do, I think there are a couple of best practices:

                                        1. When considering an issue, center the feelings and experiences of the people who are most affected by it.

                                        If we are talking about racism but are only prioritizing white people’s feelings, advocacy, or voices, then we’re not getting a true picture of racism, as we are leaving out those most harmed by it. This doesn’t mean we have to agree with or support everything every person of color says, nor should we assume they’re a monolith and all agree with each other. Instead, it means we should note an affected person’s proximity to an issue, particularly when it is closer than our own, and prioritize understanding their point of view first before adding our own.

                                        1. When examining topics that deal damage, remember that those effected are likely speaking from a place of real, legitimate pain or hurt.

                                        Racism is often something that gets talked about in the abstract, divorced from its cruelty. However, racism deals damage. Real actual harm. It destroys dignity, erodes opportunity, and, make no mistake, it takes lives. Often when people speak from this pain they transmit it, and it can disrupt a default sort of painlessness for those who are not direct targets of racism’s damage. Thus, our response often takes the form of “killing the messenger” because we see them as the source of pain or frustration, rather than that stemming from racism itself and being conveyed to us through that person. When a white person gets mad at a black person for disrupting racial harmony, we often get mad at the black person, despite the fact that the black person is likely subject to constant disruptions of racial harmony on account of racism. Do we give those equal attention or condemnation? Do we tune our sense of justice to be aware of those? Or do we only ever speak out against people of color when they generalize in anger?

                                        You asked about how you could criticize a piece like this without “getting in the way”. I think the easiest way to do that is to first affirm that you understand where someone like Harriot might be coming from and that you, too, are frustrated by racial injustice. Identifying the common ground you share will make a critique come across as a specific and precise point of contention within wider shared values. One of the ways white fragility manifests itself is people finding a single point of disagreement so that they can discard the entire article, person, or even the existence of racism itself. By affirming that you’re not going for wholesale, instant dismissal, your critique is much more likely to be received as a lateral one than an oppositional one.

                                        Furthermore, I think there’s something to be said for time and place. Is your critique derailing the conversation, causing the issue you’ve identified to pull focus from larger ones? Context matters too. Have other people already made similar critiques? Do you frequently see those types of comments whenever articles of this type get posted? If so, consider how even if your critique is genuinely valid, it might be contributing to the larger discourse on this subject in a negative or detrimental way, by adding to a dogpile, pulling focus, or creating a negative pattern.

                                        7 votes
                                        1. Kuromantis
                                          (edited )
                                          Link Parent
                                          No, I know you're white, I wrote the you in a more general way because it can be any group in the bad side of a power dynamic (and you, being gay, are a part of one and share those experiences, as...

                                          Also, I might be reading your comment wrong but it sounds like you might be thinking I’m a person of color, which I’m not!

                                          No, I know you're white, I wrote the you in a more general way because it can be any group in the bad side of a power dynamic (and you, being gay, are a part of one and share those experiences, as you said.) and I didn't really bother to specify that. (Ironic? )

                                          3 votes
                                  2. Gaywallet
                                    Link Parent
                                    Given your response to the concept of 'white fragility', I'm going to assume that you haven't spent a significant amount of time critically studying the social dynamics of race. I would like to...

                                    Given your response to the concept of 'white fragility', I'm going to assume that you haven't spent a significant amount of time critically studying the social dynamics of race. I would like to point at out that while the concept of white fragility is a relatively new one (c. 2011), some of the concepts it addresses are not new and have been discussed by minority race scholars for some time. Of note, the person who termed the phrase 'white fragility' is white herself.

                                    The vast majority of social sciences which focus on racial disparity and intercultural relationships exists at an abstracted level because we are talking about the systems which uphold or create problems and not the individuals participating in said systems. When scholars talk about white fragility they aren't talking about a specific person's response to being called out, they are talking about how white people have set up a system which discourages this kind of critical reflection by placing a value on what can and can't be talked about through social reinforcement and discouragement. It's very similar and perhaps carried over from some time ago, much of what is 'polite' to talk about was established by nobility ages ago and was reinforced through education and social norms. In many ways it's abundantly clear how some of these norms have faded out of fashion, things like never questioning your king publicly served an obvious purpose which no longer applies today, but decisions on what an acceptable emotional response to certain words are and when certain actions are acceptable responses are also learned behaviors and much more difficult to critically evaluate when you were brought up in such a system.

                                    I would encourage you to do more reading on the matter before forming an opinion and to think about it in a more abstract fashion - we are talking about social norms and about systems which exist in a level of abstraction that many of us never deal with and it will take some time to ground yourself in what the theory is about before you can really comment on what it is trying to say - there's a whole new language to learn and unfortunately I believe that is part of the issue we often run into. The language of 'white fragility' and 'toxic masculinity' exists in the abstract and many people apply it to their own existence rather than the systems the scholars are attempting to describe. The words they use are the same ones people use to define themselves - white, and male, but they do not exist to describe individuals but rather systems which affect individuals who have the same word used to describe them.

                                    2 votes
                            2. [3]
                              Kuromantis
                              (edited )
                              Link Parent
                              This makes me partly wonder if the real problem here is that everything you have mentioned the author says is not that new if you're decently cynical, regardless of how objectively bad that is,...

