Does the Marxist Ideology of the BLM founders give you pause in supprting them?

[ctuser1]

Aren't "white silence is violence" and "silence is complicity" both appropriate depending on context?

Case 1
US has had a large problem of Black voter suppression in the south.
https://www.demos.org/research/problem-african-american-underrepresentation-city-councils#footnote2_c6qzqyw

When the Mike Brown shooting happened, the 2/3rd black population had a voter share of something ridiculous - single digit percent or something.

Republicans inherited this problem from Democrats/Dixiecrats when Nixon started his Southern Strategy, and actively and gleefully engaged in it!!

If someone enabled them by voting for them at the national level (even if the conservatives did not have any opportunity to do anything like this in his/her state), then that someone directly aided and abetted this republican apartheid against the blacks. Excess violence against the blacks is one of the consequence from this.

So, if you are black, and you see that the only people who have the power to stop this (which is the white majority), AND that these people are doing nothing and helping the apartheid continue - then maybe using the "white silence is violence" slogan makes some sense - at least figuratively if not directly.

Case 2
If I, on the other hand, just kept silent while someone else engaged in a racist rant (and yes, I have personally kept silent while a white co-worker explained to me in great detail over a glass of beer how Blacks leech off the welfare system), then I don't think a "white silence is violence" slogan is appropriate even figuratively. "Silence is complicity" - I can see that being more appropriate in this context.

I think in case 1 it would be far more accurate to say that silence enables violence.

i.e. you see any rhetorical device implying culpability to be improper. Why?

If you voted to enable apartheid, you should be considered culpable. The basic concept of "personal responsibility" bestows that culpability on every adult w.r.t. his/her actions irrespective of intent/knowledge. Yes, intent/knowledge should change the level of culpability - but culpability exist regardless!!

Voting is an active role, being silent is a passive one. I would not have a problem with the notion that whose who vote for white supremacists are guilty of violence as they played an active role in manifesting the violence.

Great, we agree on the black and white logical extreme (that I see you have carefully worded).

Now, how about a different degree of grey?

How about a national party, which while not primarily White Supremacist has come to rely on white supremacist components for a few decades in the southern states?

And then the progeny of Dixiecrats who did not put the system of disenfranchisement in place themselves, but was just sufficiently racist to enthusiastically or otherwise continue the systemic disenfranchisement?

Is support of such a shade of grey comparable to violence?
Far more importantly, would a black boy born in Farguson, MO be justified in taking it to be a case of lifelong violence??

I guess we might just have different sensibilities. On one hand we have a minority whose rights have been violated for centuries, and on the other hand we have complaints of the privileged that the verbiage is hurting their fragile sensibilities and that they resent being called racist/violent/whatever....

To me, the moral preferences, imperatives and priorities seem pretty clear.

[PKFFW]

Do you believe that my intellectual curiosity betrays some lack of empathy on my part? I find it interesting that you would make this observation, as though perhaps I would decide to turn my brain off to avoid running the risk of strangers on the internet thinking that I do not care about the suffering others experience. Another set of things that are not mutually exclusive would be caring about others and wanting to understand more about ideologies and movements and how they intertwine.

Do you simply want to "understand more about ideologies and movements..." when you remark...?

So perhaps you can simply understand me as being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language.

Because here in this quote you are not stating a desire to understand anything.  You are stating that you are against intentionally inaccurate use of language.  A discussion has arisen about an example you personally brought up regarding the inaccurate use of language that you are against.

So yes, I do think, in this situation you appear, via your own words, to care less about the people being hurt and more about their use of language.

[norajean]

It would be great if BLM aspired to Marxism, but they don’t.

[LennStar]

as violence requires using physical force to do harm.

No. Very simply but definitely no.
Though I admit the English language seems to lean more heaviyl on the physical side.

btw. did you know that "showing the tools" was an integral part of the Inquisition's process? Many people confessed before any physical violence was enacted.

I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".

Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that  objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.

Voting is an active role, being silent is a passive one.

Being silent is passive. Choosing to stay so, however, is not.

[John Galt incarnate!]

The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.

When I hear or read "violence" it evokes  a kinetic act or occurrence such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, smashing windows, overturning a vehicle, bullet strikes, destructive explosions, so forth.

I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.

[Kris]

The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.

When I hear or read "violence" it evokes  a kinetic act such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, a bullet strike, breaking of windows, destructive explosions, overturning a vehicle, and so forth.

I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.

Muteness is a physical condition.

Silence is a choice. Especially when witnessing violence.

[ctuser1]

The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.

When I hear or read "violence" it evokes  a kinetic act such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, a bullet strike, breaking of windows, destructive explosions, overturning a vehicle, and so forth.

I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.

Question on case law and jurisprudence....

Legally, whose perspective is important as far as violence and discrimination goes? If we have two stereotypes here - one is a black boy from Farguson, MO and another a middle-aged white male from the same place - it is possible that the perspectives differ very much because they lived in two different worlds despite sharing the same geographical location.

In this case, legally, will the perspective of the black boy win out (as the "discriminated")? or the White Man who, arguably, an enabler of Systemic discrimination?

