The problem isn't the idea. The problem is that "it's ok to be white" is a known racist slogan.
You could say “well that’s a good notion, it’s okay to be somebody of any race, yet we should be asking if people think if it’s okay to be trans or okay to be black as well” yada yada. Like something not racist like that instead of going “look at this a white supremacist said this it’s a dog whistle fuckin owned everybody who says this is a closet racist now”
I’m just so frustrated with people who are so obsessed with who is saying something and guilt by association that what is being said is secondary.
People said disagreeing with the organization of BLM means you disagree that black lives matter.
If you disagree with groups that use it is OK to be white, then using the same logic that means you disagree with the phrase as well.
I couldn't find the clip, but I think I saw it on CNN. It was one of the mainstream news outlets, might have been ABC or NBC or something like that.
>You act as if there is some sort of authority on this...
I think you are reading more into my comment than you should.
>online, sooner or later, you will see just about any opinion expressed.
Sure... Not sure why that matters. I'm not just talking about random posts.
> so when you give the example you did, what value is it? the standard shouldn't be "what someone says online" but what a reasonable person would think.
The problem is mainstream outlets are pushing this. That influences people and can cause people who were reasonable to become unreasonable. Unless you don't think people watched by millions can influence others?
This is not an uncommon tactic, I’ve noticed. For example, fundamentalist Christians often like to pretend they’re oppressed because it’s an effective recruiting and retention strategy even though it makes no literal sense when you look around the country and see how much power they have. Any time I see someone in a dominant group painting themselves as a victim, I know to ask what bill of goods they’re trying to sell me.
It’s also worth thinking about why the Republican Party’s favorite polling company is pulling material from 4chan and consider whether whoever is behind that might have had other questions in the poll which primed the cannier portion of the people being polled to be suspicious.
No, in this case it is actually the opposite. The problem I am complaining about is people ascribing negative aspects (extreme opinions) to people uttering snappy slogans. What I did was ascribe a positive aspects to these same people, namely that they can all describe their opinion as being nuanced. (Obviously the words “every” and “all” do not literally mean “every” and “all” in the mathematical sense, but that’s just how language works.)
eve·ry | ˈev(ə)rē | determiner (preceding a singular noun) used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception: the hotel assures every guest of personal attention | [with possessive determiner] : the children hung on his every word.
>Otherwise, every sentence with the word “everybody” in it would be false.
No. "Everybody over there" is not false if it refers to everybody over there for example. If you use everybody to refer to some people, then that is your poor word choice.
How is that even remotely true? Even just in the context of race...
’I’m not!’ Walsh shouted futilely. ‘I’m not a Purist and I’m not a Naturalist! You hear me?’
Nobody heard him.
— The Chromium Fence, Philip K. Dick (1955) <https://web.archive.org/web/20150419173332/http://american-b...>
I'm still not sure of the wisdom of making the term verboten. The correct answer isn't "it's not ok to be white"
I suppose it's the same with black lives matter. I should be able to agree with the statement that black lives matter with out signing up to their politics.