                              This makes me partly wonder if the real problem here is that everything you have mentioned the author says is not that new if you're decently cynical, regardless of how objectively bad that is, and so what people argue about is a handful of mildly controversial words.

                              (To be clear, I am not defending this, nor downplaying racism, just opining this is how most people here see the contents of the article. You can also interpret it as white people sitting atop 400 years of white supremacy which isn't really untrue.)

                              White people don't dislike the police? Well, they never have.

                              Most white people vote GOP? That has been the case for the last 50 years, and only because before that it wasn't clear which party was more racist. (The last election the democrats won the white vote was 1968 when a segregationist third party won a bunch of white vote.)

                              Most white people oppose BLM at worse rates than before? That's probably GOP propaganda at work like always. Or it's just more people getting radicalized or re-radicalized or, given more white people vote GOP (anywhere from 5-20% more according to polling) it's not hard to just assume that's (however sadly) to be expected, as I myself have said.

                              A lot of white people joined a movement as a fad? Everything is a fad with social media. It's a recurring theme/meme that if someone first pays attention to politics as a fun hobby or poorly done intellectual exercise they will basically wander around every political belief or more likely get radicalized into far-rightism.

                              Corporations haven't kept their promises to leftists they have disagreed with since their existence? I don't think anyone here is surprised.

                              And so, the thing that stands out from the rest of the article is the author saying white people kept being white (which by all accounts seems accurate) instead of disproportionately conservative.

                              3 votes
                              1. [2]
                                dubteedub
                                Link Parent
                                Correct. It is not that new. He is pointing out that last summer seemed like things may be improving on these fronts when the facts now prove that they have not and in fact white people have...

                                This makes me partly wonder if the real problem here is that everything you have mentioned the author says is not that new if you're decently cynical, regardless of how objectively bad that is.

                                Correct. It is not that new. He is pointing out that last summer seemed like things may be improving on these fronts when the facts now prove that they have not and in fact white people have gotten noticeably worse on several factors since last summer. Which is also why it's so frustrating that most people in these comments are quibbling that Michael said something not very nice about white people as a population that hurt their feelings.

                                White people don't dislike the police? Well, they never have.

                                I also just need to say that is not what I said in my comment, nor is it the argument of the author of this article. If anything, white people liking the police is the problem and the fact that most white people believe the police when they lie about how they treat black people.

                                And so, the thing that stands out from the rest of the article is the author saying white people kept being white (which by all accounts seems accurate) instead of disproportionately conservative.

                                I don't really understand your distinction or hang-up here. Most white people vote conservative.

                                2 votes
                                1. Kuromantis
                                  Link Parent
                                  I agree that that's bad for pretty clear reasons and evidence and the author's point is about large sums of white people liking and trusting the police rather than not disliking them. My point...

                                  I also just need to say that is not what I said in my comment, nor is it the argument of the author of this article. If anything, white people liking the police is the problem and the fact that most white people believe the police when they lie about how they treat black people.

                                  I agree that that's bad for pretty clear reasons and evidence and the author's point is about large sums of white people liking and trusting the police rather than not disliking them. My point was, it's not unexpected, so people will go to what is unexpected, which is the author's unusually absolute wording, even if it's definitely clear there was a decline in white support following the surge in the wake of George Floyd's murder.

                                  I don't really understand your distinction or hang-up here. Most white people vote conservative.

                                  It's not really my distinction or hang-up anymore, more so the one that I think made this thread controversial. "White people kept being white" is generally interpreted as an absolute statement concerning all white people when taken at face value/literally. "White people kept being disproportionately conservative" is interpreted to mean white left-of-center people are not to blame for racism. Gaywallet talks about this more in this comment.

                                  4 votes
                          2. Gaywallet
                            Link Parent
                            I think there are a lot of users on tildes who get extremely defensive when anyone talks about the shortcomings of a group of individuals with which the majority of tildes identifies with, be that...

                            I think there are a lot of users on tildes who get extremely defensive when anyone talks about the shortcomings of a group of individuals with which the majority of tildes identifies with, be that white, male, or operating in tech. This is very clearly shown off throughout this thread, and in particular in this top chain of comments. The idea that something needing to be prefaced with 'not all' when making sweeping statements is not because something is far too 'black and white', but a response to people who treat the criticism of a group as the criticism of an individual (themselves) and an attempt to divert or avoid the very discussion which is unfolding in these comments.

                            I find myself often tempering my own words in a mental gymnastics kind of way because of this mindset. I've gotten fairly good at prefacing what I'm saying by saying 'most' or 'many' or focus on 'social norms' or 'societal standards' or 'unspoken rules' because people tend to respond better to statements such as 'societal standards, unspoken rules, and social norms have caused many men to internalize ideas about how they should treat or interact with women in ways that make most women unhappy' then 'men are trash' when responding to someone on the femme spectrum who is complaining about how the majority of men they have interacted with have treated them as an object or ignored their input or have treated them as subhuman in other ways. This is a direct response to what is unfolding here on tildes, a microcosm of what often unfolds in the world. I understand why people push back against this narrative, as I used to feel upset when people said things like 'men are trash' despite also understanding that it is indeed true for many individuals. I was upset because I used to understand that people viewed me as a man and I didn't have the words to express that I did not wish for them to view me in that light because I make a conscious effort towards treating everyone respectfully and have never been told by anyone in my life that I participate in this kind of behavior. The reality is that almost none of these individuals were talking about me; they were instead criticizing the systems which allowed this to become so prevalent, just using words in a way I was not used to.