In the corporate context, I have been told that policies are designed to always take the perspective of the "worker alleging discrimination/harassment". But that may just be a risk management stance and not a legal one - hence asking.


-------------------

Also, "threat of violence" is widely accepted as "violence". A kidnapper who just threatens but never touches his victim is committing violence. Thomas Jefferson committed violence even against the slaves he did not rape (and may not even have touched).

I posted a WHO definition of violence - which has this expanded definition.

Requiring kinetic action for "violence" is probably too narrow. Is there any case law defining this?

[John Galt incarnate!]

Muteness is a physical condition.

Silence is a choice. Especially when witnessing violence.

Yes, muteness is an affliction.

It is also a choice to be silent which is what I meant.

Muteness | Definition of Muteness at Dictionary.com

Muteness definition, silent; refraining from speech or utterance. .

[Watchmaker]

Yes, this strategic falsehood has sparked conversation and dialogue. So has tons of the bogus steam of consciousness from our POTUS. So I'm not sure that is a compelling justification.

This is the part of your argument I don't get. (To me) it's clearly not a falsehood-- it's a rhetorical device. Just like Budweiser isn't really "the king" of beers (beers, in fact, employ a parliamentary democracy).

[Kris]

Muteness is a physical condition.

Silence is a choice. Especially when witnessing violence.

Yes, muteness is an affliction.

It is also a choice to be silent which is what I meant.

Muteness | Definition of Muteness at Dictionary.com

Muteness definition, silent; refraining from speech or utterance. .

Notice the “refrain” gerund. In that definition of the word, it is still a choice.

[renata ricotta]

The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.

When I hear or read "violence" it evokes  a kinetic act or occurrence such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, smashing windows, overturning a vehicle, bullet strikes, destructive explosions, so forth.

I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.

That is precisely the point of the slogan.

Many people don't. The message is for those people who have previously viewed themselves as not part of the problem of racial violence because they were not physically participating in it to realize that by saying nothing when it happens, they are contributing to the problem in a very real way. Just because it's an invisible way doesn't mean it's less important or not real. That's why figurative comparative language like a metaphor is powerful - it forces people to make connections that weren't clear to them before.

This BLM movement is markedly different than the ones in 2013 and 2016, because all races are showing up and white people in unprecedented numbers. People are finally starting to "get it" that just because you don't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you aren't creating and perpetuating the system and you have a responsibility to help undo it.

[renata ricotta]

The slogan "white silence is violence" is a pretty good example of the type of false justification I'm referring to that would require an embrace of critical theory before one could view it as a true statement.

When I hear or read "violence" it evokes  a kinetic act such as raping, kicking, stabbing, beating, a bullet strike, breaking of windows, destructive explosions, overturning a vehicle, and so forth.

I do not associate silence (muteness) with violence.

Question on case law and jurisprudence....

Legally, whose perspective is important as far as violence and discrimination goes? If we have two stereotypes here - one is a black boy from Farguson, MO and another a middle-aged white male from the same place - it is possible that the perspectives differ very much because they lived in two different worlds despite sharing the same geographical location.

In this case, legally, will the perspective of the black boy win out (as the "discriminated")? or the White Man who, arguably, an enabler of Systemic discrimination?

In the corporate context, I have been told that policies are designed to always take the perspective of the "worker alleging discrimination/harassment". But that may just be a risk management stance and not a legal one - hence asking.


-------------------

Also, "threat of violence" is widely accepted as "violence". A kidnapper who just threatens but never touches his victim is committing violence. Thomas Jefferson committed violence even against the slaves he did not rape (and may not even have touched).

I posted a WHO definition of violence - which has this expanded definition.

Requiring kinetic action for "violence" is probably too narrow. Is there any case law defining this?

Probably, but "violence" is rarely a legal term in and of itself that needs constructing.

You can certainly commit crimes that people often associate with physical, kinetic violence without touching someone - for example, in most states threatening physical violence falls under the definition of assault even if it didn't get all the way to battery. For example, brandishing a weapon is often considered assault.

Additionally, most states have (correctly) come to define rape to include coerced sex that doesn't necessarily involve violent force or holding a gun to someone's head.

[J Boogie]

as violence requires using physical force to do harm.

No. Very simply but definitely no.
Though I admit the English language seems to lean more heaviyl on the physical side.

btw. did you know that "showing the tools" was an integral part of the Inquisition's process? Many people confessed before any physical violence was enacted.

I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".

Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that  objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.

Voting is an active role, being silent is a passive one.

Being silent is passive. Choosing to stay so, however, is not.

Well, our discussion has taken place in English and the overwhelming majority of the discussion around the recent protests have as well. So the idea of using the definition from a different language wouldn't make sense. Feel free to post the definition and explain how physical force is not required to meet the definition of violence. I see there is an alternate definition that applies to distorting or altering something, but the phrase "white silence is violence" wouldn't make sense in that regard.

The example of showing the tools you mention is a good example of an implied threat of violence.

