Alright, I get it. I will make a slight edit to the title.

I made a new thread if we really want to separate topics

Nah this is cool. I was simply reading the title literally. I also don't like the BLM message getting used for pathetic anti semitic purposes by people and don't want to lump this in with the true message, that's all. It's frustrating to see people with a platform misuse it.

ok

pacino wrote:Nah this is cool. I was simply reading the title literally. I also don't like the BLM message getting used for pathetic anti semitic purposes by people and don't want to lump this in with the true message, that's all. It's frustrating to see people with a platform misuse it.

Which is totally understandable, but then IMO it falls on BLM to specifically speak out against this type of messaging vs. going the Malcolm Jenkins route.

Simply ignoring it or dismissing it allows it to continue, as we've seen since the DJax post.

I think it's very hard for us (I'm going to assume 99% of this board is white) to fully understand this. As a neutral observer it is easy to see Mr. Farrakhan, label him antisemitic and condemn any who willingly associate or respect him.

Disagree. I think we're fully capable of understanding. There's many examples of similar persons and their following throughout history.

Yeah I'm not sure how it's hard to understand that Louis Farrakhan clearly uses anti-Semitic rhetoric and thoughts to prop up messages of black empowerment. There's not a lot of nuance required there.

Uncle Milty wrote:phatj's fault for too specific of a title.

A less specific thread title would have read "All Lives F*ing Matter, Jesus F*ing Christ" and I'm not sure that would have been a good idea for anybody.

PSUsarge wrote:

pacino wrote:Nah this is cool. I was simply reading the title literally. I also don't like the BLM message getting used for pathetic anti semitic purposes by people and don't want to lump this in with the true message, that's all. It's frustrating to see people with a platform misuse it.

Which is totally understandable, but then IMO it falls on BLM to specifically speak out against this type of messaging vs. going the Malcolm Jenkins route.

Simply ignoring it or dismissing it allows it to continue, as we've seen since the DJax post.

Sorry but this whole line of thinking just seems directly analogous to the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter stuff? The “Malcolm Jenkins route” was telling black people and people that support BLM to focus on their goals (ending systematic racism against black people) and not getting bogged down with crazy conspiracy theories. It doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t also be trying to end anti-semitism, stop human trafficking, save the rain forest and so on.

I don’t understand who decided that it was “Black Lives Matters”’s (whatever that means, it’s not like an organized body or something that someone like Malcolm Jenkins has a formal role in) responsibility to speak out against every bad thing going on in the world, or that it is and its supporters are somehow responsible for every dumbass thing someone with black skin says or does. That seems like a pretty obvious standard that people that champion other causes arent held to, including causes that actually have more formal structures supporting them.

More generally its just crazy that we live in a world where an NFL Safety is held to a standard that the President of the United States can’t get within a mile of reaching.

And a mostly in the box safety at that!

Black Lives Matter is an organization. It's also a rallying cry for current situation. That's part of the disconnect.

The rest warrants a thoughtful reply which I don't have the time for right now.

Uncle Milty wrote:Black Lives Matter is an organization. It's also a rallying cry for current situation. That's part of the disconnect.

The rest warrants a thoughtful reply which I don't have the time for right now.

Fair enough, technically there is/are organizations with Black Lives Matter in their name but I think we tend to be referring to a general movement when we talk about them. Like we’ve talked about Malcom’s response significantly more than that of a formal leader (whoever that would be I honestly don’t know).

slugsrbad wrote:I think it's very hard for us (I'm going to assume 99% of this board is white) to fully understand this. As a neutral observer it is easy to see Mr. Farrakhan, label him antisemitic and condemn any who willingly associate or respect him.

Farakahn has shown time and again that he is quite clearly an antisemite, among other things. I don’t think ho humming him and those who align with him and his views just because they also support BLM is a wise decision.