                            I think as a society we are often plagued by these discussions around 'messaging'. It's become an incredibly common trope in politics. It's very easy to point at black lives matter or all cops are bastards and criticize the 'messaging' because it's much harder to actually approach these topics with earnest. In the same way that we've moved on from the idea that free speech should apply to everyone as we are repeatedly presented with individuals which the majority of society finds despicable and realizing that nazis should not be allowed any platform of speech, I believe we need to move on from the idea that conversations which do not address the central issues or theses should be allowed to happen. We need to socially reinforce people who critically evaluate the message being portrayed and discourage people from focusing on the way the message is delivered. We've already successfully incorporated this into the way we speak online and to our friends as a response to globalization - we no longer spend time on the internet focusing on incorrect grammar as a way to shut down a conversation and are more forgiving of people who speak English as a second language or who are not as formally educated in terms of spelling and other formalizations of language. We absolutely must do the same here - the delivery method of the message may be polarizing for some, but we need to avoid focusing on that because it detracts from any real conversation or thoughtful input on the matter.

                            3 votes
                    2. skybrian
                      Link Parent
                      It seems to me that part of the issue is that this article expresses contempt and sometimes people are going to disagree with that. Expressions of contempt tend to do that because it’s easy to...

                      It seems to me that part of the issue is that this article expresses contempt and sometimes people are going to disagree with that.

                      Expressions of contempt tend to do that because it’s easy to argue that something or someone isn’t worthy of contempt. Ignoring such things can be difficult, particularly when you or something you care about is targeted. Even trying to be fair-minded can make it more grating that others don’t seem to be making a similar effort.

                      I don’t think contempt can or should be eliminated but it could be made more efficient. It would be better if we didn’t react to contempt by having big discussions about it. On Tildes, you are what you talk about and this sort of thing gets a relatively large amount of words.

                      So I think a way to flag topics would be useful. It could work the same as “ignore” but increment a counter that only @Deimos sees, that he can look at or ignore. This would basically be a way of getting people to use the “ignore” button more in situations when ignoring a topic seems like an inadequate response.

                      (We could also learn not to fall for it again and use the ignore button more, but it’s somewhat difficult. Getting “triggered” is a natural response.)

                      6 votes
                  2. [3]
                    DMBuce
                    Link Parent
                    There are plenty of articles on tildes written by POC about U.S. racial issues that are more well-written than this one. They get half the upvotes this one did and are lucky to have a single...

                    Unfortunately, articles like this seem to get disproportionate attention

                    Well, it was posted here. At least to me, that means it needs more scrutiny than random articles on the web, and certainly means it's more deserving of attention than the random BS conservative media is spouting about BLM.

                    There are plenty of articles on tildes written by POC about U.S. racial issues that are more well-written than this one. They get half the upvotes this one did and are lucky to have a single on-topic comment.

                    Articles like this do get disproportionate attention, and you don't need to look at conservative media to see that that's the case. It's super frustrating to see how many people here are dogpiling the author of this article, and how few bother to engage with other articles written by POC.

                    No really, I asked this three times in this thread: What positive outcome is achieved by this article?

                    There is a prominent comment by @NoblePath in this thread that explains some good this article does.

                    Personally, I took something good away from the article. But I'm not really interested in discussing the specifics of that here.

                    8 votes
                    1. [2]
                      Adys
                      Link Parent
                      That's a fair point, and maybe this is a good opportunity to link to some of these. If we're looking at comment activity, though, you're always going to have "controversial" articles (as in:...

                      There are plenty of articles on tildes written by POC about U.S. racial issues that are more well-written than this one. They get half the upvotes this one did and are lucky to have a single on-topic comment.

                      That's a fair point, and maybe this is a good opportunity to link to some of these.

                      If we're looking at comment activity, though, you're always going to have "controversial" articles (as in: articles that generate disagreement) higher up, because people don't just comment to repeatedly say "I agree". This is … kind of universal.

                      I try my best to comment on links/articles that otherwise do not get much attention, but quite simply I don't spend my time trawling Tildes, so when I come across a post it's likely to be because there were comments on it recently.

                      Regardless I'm glad you took something positive from it.

                      7 votes
                      1. vektor
                        Link Parent
                        To add on to that: The default sorting is for activity, so controversial articles that get a few comments get a few more eyeballs. more eyeballs means more critical comments, more rebukes of that...

                        To add on to that: The default sorting is for activity, so controversial articles that get a few comments get a few more eyeballs. more eyeballs means more critical comments, more rebukes of that criticism and more upvotes. By that, it also means yet more eyeballs.

                        I think at this point it's an established phenomenon to see controversial pieces on the frontpage for a few days. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Sometimes, those discussions can be quite enlightening. I think the discussion here to me has clarified a few things about the article that otherwise would've remained unclear to me.