Regarding silence being a passive role, I agree that the neutral position is itself a choice. I won't bother arguing the semantics of active v passive and a sin of commission v a sin of omission, as I've made my point that separate categories exist and it seems to be accepted. Perhaps we all have our own views on just how guilty a bystander is, but as long as we are honest and acknowledge their role and culpability is different than the perpetrator I'm satisfied. My beef is with those who draw a false moral equivalence in an attempt to guilt the bystander into action.

[Kris]

as violence requires using physical force to do harm.

No. Very simply but definitely no.
Though I admit the English language seems to lean more heaviyl on the physical side.

btw. did you know that "showing the tools" was an integral part of the Inquisition's process? Many people confessed before any physical violence was enacted.

I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".

Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that  objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.

Voting is an active role, being silent is a passive one.

Being silent is passive. Choosing to stay so, however, is not.

Well, our discussion has taken place in English and the overwhelming majority of the discussion around the recent protests have as well. So the idea of using the definition from a different language wouldn't make sense. Feel free to post the definition and explain how physical force is not required to meet the definition of violence. I see there is an alternate definition that applies to distorting or altering something, but the phrase "white silence is violence" wouldn't make sense in that regard.

The example of showing the tools you mention is a good example of an implied threat of violence.

Regarding silence being a passive role, I agree that the neutral position is itself a choice. I won't bother arguing the semantics of active v passive and a sin of commission v a sin of omission, as I've made my point that separate categories exist and it seems to be accepted. Perhaps we all have our own views on just how guilty a bystander is, but as long as we are honest and acknowledge their role and culpability is different than the perpetrator I'm satisfied. My beef is with those who draw a false moral equivalence in an attempt to guilt the bystander into action.

Yes, this conversation is in English.

I think many Germans would disagree with you. And they might have decent reasons for that.

[Watchmaker]

I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".

Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that  objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.

All statements have context which is required for them to be understood. Language itself is contextual. A slogan just cannot contain all of that context.

When I first heard "All Lives Matter" I was fine with it since I viewed it as a true statement. I had to learn that the problem was not in the text, it was in the context and the subtext.

[J Boogie]

Yes, this strategic falsehood has sparked conversation and dialogue. So has tons of the bogus steam of consciousness from our POTUS. So I'm not sure that is a compelling justification.

This is the part of your argument I don't get. (To me) it's clearly not a falsehood-- it's a rhetorical device. Just like Budweiser isn't really "the king" of beers (beers, in fact, employ a parliamentary democracy).

Falsehoods and rhetorical devices (in this case, fallacies) are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of what we call it, we are right to reject untrue claims regardless of any good intentions behind them. The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice are also not mutually exclusive.

I like the example of sales puffery, but I think we can agree it is a totally different thing as it does not seek to change any laws and influence society in any serious way.

[J Boogie]

Do you believe that my intellectual curiosity betrays some lack of empathy on my part? I find it interesting that you would make this observation, as though perhaps I would decide to turn my brain off to avoid running the risk of strangers on the internet thinking that I do not care about the suffering others experience. Another set of things that are not mutually exclusive would be caring about others and wanting to understand more about ideologies and movements and how they intertwine.

Do you simply want to "understand more about ideologies and movements..." when you remark...?

So perhaps you can simply understand me as being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language.

Because here in this quote you are not stating a desire to understand anything.  You are stating that you are against intentionally inaccurate use of language.  A discussion has arisen about an example you personally brought up regarding the inaccurate use of language that you are against.

So yes, I do think, in this situation you appear, via your own words, to care less about the people being hurt and more about their use of language.

My analysis of ideologies and movements includes analyzing and dissenting with the language used by those movements. Therefore I care more about language than those who are suffering oppression. Hm.

Your attack relies on the conflation of an intellectual interest and caring. I care with my dollars, my votes, and the way I treat people. I scratch my intellectual itches on a message board. With the exception of swatting away pesky ad hominem attacks like yours, I don't see the point in demonstrating how benevolent I am to my fellow posters. I assume they are arguing in good faith until I am shown otherwise and I hope to be granted the same assumption. But the strength of an argument does not depend on the person making it.

[LennStar]

I think many Germans would disagree with you. And they might have decent reasons for that.

Now that you mention it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung
There was emphasis on no physical violence (because that would be proof).

[Watchmaker]

Falsehoods and rhetorical devices (in this case, fallacies) are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of what we call it, we are right to reject untrue claims regardless of any good intentions behind them. The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice are also not mutually exclusive.

I like the example of sales puffery, but I think we can agree it is a totally different thing as it does not seek to change any laws and influence society in any serious way.

I agree that it's a different thing, but not that it's a totally different thing. AB InBev's fifty or so billion in sales a year suggest that their marketing does indeed influence society in a serious way.

You're rejecting the slogan "silence is violence" because you view it to be untrue by a narrow, literal, interpretation of the language. That feels obtuse to me, because I think you must understand that isn't what people are saying when they say that.

They are not saying: "Silence is literally physical violence."

They are saying: "Silence plays a role in systemic oppression, and is therefore something we should treat with as much seriousness as we treat violence" or "Physical violence isn't the only way we harm, and being silent in the face of racism is one way we allow harm to happen." or some other nuanced statement along those lines. They have good reasons to use the shorthand version of that phrase (off the top of my head: brevity, memorability, rhetorical power, and avoiding the narcissism of small differences).

