"You're a good man Steve but that stuff is just starry-eyed, it is not going to happen. We're seeing the beginning of solutions with body cameras that override dishonest reports. That's law"
Yeah, you're conflating different things here. All meaningful activism ends with the law. All the marches and sit-ins and slogans, they're all ultima…
"You're a good man Steve but that stuff is just starry-eyed, it is not going to happen. We're seeing the beginning of solutions with body cameras that override dishonest reports. That's law"
Yeah, you're conflating different things here. All meaningful activism ends with the law. All the marches and sit-ins and slogans, they're all ultimately aimed at changing laws. And activism is most effective when a) as many people agree with the ideas presented as possible, and b) there's as little crosstalk on the issue as possible. This applies the maximum possible pressure on politicians and law makers in order to effect positive change.
The article criticises BLM for turning police brutality into an issue plagued with cross talk and where the ideas the presented (abolish the police etc.) were enormously unpopular. As a bonus we can add corruption and a failure to address even the limited problem they were ostensibly trying to fix.
Yes, the police disproportionately harm black people. There are many reasons for this, one of which is racism. I care about this deeply. But even if the cause were 1000% racism, that wouldn't be an argument against trying to solve the problem in as race-neutral a way as possible. In fact, if it *were* 100% racism (which it obviously isn't), the *smartest* thing to do would be to present it in a way that motivates the broadest cross-section of people in fighting it.
I agree with every word you wrote. Changes in attitude have to precede changes in law and it's only changes in law that preserve what would otherwise be a temporary change in attitude.
Legislating for same-sex marriage didn't make people support it; the law changed when popular sentiment moved far enough.
But you weren't rebutting my point. I was not saying that law will ever precede activism; I was doubting that people will ever "come together" on this. We are accelerating in the other direction. The other side is going to have to be pushed against their will, they are never going to take a place at the table and engage honestly. Never.
“I was doubting that people will ever "come together" on this. We are accelerating in the other direction.”
Ah, yeah, that’s a different issue. Yes, sad to say, you’re right. We are accelerating in the other direction. I don’t see an alternative to being one of the voices arguing, as persuasively as possible, to stop and reverse that trajectory.
I (and the many others arguing for the same thing) will either be ignored, and we’ll continue going in that direction, or enough voices will speak up and things will improve.
The good news is that the people arguing for more unity aren’t being ignored. The silent majority really is a majority. The challenge is finding the right words to mobilise them.
"You're a good man Steve but that stuff is just starry-eyed, it is not going to happen. We're seeing the beginning of solutions with body cameras that override dishonest reports. That's law"
Yeah, you're conflating different things here. All meaningful activism ends with the law. All the marches and sit-ins and slogans, they're all ultimately aimed at changing laws. And activism is most effective when a) as many people agree with the ideas presented as possible, and b) there's as little crosstalk on the issue as possible. This applies the maximum possible pressure on politicians and law makers in order to effect positive change.
The article criticises BLM for turning police brutality into an issue plagued with cross talk and where the ideas the presented (abolish the police etc.) were enormously unpopular. As a bonus we can add corruption and a failure to address even the limited problem they were ostensibly trying to fix.
Yes, the police disproportionately harm black people. There are many reasons for this, one of which is racism. I care about this deeply. But even if the cause were 1000% racism, that wouldn't be an argument against trying to solve the problem in as race-neutral a way as possible. In fact, if it *were* 100% racism (which it obviously isn't), the *smartest* thing to do would be to present it in a way that motivates the broadest cross-section of people in fighting it.
I agree with every word you wrote. Changes in attitude have to precede changes in law and it's only changes in law that preserve what would otherwise be a temporary change in attitude.
Legislating for same-sex marriage didn't make people support it; the law changed when popular sentiment moved far enough.
But you weren't rebutting my point. I was not saying that law will ever precede activism; I was doubting that people will ever "come together" on this. We are accelerating in the other direction. The other side is going to have to be pushed against their will, they are never going to take a place at the table and engage honestly. Never.
“I was doubting that people will ever "come together" on this. We are accelerating in the other direction.”
Ah, yeah, that’s a different issue. Yes, sad to say, you’re right. We are accelerating in the other direction. I don’t see an alternative to being one of the voices arguing, as persuasively as possible, to stop and reverse that trajectory.
I (and the many others arguing for the same thing) will either be ignored, and we’ll continue going in that direction, or enough voices will speak up and things will improve.
The good news is that the people arguing for more unity aren’t being ignored. The silent majority really is a majority. The challenge is finding the right words to mobilise them.