                        Sometimes it can get quite nasty. I feel this one might be going that way now that we're going more into meta aspects.

                        5 votes
                  3. kfwyre
                    (edited )
                    Link Parent
                    I think what you’ve said here is fair (and I don’t love this article either and have my own personal issues with it) but I bring up the larger context because that helps me inform my response to...

                    I think what you’ve said here is fair (and I don’t love this article either and have my own personal issues with it) but I bring up the larger context because that helps me inform my response to it. Understanding that an article like this doesn’t fall on an otherwise neutral backdrop of discussions of racial issues helps me temper my own criticisms of it. I think it is less important that my criticisms of this article be heard than it is that people understand the wider context in which this article sits.

                    3 votes
              2. TemulentTeatotaler
                Link Parent
                An example I saw was claims that the recently shot Sasha Johnson said, "the white man will not be our equal but our slave", which apparently was fake. Frustrating stuff.

                An example I saw was claims that the recently shot Sasha Johnson said, "the white man will not be our equal but our slave", which apparently was fake.

                Frustrating stuff.

                3 votes
          2. [2]
            dubteedub
            Link Parent
            Black people went from 4% in opposition to BLM in the midst of last summer to 6% now. That is in contrast to a low point of 28% of white people in opposition last summer to 40% now. That is a huge...

            Funnily enough, according to that graph everyone is less supportive of Black Lives Matter today than a peak (which I assume was right when the murder happened), including Black people. White people just have the most marked shift.

            Black people went from 4% in opposition to BLM in the midst of last summer to 6% now. That is in contrast to a low point of 28% of white people in opposition last summer to 40% now. That is a huge swing. Yes 25% of white people were undecided at the time which is now down to 12%, but that is still not exactly a positive that a quarter of white people didn't have a position on the lives of black people.

            Basically I don't think this graph tells us much and it would be more instructive to look at crosstabs of where people live.

            There are crosstabs based on state if you want to dig through them.

            2 votes
            1. NaraVara
              Link Parent
              Shouldn't conflate reactions to a slogan with "the lives of Black people." Slogans and movements have all sorts of associations that are separate from the actual issue at hand and the whole point...

              but that is still not exactly a positive that a quarter of white people didn't have a position on the lives of black people.

              Shouldn't conflate reactions to a slogan with "the lives of Black people." Slogans and movements have all sorts of associations that are separate from the actual issue at hand and the whole point of right wing media is to muddy those associations up as much as possible.

              10 votes
    3. mrbig
      Link Parent
      I agree with you completely. This is a subject that I find incredibely tiresome so instead of an argument I'll just make a lazy claim to relevance: I'm actually Black. We need more nuance.

      I agree with you completely. This is a subject that I find incredibely tiresome so instead of an argument I'll just make a lazy claim to relevance: I'm actually Black. We need more nuance.

      14 votes
    4. [2]
      vektor
      Link Parent
      This pretty much started with the "yes all men" aka "all men are potential rapists from a careful woman's perspective" vs "not all men". Which, like, the complete phrase is a-ok, because you can...

      This pretty much started with the "yes all men" aka "all men are potential rapists from a careful woman's perspective" vs "not all men". Which, like, the complete phrase is a-ok, because you can never know so you always have to be careful. To abbreviate that to the catchy "yes all men" is to do a disservice to your argument by inviting miscommunication. It's basically making explicit what the anti-BLM crowd is claiming is implicit in BLM: That non-black lives don't matter. Which is bullshit and everyone knows it, but it's a convenient attack vector.

      In this case, no, not all white allies were lying. Of course they weren't. Some definitely were, and they deserve a good calling out, and the substance of the OP is good. But the rhetoric is just so damn hostile and overstated and unpleasant. I think it hurts the point of the OP if they're basically antagonizing their target demographic from the get go. Being accused of lying from the get-go will immediately put me in a mindset where I am emotional rather than rational, trying to find reasons to dismiss rather than trying to learn. Is that a good mindset to be in? Nah. Am I responsible for it? Yeah. Is the author responsible for it too? Absolutely. Now, I don't want the author to sugarcoat things, but to start out with a claim so sweeping, it's basically wrong from the start is certainly not good if you want to persuade the people you're actively antagonizing.

      Of course, all that about messaging and antagonizing your audience of course relies on the assumption that the post is addressed to white people, rather than other minorities. But if that's the case I'd have different questions about the value of this piece, considering it could then be construed as fueling a racial divide.

      13 votes
      1. Adys
        Link Parent
        Right, exactly what I just wrote as you were posting this. Though I'd say it fuels racial divide no matter who it's addressed to. Like, can someone describe a case where this article offers a...

        But if that's the case I'd have different questions about the value of this piece, considering it could then be construed as fueling a racial divide.

        Right, exactly what I just wrote as you were posting this.

        Though I'd say it fuels racial divide no matter who it's addressed to. Like, can someone describe a case where this article offers a positive benefit?

        10 votes
    5. [5]
      HoolaBoola
      Link Parent
      Yes, and the reason is that the "other" side keeps maliciously misinterpreting what is actually said. "Black Lives Matter" does not mean that white lives don't matter. Yet every time someone...