[GuitarStv]

So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?

I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel.  The statement on US pennies is objectively false.  What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?

[Watchmaker]

"Frames"..

I've found George Lakoff's youtube videos very useful in understanding this concept.

Warning 1: Lakoff has an explicit political stance. He talks from the point of view of how liberals can counteract the conservatives. I still found his ideas powerful and his science honest (as far as I could detect).
Warning 2: The concept is nuanced and complex.

Thanks, I've read some Lakoff before but perhaps it's time I took another look.

[J Boogie]

So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?

I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel.  The statement on US pennies is objectively false.  What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?

Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.

I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.

Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.

[GuitarStv]

So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?

I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel.  The statement on US pennies is objectively false.  What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?

Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.

I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.

Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.

So literalism isn't important for the penny.  We can use a more holistic/nuanced view in it's interpretation.

Is that an example of "being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language"?

[J Boogie]

So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?

I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel.  The statement on US pennies is objectively false.  What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?

Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.

I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.

Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.

So literalism isn't important for the penny.  We can use a more holistic/nuanced view in it's interpretation.

Is that an example of "being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language"?

Ok, so you're going full speed ahead with the ill-fated gotcha :) Buckle up.

We'll simply use intention as you quoted me saying above.

The intention behind the motto is not to convince everyone of something that isn't so. It should be fairly clear it is not intended to communicate that everyone in the US is a believer.

Whereas the intention behind "White silence is violence" is meant to convince white people that they are guilty of committing violence against black people if they do not speak out against racism.

C'mon Stv. They are not analogous.

[GuitarStv]

So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?

I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel.  The statement on US pennies is objectively false.  What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?

Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.

I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.

Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.

So literalism isn't important for the penny.  We can use a more holistic/nuanced view in it's interpretation.

Is that an example of "being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language"?

Ok, so you're going full speed ahead with the ill-fated gotcha :) Buckle up.

We'll simply use intention as you quoted me saying above.

The intention behind the motto is not to convince everyone of something that isn't so. It should be fairly clear it is not intended to communicate that everyone in the US is a believer.

Whereas the intention behind "White silence is violence" is meant to convince white people that they are guilty of committing violence against black people if they do not speak out against racism.

C'mon Stv. They are not analogous.

Not really a gotcha.  My intent is to demonstrate inconsistencies in your reasoning.

When I read 'silence is violence' I don't read it literally . . . because I interpret it through the lens of what I know and believe is the intent of the people saying it.  Much the same way that you don't read 'In God We Trust' literally because you read it through the lens of what you know and believe is the intent of the people behind it.

Both are objectively false statements.  It sounds like it's not the falseness that you've got a problem with  . . . but more the interpretation you've chosen to follow.  Many people in this thread have explained alternate interpretations, but rather than accept them as equally valid you have argued that since the statement is objectively false, your interpretation is more valid.

That's inconsistent reasoning, and might explain why you're getting so much pushback.

[renata ricotta]

So do you get really angry every time you read the false statement "In God we Trust" on a penny?

I asked this on the previous page but it seemed to have been missed in the kerfluffel.  The statement on US pennies is objectively false.  What are your thoughts on it J Boogie?

Ha. I didn't take the bait because my answer will probably frustrate you.

I think the nature of the claims are different. One seeks to spur action, the other seeks to define the character of the nation.

Most who support the continued use of "In God we Trust" would acknowledge the existence of non-believers in the US, but support the motto as they are wary of the US becoming more secular. Just the usual tug of war between people who want the US to be one thing vs people who want the US to be another thing. I think national mottos have become pretty unimportant. My guess is that very few activists feel removing/replacing the motto would be worth the immense time and energy given the lower hanging fruit out there that will have a much bigger impact.

So literalism isn't important for the penny.  We can use a more holistic/nuanced view in it's interpretation.

Is that an example of "being consistently against intentionally inaccurate use of language"?

Ok, so you're going full speed ahead with the ill-fated gotcha :) Buckle up.

We'll simply use intention as you quoted me saying above.

The intention behind the motto is not to convince everyone of something that isn't so. It should be fairly clear it is not intended to communicate that everyone in the US is a believer.

Whereas the intention behind "White silence is violence" is meant to convince white people that they are guilty of committing violence against black people if they do not speak out against racism.

C'mon Stv. They are not analogous.

Yes, it is - or it is trying to convince white people that they should consider it just as morally concerning as literal, physical violence (because violence without societal support or apathy is quickly held to account). The fact that this is your hangup tells me that you aren't really all that worried about protecting literalism at any cost* and object to the form of the slogan, you just disagree with the actual content of the message and don't want to be told that your inaction as a [presumably] white person is enabling, protecting, and therefore morally similar to being violent yourself.

*Nobody can be completely literal all the time - the "English language" you seem so attached to is riddled with figurative idioms so entrenched that half the time we don't even realize we're using figurative language. The kids book series Amelia Bedelia is all about a character who takes everything literally and hilarity ensues. The main character in the TV show Bones is forever not understanding people when they use non-literal idiomatic expressions.