@ risk of upsetting the apple cart, I had no idea that A pile of confederates moved to Brazil to a) keep farming in the slavery traditions, and b) that they managed to keep this practice up until slavery was outlawed in 1888. Added bonus, Brazil managed to hold 10x the slaves that the US did (this is not making any comparative argument that the south was somehow better in its enslavement practices).

MoBettle wrote:Sorry but this whole line of thinking just seems directly analogous to the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter stuff? The “Malcolm Jenkins route” was telling black people and people that support BLM to focus on their goals (ending systematic racism against black people) and not getting bogged down with crazy conspiracy theories. It doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t also be trying to end anti-semitism, stop human trafficking, save the rain forest and so on.

No, it's not. ALM has become a rallying cry against BLM by people who do not agree with BLM. This is asking BLM - both the org and the movement - to speak out against a man who is using anti-Semitic and homophobic rhetoric to prop up messages of black empowerment. "Silence is violence"

I also don't think dismissing Farrakhan's rhetoric as crazy conspiracy theories is productive considering you could very easily have made the same argument about Mein Kampf in the 1920s and 1930s.

MoBettle wrote:I don’t understand who decided that it was “Black Lives Matters”’s (whatever that means, it’s not like an organized body or something that someone like Malcolm Jenkins has a formal role in) responsibility to speak out against every bad thing going on in the world, or that it is and its supporters are somehow responsible for every dumbass thing someone with black skin says or does. That seems like a pretty obvious standard that people that champion other causes arent held to, including causes that actually have more formal structures supporting them.

IMO it's because part of the BLM movement involves asking those of other races to step up and be more than just anti-racist. In this case, I don't think it's a lot to ask of those fighting racism and asking others to do the same to, well, do the same.

Take a spin through the BLM org's "What We Believe" page and see how much of Farrakhan's beliefs - which those who post messages of support are then endorsing - do not align - https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

MoBettle wrote:More generally its just crazy that we live in a world where an NFL Safety is held to a standard that the President of the United States can’t get within a mile of reaching.

I agree with you, but that's all the more reason why I think it's important that we hold anyone with a platform responsible for what they say and, in some situations, what they don't say. Otherwise, we continue to be the country where a bigoted reality TV star can become President to begin with.

thephan wrote:@ risk of upsetting the apple cart, I had no idea that A pile of confederates moved to Brazil to a) keep farming in the slavery traditions, and b) that they managed to keep this practice up until slavery was outlawed in 1888. Added bonus, Brazil managed to hold 10x the slaves that the US did (this is not making any comparative argument that the south was somehow better in its enslavement practices).

I believe the slave trade to Brazil was the largest forced migration in human history.

thephan wrote:@ risk of upsetting the apple cart, I had no idea that A pile of confederates moved to Brazil to a) keep farming in the slavery traditions, and b) that they managed to keep this practice up until slavery was outlawed in 1888. Added bonus, Brazil managed to hold 10x the slaves that the US did (this is not making any comparative argument that the south was somehow better in its enslavement practices).

I came across this article about the Atlantic slave trade years ago and I always think of it when the topic of South American slavery is brought up: https://www.theroot.com/how-many-slaves ... 1790873989

PSUsarge wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Sorry but this whole line of thinking just seems directly analogous to the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter stuff? The “Malcolm Jenkins route” was telling black people and people that support BLM to focus on their goals (ending systematic racism against black people) and not getting bogged down with crazy conspiracy theories. It doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t also be trying to end anti-semitism, stop human trafficking, save the rain forest and so on.

No, it's not. ALM has become a rallying cry against BLM by people who do not agree with BLM. This is asking BLM - both the org and the movement - to speak out against a man who is using anti-Semitic and homophobic rhetoric to prop up messages of black empowerment. "Silence is violence"

I also don't think dismissing Farrakhan's rhetoric as crazy conspiracy theories is productive considering you could very easily have made the same argument about Mein Kampf in the 1920s and 1930s.