      A progressive might get tired of hearing "not all x" over and over whenever they bring up real and pressing issues, but maybe there's a reason they keep hearing it.

      Yes, and the reason is that the "other" side keeps maliciously misinterpreting what is actually said.

      "Black Lives Matter" does not mean that white lives don't matter. Yet every time someone protests against systemic racism by saying BLM, there will always come a horde of people shouting "all lives matter".

      When a woman shares her experience of being sexually harassed and assaulted, there will always be a bunch of people commenting that not all men are like that.

      Yeah, there are reasons why people keep retorting with stuff like that, but those reasons are not sound.

      13 votes
      1. [4]
        Adys
        Link Parent
        Saying something like this (in the second paragraph of the article): is not some type nuanced outcry about the treatment of black people in america.

        Saying something like this (in the second paragraph of the article):

        And then, white people went home and kept being white.

        is not some type nuanced outcry about the treatment of black people in america.

        17 votes
        1. [4]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [3]
            Adys
            Link Parent
            Then let's not defend it as if it were.

            Then let's not defend it as if it were.

            13 votes
            1. [3]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. LukeZaz
                Link Parent
                I recognize you probably don't mean to imply such, but I feel it should be noted that this isn't a justification for being anti-white. Someone else being a dick does not mean it's fine to also be...

                In truth the author is anti-white, and to a degree I don't blame him. Extremism begets extremism, oppression begets resentment.

                I recognize you probably don't mean to imply such, but I feel it should be noted that this isn't a justification for being anti-white. Someone else being a dick does not mean it's fine to also be a dick. Being angry is one thing and is perfectly understandable, but racism does not justify more racism.

                8 votes
              2. Adys
                Link Parent
                Gotcha, thanks. I misunderstood the intent of your previous post.

                Gotcha, thanks. I misunderstood the intent of your previous post.

                4 votes
    6. [15]
      eladnarra
      Link Parent
      I mean... Yeah, they are? Inaction in the face of injustice isn't morally neutral. Sure, it's not as bad as perpetuating it yourself. But surely doing nothing while someone gets hurt isn't a...

      If a member of a privileged group goes on a few marches, joins in a few protests, engages with their local politics, but ultimately has to get back to their own life at some point, should they be begrudged that? Are they then part of the problem?

      I mean... Yeah, they are? Inaction in the face of injustice isn't morally neutral. Sure, it's not as bad as perpetuating it yourself. But surely doing nothing while someone gets hurt isn't a neutral thing. Plus, white support of BLM is worse than before the protests, so people aren't just going back to a baseline, they're sliding further.

      And yeah, I really don't blame Black people begrudging white people going back to their lives. That seems pretty understandable. Because POC can't get away from any of this. There is no escape from daily racism, whether institutional or personal. There is no "life where I don't have to think about Black people being murdered by police" for them to go back to.

      13 votes
      1. [4]
        vektor
        Link Parent
        Acting when you think it is helpful, and then stopping when it turns out that it is in vain anyway or it turns out that you can no longer help without significant cost to yourself is morally evil?...

        Acting when you think it is helpful, and then stopping when it turns out that it is in vain anyway or it turns out that you can no longer help without significant cost to yourself is morally evil? I beg your pardon?

        16 votes
        1. [2]
          eladnarra
          Link Parent
          I'm struggling with your response a bit because it feels rather accusatory and makes some assumptions, and it's hard not to be defensive. So this might be a bit disjointed as I edit out unhelpful...

          I'm struggling with your response a bit because it feels rather accusatory and makes some assumptions, and it's hard not to be defensive. So this might be a bit disjointed as I edit out unhelpful things.

          I didn't go to protests last year for several reasons. I'm higher risk for COVID, I use a wheelchair at events (which makes it hard to move quickly out of police ire), and being held overnight in jail would significantly impact my health. Does that make me evil? I don't think so. I helped in other ways that used my energy and time more effectively, and I focused on my job which works with racial justice orgs. But I was still aware that it's a privilege to be able to distance myself that way. Black disabled people don't have that luxury.

          I guess I'm probably using a different meaning of "going back to their lives" than you are. Combined with the article's statistics of white opinion polls backsliding and the section I quoted that mentioned local politics, I assumed it not only meant "no longer going to protests because it's not financially feasible" but also "not thinking about racial justice or local politics anymore or doing anything to fill the space left by protesting."

          16 votes
          1. vektor
            Link Parent
            Sorry, yes, the tone was more than a bit off. Thank you for your measured response. I should have taken more time to temper my tone and get a few actual arguments in there. I did make some...

            Sorry, yes, the tone was more than a bit off. Thank you for your measured response. I should have taken more time to temper my tone and get a few actual arguments in there.