[renata ricotta]

Falsehoods and rhetorical devices (in this case, fallacies) are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of what we call it, we are right to reject untrue claims regardless of any good intentions behind them. The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice are also not mutually exclusive.

I like the example of sales puffery, but I think we can agree it is a totally different thing as it does not seek to change any laws and influence society in any serious way.

I agree that it's a different thing, but not that it's a totally different thing. AB InBev's fifty or so billion in sales a year suggest that their marketing does indeed influence society in a serious way.

You're rejecting the slogan "silence is violence" because you view it to be untrue by a narrow, literal, interpretation of the language. That feels obtuse to me, because I think you must understand that isn't what people are saying when they say that.

They are not saying: "Silence is literally physical violence."

They are saying: "Silence plays a role in systemic oppression, and is therefore something we should treat with as much seriousness as we treat violence" or "Physical violence isn't the only way we harm, and being silent in the face of racism is one way we allow harm to happen." or some other nuanced statement along those lines. They have good reasons to use the shorthand version of that phrase (off the top of my head: brevity, memorability, rhetorical power, and avoiding the narcissism of small differences).

Exactly.

I've tried (I really have, with everything I've got) but I just cannot understand people who are so committed to misreading the intent of slogans like "silence is violence" and "black lives matter".

Your assumption is unfair either. When I first came upon the BLM slogan I could not for the world figure out why people got angry when somebody said "All lives matter". After all, that is a completely true and more compassionate statement than the BLM.
Without (a whole lot) of background information, e.g. a foreigner like me is unlikely to have, those slogans are unintelligle. Why did Samurai commit ritual suicide so often? Without knowing a lot of background, that  objectivly counter-productive move is a total mystery.

All statements have context which is required for them to be understood. Language itself is contextual. A slogan just cannot contain all of that context.

When I first heard "All Lives Matter" I was fine with it since I viewed it as a true statement. I had to learn that the problem was not in the text, it was in the context and the subtext.

Great point. If someone said "all lives matter" in the abstract, before BLM ever said "Black lives matter," we'd all just shrug it as a truism that seems kind of pointless to raise. It's when someone says it in response to "Black lives matter" when it becomes clear that the purpose and subtext is to 1) miss the point of BLM and 2) try to discount or dismiss the point of view.

[Fru-Gal]

What if slogans are the problem?

[J Boogie]

I am not anti-metaphor, I am anti concept-creep and anti doublespeak.

Metaphors do not hide the fact that they are metaphors. ("All the World's a Stage" being an example of a metaphor)

I think if you asked some of the 35 thousand folks using the white silence slogan as a hashtag on instagram, you would find they would respond that they believe that the statement is true in a straightforward way and are not using it as a metaphor.

If you are not familiar with concept creep, here is an article from the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/concept-creep/477939/#:~:text=The%20Harms%20of%20Excessive%20Concept,needful%20of%20care%20and%20protection.

[Watchmaker]

I think if you asked some of the 35 thousand folks using the white silence slogan as a hashtag on instagram, you would find they would respond that they believe that the statement is true in a straightforward way and are not using it as a metaphor.

A quick survey of my google results for '"silence is violence" explained' and 'what does silence is violence mean' suggests otherwise. I've pulled some quotes, but I encourage you to read the whole link. (Note, I'm not supporting every position indicated here, just pointing out what kind of context people are providing for the slogan.)

https://generocity.org/philly/2020/06/01/to-white-organizational-leaders-silence-is-violence-heres-what-you-should-do-now/

it is a mistake to remain silent. Worse, silence is complicit in the injustice. White silence is violence.

https://www.governing.com/now/A-Shattered-Complacency-When-Silence-Equals-Violence.html

The sign that shattered my complacency was held by a young bearded man, painted on tan packing cardboard: “White Silence Equals Violence.” The minute I saw it, I realized that he had articulated the most important truth of the afternoon. The continuing litany of white cops killing black men (most of whom are no immediate threat to anyone) can only exist in a world where the white people of America acquiesce by minding their own business, giving the police the benefit of the doubt, by tacitly agreeing with the cops’ actions, by (perhaps unconsciously) believing that when African-American men encounter white cops, they are probably up to no good, that black men have a statistical propensity to being up to no good, that white cops have seen so much mayhem among people of color that they instinctively react with a show of force, etc.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-silence-on-social-media-why-not-saying-anything-is-actually-saying-a-lot/

"White silence is incredibly powerful," said Savala Trepczynski, executive director of the Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice at UC Berkeley. "It's not neutral. It acts like a weapon. It's not even silent. It speaks volumes, right? And the people of color who are around a silent white person, they hear the silence. And they feel it. And they feel what it means, which is: I don't have your back.

https://www.xaprb.com/blog/silence-is-violence/

My Twitter profile currently includes the phrase “silence is violence.” People ask me about this occasionally: what does it mean? I don’t know where I picked up this phrase, and maybe it has a different meaning for me than for others, but what I mean by it is that if I’m a bystander who witnesses something I disagree with, I’m actively supporting the behavior to which I object.