MoBettle wrote:I don’t understand who decided that it was “Black Lives Matters”’s (whatever that means, it’s not like an organized body or something that someone like Malcolm Jenkins has a formal role in) responsibility to speak out against every bad thing going on in the world, or that it is and its supporters are somehow responsible for every dumbass thing someone with black skin says or does. That seems like a pretty obvious standard that people that champion other causes arent held to, including causes that actually have more formal structures supporting them.

IMO it's because part of the BLM movement involves asking those of other races to step up and be more than just anti-racist. In this case, I don't think it's a lot to ask of those fighting racism and asking others to do the same to, well, do the same.

Take a spin through the BLM org's "What We Believe" page and see how much of Farrakhan's beliefs - which those who post messages of support are then endorsing - do not align - https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

MoBettle wrote:More generally its just crazy that we live in a world where an NFL Safety is held to a standard that the President of the United States can’t get within a mile of reaching.

I agree with you, but that's all the more reason why I think it's important that we hold anyone with a platform responsible for what they say and, in some situations, what they don't say. Otherwise, we continue to be the country where a bigoted reality TV star can become President to begin with.

What is Farrakhan's actual power and influence though? I literally never heard of this guy before DeSean’s post. I don’t think you can compare him to the Nazis until his viewpoints actually permeate beyond random celebrities ignorantly posting and liking stuff on social media. I think that’s part of the reason BLM/someone like Malcolm would prefer to approach it as a distraction rather than something necessary to engage on an intellectual level. By doing so arguably gives the guy more legitimacy and creates a precedent to have to respond every time someone comes out with a crazy position that takes the focus off their discrete goals.

Your point that this is different from ALM in that it is anti-racist is well taken. I’m just very concerned that this touches too close to this expectation that minorities “police their own” in ways that we don’t have for white people or supporters of mainstream positions. Especially for someone like Malcolm who is an individual and not responsible for every dumb thing one of his former teammates posts on social media.

MoBettle wrote:What is Farrakhan's actual power and influence though? I literally never heard of this guy before DeSean’s post. I don’t think you can compare him to the Nazis until his viewpoints actually permeate beyond random celebrities ignorantly posting and liking stuff on social media. I think that’s part of the reason BLM/someone like Malcolm would prefer to approach it as a distraction rather than something necessary to engage on an intellectual level. By doing so arguably gives the guy more legitimacy and creates a precedent to have to respond every time someone comes out with a crazy position that takes the focus off their discrete goals.

Either had I, but that's on both of us because he has a significant amount of influence. Peruse his Wikipedia profile - organized the Million Man March, may have been involved with Malcolm X's assassination, BET poll voted him Person of the Year in 2005, regular references in hip-hop, etc. This guy is not some crazy conspiracy theorist coming out of left field in 2020 without a track record.

By ignoring / dismissing the now-regular public support for him being professed by celebrities with millions of social media followers, we (all, collectively) are normalizing the man's presence and message. Which leads to...

MoBettle wrote:Your point that this is different from ALM in that it is anti-racist is well taken. I’m just very concerned that this touches too close to this expectation that minorities “police their own” in ways that we don’t have for white people or supporters of mainstream positions.

But isn't this what BLM (the movement and maybe the org too) is asking white people (and all people, really) to do, in the name of preventing racism? Silence is violence, being anti-racism isn't enough, etc.

It's difficult for others to hear that message if it's not being practiced by the group asking in a situation where it very obviously can and should be.

MoBettle wrote:Especially for someone like Malcolm who is an individual and not responsible for every dumb thing one of his former teammates posts on social media.

I agree, but when he replies to a current teammate with the below, it's kind of hard to accept a much more tepid response over a similar issue:

"You’re somebody who I had a great deal of respect for. But sometimes, you should shut the ---- up.”

“Even though we’re teammates, I can’t let this slide,” Jenkins said in the post he settled on. “Drew Brees, if you don’t understand how hurtful, how insensitive your comments are, you are part of the problem.”