            I did make some assumptions and was drawing in data from out of frame. Consider for example that the first lockdown fueled the protests big time. Consider that protesting is usually more or less conflicting with going to work. I was also working on the assumption that "not morally neutral" meant "morally evil". I agree that failure to help can certainly be evil. Not stopping to help someone who just had a car accident? Not cool. But it's good limits when your actions are either ineffective or harmful to yourself. All of these quantities (effectiveness, harm, etc) exist on a spectrum, so there can't be a hard-and-fast rule. Jumping into a fight to defend someone who will get beaten up, when the only thing that's going to happen is that you end up in hospital too? That does not make anyone evil. Somewhere along that gradient is the decision boundary. And when it turns out that the entire country rioting doesn't move policy an iota, I can understand that perceived effectiveness changes. Likewise, with lockdown ending, economic damage to oneself grows. And one shouldn't forget that there's always other important issues that demand our attention. Racial justice isn't the only issue facing the world right now. Class issues, climate change, pandemic policy are all issues that are just as important, and in the case of climate and pandemic policy, orders of magnitude more deadly than police violence. There's a lot of fires and not enough water to put them all out at once.

            All of this of course does not consider the opinion polls. I reckon that is backlash from some people becoming more conservative than they already were. That is, the murder of George Floyd radicalized the left, while the riots radicalized the right, leading to a near-zero net change and/or explaining a bit of movement either way.

            Black disabled people don't have that luxury.

            I completely agree with that, just want to make that clear.

            Again: Apologies for my previous comment.

            9 votes
        2. NoblePath
          Link Parent
          I would say that your moral obligation to help is equal to the dividends you receive from your racial privilege. It’s not easy to to quantify that as a practical matter, but also not impossible....

          I would say that your moral obligation to help is equal to the dividends you receive from your racial privilege. It’s not easy to to quantify that as a practical matter, but also not impossible. Pay and health outcome disparity would be a good place to start.

          5 votes
      2. NaraVara
        Link Parent
        People and populations are different. You can't look at population level statistics and draw conclusions about any of the people in it. This is the danger of treating statistical groups as...

        Plus, white support of BLM is worse than before the protests, so people aren't just going back to a baseline, they're sliding further.

        People and populations are different. You can't look at population level statistics and draw conclusions about any of the people in it. This is the danger of treating statistical groups as monoliths.

        Like I said elsewhere what actually seems to be happening is people who were undecided made up their minds to oppose rather than people who were supportive shifting into opposition. And it's probably not even that they went from undecided to opposed but rather went from "don't feel comfortable admitting to being opposed" to "feeling comfortable admitting it" as the news coverage of the issue began to furnish them with acceptable pretexts to frame their fear or discomfort (e.g. framing it as riots and civil chaos).

        10 votes
      3. trobertson
        Link Parent
        It sounds like the real question is "How much action is 'enough' to be considered an ally?" Alternatively, "How much action is required to offset past or future inaction?" These questions sound...

        If a member of a privileged group goes on a few marches, joins in a few protests, engages with their local politics, but ultimately has to get back to their own life at some point, should they be begrudged that? Are they then part of the problem?

        I mean... Yeah, they are? Inaction in the face of injustice isn't morally neutral. Sure, it's not as bad as perpetuating it yourself. But surely doing nothing while someone gets hurt isn't a neutral thing.

        It sounds like the real question is "How much action is 'enough' to be considered an ally?" Alternatively, "How much action is required to offset past or future inaction?"

        These questions sound like they are about the individual, but the sticky, tricky, unsaid part is that the problem is societal and historical as much as it is individual. It is baked into the foundations of our culture and law. The problem has existed before any of us were born, and no amount of individual effort is going to "solve" the problem, whatever that solution may be.

        A significant portion of society tried to make meaningful changes last summer, and they failed. Is this disappointing? Yes. Is the decline of the movement disappointing? Yes.

        Is it understandable that people have left a movement that failed? I think yes (mostly, anyways), but there is a lot of room for different opinions in that question.

        I think one of the important things to look at was whether the movement last summer had any chance of success at all. Donald and the Clowns had complete control of the federal government. These are people who are proud to be racist. They were the people who had every power to change things, and they are proud that they didn't. Last summer's protests and marches had no chance all to make meaningful change on the scale that is required. Not through lack of effort, but because peaceful means to make the changes did not exist.

        Inevitably, that results in a sense of futility.

        The political circumstances are different now, but the fire is gone. Time blunts all feelings, and the only people who still have the fire are those who have continued to face injustice as a regular part of their lives. As you say:

        I really don't blame Black people begrudging white people going back to their lives. That seems pretty understandable. Because POC can't get away from any of this. There is no escape from daily racism, whether institutional or personal. There is no "life where I don't have to think about Black people being murdered by police" for them to go back to.

        To circle back to the beginning, my rephrasing of the question is probably not correct. I would now suggest that the question is "How much positive change is required before one can be considered an ally?" And if "change" is the requirement, how much of the societal burden can we justly place on the shoulders of individuals? And how much can we then blame those individuals for failure if the changes are, in the relevant context, impossible?

        There is a last question, of course, based on the phrase I used above: "peaceful means". A question about whether "self defense" on a population level is the right path forward. I don't know that I'm brave enough to ask that question.

        7 votes
      4. [8]
        bub
        Link Parent
        I get this. There have been many times in my life when I've changed my mind about a topic as complex as this, and I expect there will be many more. When I try to work down through the layers of...

        I get this. There have been many times in my life when I've changed my mind about a topic as complex as this, and I expect there will be many more. When I try to work down through the layers of reasoning about systemic racism, I can't help but ask this question:

        When a person is born, does happening to be born white and American imbue that person with a special duty to society? Are they born with a debt? Or born with a responsibility?