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/mark-fraser-racism-george-floyd-hockey-nhl

And to the hockey community, know that what’s happening in America today is a reflection of some of the hate your black teammates and friends feel just from looking different. So please don’t stop making noise. Please don’t go silent. Silence is violence in this case. Be proud to know that you are not only standing on the right side of the fence, but you are also actively using your voices and letting yourself be heard in support of our cause and our fight for justice and equality. Show us your love. Show us you love us. To quote Senator Cory Booker, “What does love look like in public? It looks like justice.”

[PKFFW]

My analysis of ideologies and movements includes analyzing and dissenting with the language used by those movements. Therefore I care more about language than those who are suffering oppression. Hm.

Your attack relies on the conflation of an intellectual interest and caring. I care with my dollars, my votes, and the way I treat people. I scratch my intellectual itches on a message board. With the exception of swatting away pesky ad hominem attacks like yours, I don't see the point in demonstrating how benevolent I am to my fellow posters. I assume they are arguing in good faith until I am shown otherwise and I hope to be granted the same assumption. But the strength of an argument does not depend on the person making it.

You are the one claiming we should reject "untrue" statements.  "Untrue" apparently being defined as something you disagree with for it is clearly not axiomatic that silence is not violence.  Many people on this thread have argued that it is.  And remember, for the sake of being completely true and accurate, "silence is violence" in no way claims silence is physical violence.  It makes a simple statement that can very reasonably be argued to be completely true.

For example, a very common way of children bullying other children is the "cold shoulder" treatment.  A tactic in which the victim is ignored completely.  No words are spoken.  Silence is the weapon, nothing else.  And yet it often causes extreme duress to the victim.

So yes, your claim that slogans you personally believe to be untrue should be rejected, particularly when I would think an intelligent person like yourself would have no trouble understanding the intent of the slogan, makes it pretty clear your interest goes beyond mere intellectual interest in analyzing ideologies.

[PKFFW]

Perhaps we all have our own views on just how guilty a bystander is, but as long as we are honest and acknowledge their role and culpability is different than the perpetrator I'm satisfied. My beef is with those who draw a false moral equivalence in an attempt to guilt the bystander into action.

The first sentence doesn't match up to the second.

Furthermore, you are now doing exactly what you claim to be against.  That is, intentionally misusing language to assert something false.

You claim "silence is violence"  is trying to draw a false moral equivalence.  Well then, define exactly how the three single words "Silence is violence" does that.  Mind you, I'm not asking for your personal interpretation of the words.  I'm asking for you to define where in those three words only anything at all about equivalence to anything else is mentioned.

[GuitarStv]

I am not anti-metaphor, I am anti concept-creep and anti doublespeak.

Only in this one particular case though.  You're fine with doublespeak on a penny.  So the problem here is obviously not doublespeak . . . it appears to be with something related to the BLM message.

[LennStar]

Somehow I wish everyone would now listen in silence to the the sound of silence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usN-pKfw6Q8

[John Galt incarnate!]

.quote author=J Boogie link=topic=116873.msg2671976#msg2671976 date=1595866892]



Question on case law and jurisprudence....

I do not follow employment law or the specifics of current, workplace-discrimination  jurisprudence so my answers are general.

Legally, whose perspective is important as far as violence and discrimination goes? If we have two stereotypes here - one is a black boy from Farguson, MO and another a middle-aged white male from the same place - it is possible that the perspectives differ very much because they lived in two different worlds despite sharing the same geographical location.

Given who they are as sketched by you and the long history of  invidious discrimination against blacks, it's  a given that their  perspectives would differ markedly.

In this case, legally, will the perspective of the black boy win out (as the "discriminated")? or the White Man who, arguably, an enabler of Systemic discrimination?

If either alleged they were subjected to workplace discrimination and the evidence supported their allegation they ought to prevail regardless of their race and would prevail if justice prevailed.

In the corporate context, I have been told that policies are designed to always take the perspective of the "worker alleging discrimination/harassment". But that may just be a risk management stance and not a legal one - hence asking.

In the interest of their employees and a workplace ambiance that conduces to cordial relations  firms ought  to do their best to eliminate discrimination and harassment. If  firms do it only to avoid the risk of paying judgments it still has the salutary effect  of enhancing collegiality.



Also, "threat of violence" is widely accepted as "violence". A kidnapper who just threatens but never touches his victim is committing violence. Thomas Jefferson committed violence even against the slaves he did not rape (and may not even have touched).

I posted a WHO definition of violence - which has this expanded definition.

Requiring kinetic action for "violence" is probably too narrow.

It is true that literalism, including mine, is constraining.




Is there any case law defining this?

As explained above I'm not sufficiently informed to answer.

[ctuser1]

The basic foundation comes from critical theory, from wiki:

"Postmodern critical theory analyzes the fragmentation of cultural identities in order to challenge modernist-era constructs such as metanarratives, rationality, and universal truths, while politicizing social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings.""

The Marxism steps in regarding the oppressor/oppressed narrative that is used to fuel a critical analysis(in the context of critical theory).  ie, You are white and you disagree, therefore your argument is defective since white people are historically oppressors.