        When we're talking about where to establish the line of moral neutrality, answers aren't obvious to me. But that seems like a "no."

        Likewise, of course, a black child in America should not be born with a disadvantage. So what is the answer? Do we place children on a set of scales, transferring the burden from one innocent person to another until all appear equal? Is that moral? Is it even meaningful?

        6 votes
        1. [2]
          Atvelonis
          Link Parent
          I think we are conditioned to make this response when discussing "morality at birth" because a given individual definitionally lacks the agency to decide to be born; by extension, and quite...
          • Exemplary

          When we're talking about where to establish the line of moral neutrality, answers aren't obvious to me. But that seems like a "no."

          Do we place children on a set of scales, transferring the burden from one innocent person to another until all appear equal? Is that moral? Is it even meaningful?

          I think we are conditioned to make this response when discussing "morality at birth" because a given individual definitionally lacks the agency to decide to be born; by extension, and quite reasonably, their natural inheritance of wealth implies no particular moral obligation on their part. Thus it is not constructive to suggest that a child born into wealth is somehow acting in the immoral when they do not become philanthropists. Children do not have agency over their wealth and, until a certain age, do not necessarily have agency over themselves.

          We are mistaken, however, to suggest that one who has progressed beyond the tangle of confused neurons that represent early childhood is equally free from any sort of moral obligation in regard to their wealth or social position. There is a very good reason that we have a social differentiation between children, adolescents, and adults; the precise age at which this transition occurs is not significant to my argument so long as we recognize that there is a point for all persons at which they have the capacity to make decisions for themselves and understanding the context of their social cohabitants. Philosophy based in an intellectual or ethical equivalency between children and adults is not realistic.

          To the extent that we are interested in something approaching genuine egalitarianism, yes, it is both moral and meaningful to consider members of our society with reference to the wealth and power they have accumulated. If we do not incorporate the inheritance of economic or political capital into our sociological analysis, then it is axiomatically impossible to bring about substantial social change. If we ignore the fact that the wealthier now are descended typically from the wealthier then, we return to a form of uncritical hyper-individualism that is simply incapable of engaging with social movements that exist emergently in the collective. (Yes, many of our grandparents emigrated from Greece etc. in the 1910s and were very poor then. We are not speaking so narrowly here.)

          There is very little use in attacking children for anything. There is immense value in recognizing that having inherited and consciously lived with a privilege is no more ethical than having forced your way up to obtain it. Either way it is at the expense of others; one's inheritance is merely the maintenance of that position and is in no way morally neutral. If we are interested in tangible social progress, then we must not sink eternally into the status quo.

          11 votes
          1. bub
            Link Parent
            Well, this is very in-depth and helpful, thank you. This remains a complicated topic to me with no obvious conclusion, but that seems like a very valid train of thought. The part about unhealthy...

            Well, this is very in-depth and helpful, thank you. This remains a complicated topic to me with no obvious conclusion, but that seems like a very valid train of thought.

            The part about unhealthy hyper-individualism absolutely resonates with my worldview, and I do typically take a more collectivist stance on issues than I have here.

            4 votes
        2. [5]
          dubteedub
          Link Parent
          I get that you are trying to pose this as a rhetorical question, but I actually think the answer is definitely yes. White Americans have a life of privilege that was literally built on the white...

          When a person is born, does happening to be born white and American imbue that person with a special duty to society? Are they born with a debt? Or born with a responsibility?

          I get that you are trying to pose this as a rhetorical question, but I actually think the answer is definitely yes. White Americans have a life of privilege that was literally built on the white supremacy going back through 400 years of oppression. We absolutely do have a debt to minorities who have been systematically oppressed by our government through slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, red lining, policing, and the many other injustices put upon them just for the color of their skin.

          I believe that black americans are owed reparations. That would be moral and meaningful. I believe that it has been a great stain on this country that we never had anything close to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission implemented in South Africa after apartheid.

          As white Americans, we should be striving to advance racial justice and should absolutely be recognizing the need for change as it the moral and right thing to do.

          6 votes
          1. [4]
            bub
            Link Parent
            I mean, no, I'm not being rhetorical. I'm not trying to hedge in and "win" an argument. Saying that someone can have an inherent debt from birth isn't automatically invalid. I'm happy to change my...

            I mean, no, I'm not being rhetorical. I'm not trying to hedge in and "win" an argument. Saying that someone can have an inherent debt from birth isn't automatically invalid. I'm happy to change my perspective on issues, especially when they are this heavily nuanced. Gaining insights should never be seen as a "defeat."

            4 votes
            1. [3]
              dubteedub
              Link Parent
              You raised the question of if white Americans have a moral obligation and said you think the answer is no. So why do you feel that way? If you are open to change of perspective, then it would help...

              You raised the question of if white Americans have a moral obligation and said you think the answer is no. So why do you feel that way? If you are open to change of perspective, then it would help to know why you feel that way.

              3 votes
              1. [2]
                bub
                Link Parent
                Because I don't think anybody is born with an inherent obligation to anybody else. When I think about the kind of world I want to live in, I imagine a world of equal opportunity (among many other...

                Because I don't think anybody is born with an inherent obligation to anybody else.