That's a rough synopsis.  There's a lot to this.  It's hard to find a brief, clear discussion on it, but this one is pretty good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVmDSMl30s&t=1106s

I have never seriously read up about "critical theory". I am generally put off by the fact that most proponents of critical theory to be fragile snowflakes who refuse to grow up and step into the real world. I generally don't have too much sympathy for "they called me names" kind of arguments.

That said, the youtube video you posted seem to be over-privileged jackasses who are throwing the baby with the bath water. Using an instance of a questionable social justice behavior, they are questioning if implicit biases or systemic racism exist.

Let's just say that at least in the US, enough statistical evidence for systemic racism and implicit biases exist. The possibility that all the black-white differences in the data were produced entirely in the absence of systemic racism and implicit bias is astronomically small.

This is the problem I generally find with conservative intellectuals. They are dishonest in their arguments. This calls into questions any arguments they may have against the "marxist ideas" and "critical theory" etc.

I think you'll find a significant amount of intellectually honest critics of critical theory who acknowledge the reality of oppression and racism but simply reject the idea that it should be the lens through which we interpret the world and point out the flaws in that mode of thinking.

There are others but off the top of my head Peter Boghossian and Jonathon Haidt are exceptionally intellectually honest and are also not politically conservative, and they might be of interest to you if you are looking for a critique of critical theory.

I listened to a few youtube videos from Heidt, and he does appear incredibly informative.

I will dig out more of his videos and will likely learn a lot.

I'm yet to read/listen up Boghossian. Will do that too.

Thank you!

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Somehow I wish everyone would now listen in silence to the the sound of silence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usN-pKfw6Q8

Why does that version have so many views? I mean it's a good song anyway and it's not a bad performance (maybe a touch heavy-handed in spots) but a big part of the song is the harmonizing between S & G.

[Bloop Bloop]

The "Black Lives Matter" people here in Aus tried to organise a rally in Sydney during the second wave of the pandemic. No one rocked up. Stupid timing. Stupid optics.

I dislike their use of shitty stats too. Something about 430 black lives lost in custody but when you extrapolate from the prison population ratios this is no more than what you would expect based on overall prisoners/accused dying in custody.

I'm sure there is systemic bias but it's so much more invidious and subtle. Using a headline number that has no context or sense of proportion (and is just misleading) is turning me away from the protest organisers. So is the fact that a lot of the organisers have roots in socialism (they use it as a recruiting tool too).

[PKFFW]

The "Black Lives Matter" people here in Aus tried to organise a rally in Sydney during the second wave of the pandemic. No one rocked up. Stupid timing. Stupid optics.

Whilst I agree with you it was stupid timing and stupid optics, in all fairness you should tell the whole story.  The rally was ruled to be illegal by the court in a highly publicised case.  A group of the organisers were instantly arrested the moment they arrived at the location the rally was organised for.

Perhaps those factors played a part in why no one rocked up.

I dislike their use of shitty stats too. Something about 430 black lives lost in custody but when you extrapolate from the prison population ratios this is no more than what you would expect based on overall prisoners/accused dying in custody.

I'm sure there is systemic bias but it's so much more invidious and subtle. Using a headline number that has no context or sense of proportion (and is just misleading) is turning me away from the protest organisers. So is the fact that a lot of the organisers have roots in socialism (they use it as a recruiting tool too).

It is disappointing one would even consider being turned away because the organisers have roots in socialism.  Are you also turned away from publicly funded schools, fire brigades, police force, health service, etc, etc, etc?  All socialist institutions after all.

[Bloop Bloop]

The "Black Lives Matter" people here in Aus tried to organise a rally in Sydney during the second wave of the pandemic. No one rocked up. Stupid timing. Stupid optics.

Whilst I agree with you it was stupid timing and stupid optics, in all fairness you should tell the whole story.  The rally was ruled to be illegal by the court in a highly publicised case.  A group of the organisers were instantly arrested the moment they arrived at the location the rally was organised for.

Perhaps those factors played a part in why no one rocked up.

I dislike their use of shitty stats too. Something about 430 black lives lost in custody but when you extrapolate from the prison population ratios this is no more than what you would expect based on overall prisoners/accused dying in custody.

I'm sure there is systemic bias but it's so much more invidious and subtle. Using a headline number that has no context or sense of proportion (and is just misleading) is turning me away from the protest organisers. So is the fact that a lot of the organisers have roots in socialism (they use it as a recruiting tool too).

It is disappointing one would even consider being turned away because the organisers have roots in socialism.  Are you also turned away from publicly funded schools, fire brigades, police force, health service, etc, etc, etc?  All socialist institutions after all.

The rally was ruled illegal but the organisers still encouraged people to come. Until they got arrested and then they did an about-face. That's the full story. Great planning by the organisers, huh.

The organisers don't just have "roots in" socialism. Paddy Gibson is a member of Solidarity which is a socialist organisation. I have no interest in revolutionary politics. Unless you believe that the funding for the police force and health service also comes from socialist organisations, your analogy is completely in-apt.

[Feivel2000]

Are you also turned away from publicly funded schools, fire brigades, police force, health service, etc, etc, etc?  All socialist institutions after all.

I don't think that this is a good use of the word "socialist". It's like when people say, Belgium, Sweden or Germany are socialist countries, because there is health care. Using the word socialist for everything is in my opinion a great trick from the right, to discredit a lot good ideas. Because Americans seem to be allergic to everything that's called socialist. Even if it is not socialism...

[GuitarStv]

Are you also turned away from publicly funded schools, fire brigades, police force, health service, etc, etc, etc?  All socialist institutions after all.

I don't think that this is a good use of the word "socialist". It's like when people say, Belgium, Sweden or Germany are socialist countries, because there is health care. Using the word socialist for everything is in my opinion a great trick from the right, to discredit a lot good ideas. Because Americans seem to be allergic to everything that's called socialist. Even if it is not socialism...

Socialism is the opposite of capitalism.

Where capitalism assumes that the best way to approach every problem is a free market and profit motive, socialism assumes that the best way to approach every problem is government control.  National health care is socialist . . . as is a public school system, police, fire protection, government pollution controls, preventing slave ownership, etc.  These are areas that have been proven time and again to fail when capitalism is applied to them.  That's not to say that socialism is the answer to all problems of course, this is why every successful state makes use of a mix of socialism and capitalism.

Belgium, Sweden, Germany are not socialist countries.  They are a mix of capitalism and socialism.

[PKFFW]

The organisers don't just have "roots in" socialism. Paddy Gibson is a member of Solidarity which is a socialist organisation. I have no interest in revolutionary politics. Unless you believe that the funding for the police force and health service also comes from socialist organisations, your analogy is completely in-apt.

There is no analogy.  "Social services" are "socialist".  The hint is right there in the name.

Are you against Socialism itself or only against it when there seems to be no direct benefit to yourself?

[Bloop Bloop]

The organisers don't just have "roots in" socialism. Paddy Gibson is a member of Solidarity which is a socialist organisation. I have no interest in revolutionary politics. Unless you believe that the funding for the police force and health service also comes from socialist organisations, your analogy is completely in-apt.

There is no analogy.  "Social services" are "socialist".  The hint is right there in the name.

Are you against Socialism itself or only against it when there seems to be no direct benefit to yourself?

I am against a revolutionary socialist party that seeks to hand control of the means of production over to the workers.

That's what the organiser wants.

Not soft, democratic socialism.

[Feivel2000]

The organisers don't just have "roots in" socialism. Paddy Gibson is a member of Solidarity which is a socialist organisation. I have no interest in revolutionary politics. Unless you believe that the funding for the police force and health service also comes from socialist organisations, your analogy is completely in-apt.

There is no analogy.  "Social services" are "socialist".  The hint is right there in the name.

Are you against Socialism itself or only against it when there seems to be no direct benefit to yourself?

Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Sorry, but calling social services socialist is just using the communist boogey man to fight against things radical capitalists don't want.

[Bloop Bloop]

Yes, it's about as disingenuous an approach as that taken by the Australian organisers of the BLM movement.

I have no doubt systemic racism is a problem in the police force.

I also have no doubt that the figures and rhetoric used by the BLM organisers are selective at best and misleading at worst.

[PKFFW]

I am against a revolutionary socialist party that seeks to hand control of the means of production over to the workers.

That's what the organiser wants.

Not soft, democratic socialism.

I see.

And where have any of the organisers stated they want to hand control of the means of production over to the workers?  I must admit to not being closely familiar with the organisers of the BLM movement but I've never heard anyone associated with the movement state this as an goal of the movement.

[PKFFW]

Sorry, but calling social services socialist is just using the communist boogey man to fight against things radical capitalists don't want.

They are socialist institutions.

For the record I'm totally for such institutions and am not trying to use the "communist boogey man" for anything.  I'm particularly fond of socialised health services and think anyone that believes for profit organisations are the best dispensers of health services to be completely insane.

[Bloop Bloop]

I am against a revolutionary socialist party that seeks to hand control of the means of production over to the workers.

That's what the organiser wants.

Not soft, democratic socialism.

I see.

And where have any of the organisers stated they want to hand control of the means of production over to the workers?  I must admit to not being closely familiar with the organisers of the BLM movement but I've never heard anyone associated with the movement state this as an goal of the movement.

https://twitter.com/paddygibson?lang=en

It's not a goal of BLM (after all, a movement doesn't necessarily have official, or discrete, goals, since many people can be involved in a movement and they can each want something different). But it's a goal of one of the principal organisers of the recent Australian BLM rally.

[Feivel2000]

Sorry, but calling social services socialist is just using the communist boogey man to fight against things radical capitalists don't want.

They are socialist institutions.

For the record I'm totally for such institutions and am not trying to use the "communist boogey man" for anything.  I'm particularly fond of socialised health services and think anyone that believes for profit organisations are the best dispensers of health services to be completely insane.

In my eyes, socialism is always political and targeted to create a socialist society, where all means of production and the distribution of goods is controlled by the state. So labeling something like mandatory health insurance, infrastructure or the police as "socialist" is misleading in my eyes.