                When I think about the kind of world I want to live in, I imagine a world of equal opportunity (among many other things). This is a world that I join in working towards.

                But I also want to make sure I don't forget that this is my choice. Those of us who want a better world should absolutely get together in order to make it happen, but we should not pretend we're doing it for anybody but ourselves. We're not satisfying some universal moral law. We're not fighting for truth and justice or some other romanticized nonsense, but rather because that's the world we want to live in.

                We often lose sight of a certain existential baseline, I feel. A human is still an animal. Our morality is a layer of thought that we add on top of our existential baseline. We build our civilizations on top of that as yet another layer.

                If a human is born into an existing civilization, but wants none of this and only cares for themselves or for their immediate family, then what are they to do? If they do not obey the laws of civilization they will be penalized. So they obey the laws. They have nowhere else to go, after all, because the entire world has been claimed for one nation or another. This, to me, seems to be nearby the animal baseline.

                Any aspiration we may have for a better world above the animal baseline, I think, should be counted in our favor (if we're keeping a morality score). Raising the bar for ourselves is admirable, and I absolutely try to raise my own bar far above this baseline, but we have no business raising the bar for others.

                It frustrates me, just like it does many of you, when the better world we work for is held back by portions of the population that want something else, or want something entirely selfish. And I wish there were another place for them to go, where they could maintain the kind of civilization, or lack of civilization, that they desire. Or another place for me to go, where the kind of world I want is being better realized.

                But I don't assign them the task of meeting my own standards, and I try not to think of them as evil.

                4 votes
                1. dubteedub
                  Link Parent
                  I mean, that is nice and all to imagine a perfect world of equal opportunity, but that is not at all where we live now. We were born into a country of huge inequalities, many of them that can be...

                  When I think about the kind of world I want to live in, I imagine a world of equal opportunity (among many other things). This is a world that I join in working towards.

                  I mean, that is nice and all to imagine a perfect world of equal opportunity, but that is not at all where we live now. We were born into a country of huge inequalities, many of them that can be traced back through hundreds of years of oppression of black people.

                  White people in America have a life of privilege that was provided to us because the government gave white Americans preferential treatment in jobs, housing, grants, and loans, while denying access to black Americans, in addition to direct oppression through policing and our justice system.

                  If you want to create a world that does provide equal opportunity, the first step has to be recognizing where our country has failed to provide that until now and work to address it.

                  I honestly don't get the point of the rest of your comment. Talking about humans as animals just seems to be a way of dismissing what you claim that you want to achieve. You are coming off to me as basically saying "Sure, I want equality, but because all those selfish jerks don't want it, and since we have to live with them what am I supposed to do?"

                  4 votes
  2. Thrabalen
    Link
    Here's the problem: as a white person, I have marginally more influence than a black person. If I had more money, if I had more connections, but I don't. I live in a large city, in the...

    Here's the problem: as a white person, I have marginally more influence than a black person. If I had more money, if I had more connections, but I don't. I live in a large city, in the impoverished sections, and I don't know a damn soul that can reasonably help. I spread the word as much as I can, but that's the limit of what I can do. If white people like me could effect change, we wouldn't need to.

    13 votes
  3. [4]
    monarda
    Link
    I don't begrudge the author, or the wording. I can't imagine what it must be like to be Black in America. Back in June of last year, I wondered where white America would be in this George Floyd...

    I don't begrudge the author, or the wording. I can't imagine what it must be like to be Black in America. Back in June of last year, I wondered where white America would be in this George Floyd Thread.

    I’ve Seen My Brother Die a Hundred Times. I’ve Seen My Sister Die a Hundred More.
    After reading this piece, I was struck with thought, "where will we be six months from now," and by "we" I mean white people like myself. We'll have the option to fade away and go back to a pre-covid world. Will we care enough to stand if things don't change, and we have other things to do.

    12 votes
    1. [3]
      monarda
      Link Parent
      noise: How do you link to a specific comment?

      noise:
      How do you link to a specific comment?

      1. Kuromantis
        Link Parent
        I think that's more offtopic (like this comment) than noise.

        I think that's more offtopic (like this comment) than noise.

  4. Arshan
    Link
    Well, yeah. Our current system will change as little as it can, which in this case was agree that its problem and then proceed to fuck off. Change can start in demonstrations and in...

    Well, yeah. Our current system will change as little as it can, which in this case was agree that its problem and then proceed to fuck off. Change can start in demonstrations and in community-building, but they are not the solution to any problems.

    9 votes
  5. [2]
    Phlegmatic
    Link
    It's a little misleading to say that white people on the whole support BLM less, when the data seems to indicate that Republicans are the group whose support has plummeted. Given that the...

    It's a little misleading to say that white people on the whole support BLM less, when the data seems to indicate that Republicans are the group whose support has plummeted. Given that the Republican party is overwhelmingly white, that would necessarily imply a sharp drop among white people, but it's imprecise to say that white people have changed their minds when it's clearly a subgroup of white people. Looking at the graphs in the article he links, it looks like support among Democrats has decreased only modestly, about as much as support among black people. Honestly, it seems like he read the data selectively to support what he already wanted to say about white people.

    9 votes