• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

TheLucasLite

Member
Aug 27, 2018
1,446
From a pure branding standpoint, the movement may have been better served having been called "Black Lives Matter Too" because "All Lives Matter" was always the logical response. I get that ALM is used by racists to counter BLM but all lives do matter and having to always explain "yes, but" isn't helping (if you're explaining you're losing etc).
More words = more unwieldy = worse slogan. Besides, nothing in the statement of "Black Lives Matter" implies that other lives don't or that some how black lives matter more. If someone assumes that implication is there, it's because they're projecting their own insecurities onto it.

Also, I understand what you're trying to say, and not accusing of you of being opposed to BLM (want to make that clear), but to change or weaken a slogan filled with meaning would simply be to capitulate to bad actors who were always going to have a problem with the movement regardless of how it presented itself.
 

junomars

Banned
Nov 19, 2018
723
You must have a very specific reason then to keep peddling this as a reasonable stance to take when it isn't.

By saying all lives matters, she is telling conservative people that their agenda to keep on murdering black folk disproportionately is going to be tolerated. Enabling an imbalance within the justice system is terrible position to take.


By saying all lives matter, she is telling white democrats it's ok to put off taking this judicial imbalance seriously. The democrats has racists in the party but the majority isn't tolerant of racist ideology. But as long as the leadership continues to not address it they won't have any guidance on how to deal with this problem collectively as a group.
Dude where do you come up with this stuff? This is looney man.
 

Diablos

has a title.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,625
It was a bad statement but she's walking a fine line. That she first admits she recognizes that black lives matter seems to signal she's aware of our gerrymandered reality of how Congress is won and how you need to keep a majority together. It was a carefully crafted statement and even though its offensive I think she really was signaling that she wasn't trying to say ALM as a dogwhistle.
 

Neece

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,215
From a pure branding standpoint, the movement may have been better served having been called "Black Lives Matter Too" because "All Lives Matter" was always the logical response. I get that ALM is used by racists to counter BLM but all lives do matter and having to always explain "yes, but" isn't helping (if you're explaining you're losing etc).
The thing is, the people that supposedly need the explanation are being disingenuous because no one needs to be explained what blue lives matter means. They just get it. But exchange blue for black and suddenly it's confusing and needs a "too" to be understood and supported.

The NFL peaceful kneeling shows that people are going to act like they don't get any form of protest from black people. They just want us to shut up and go away, not brand better.
 

Menchi

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,153
UK
This is legitimately not just bullshit but ignorant bullshit.

The number one danger to people of color in America isn't Trump himself. It's the potential shift in the Overton window that Trump represents. My biggest fear is not what Trump will do, it's the possibility that the Democrats will respond by also normalizing and accepting white supremacy -- because that's what will really make it conventional.

So holding progressives responsible is a major aspect of protecting people of color in America. The willingness of lots of people to just not do that because they trust that Nancy really means well is legitimately upsetting. And if Nancy Pelosi doesn't understand why "all lives matter" is a dumb thing to say she is not in any sense our "biggest advocate."

Are you blind? Have I said she is -right- to push this ALM bullshit? No. She's wrong. But the simple fact is, she, or anyone, for that matter, will not get into power on a BLM stance. Democrats, from all angles, are not a one issue party. Dying on the hill for BLM isn't only going to destroy Black peoples lives, but countless other minorities. They will -NOT- win on a BLM stance, and whether you want to accept it or not, your "allies" and "progressives" are not focused on Black people, even though they are one of the most oppressed people in the US.

It isn't ignorance, it's pragmatism, and the overton window you speak of, will move much further right if you have another 8-16 years of R leadership.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
Her first responsed was literally that she recognizes that black lives matter. Im out of this clown show. Like I said this is shameful stitring of the pot for nothing.

Not really, it's like saying "Yes I recognize that black lives matter, because all lives matter."

You don't see what's wrong with that? It basically makes the former redundant. The later is the not the point, the former is. Everyone knows all lives matter, what people forget is black lives are part of the All.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
It was a bad statement but she's walking a fine line. That she first admits she recognizes that black lives matter seems to signal she's aware of our gerrymandered reality of how Congress is won and how you need to keep a majority together. It was a carefully crafted statement and even though its offensive I think she really was signaling that she wasn't trying to say ALM as a dogwhistle.

Where the fuck is this idea coming from that we need to play to white supremacists to hold our majority together? We just won 40 seats running against Trump! We don't have to do that!
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
Unfortunately, in your country, it -is- about winning elections, as do you seriously believe anyone else is going to give a shit about BLM? Of course it is the moral, right and correct position. There'd be ways to make it a position to push in other countries, but in yours, no, there isn't. You push it, and you lose, and once you lose, it becomes a minority opinion that dies, and is forgotten. It isn't a new thing that black people are killed more than any other race, it's happened for decades and decades, and pushes have been made to highlight this before, but only BLM now has had any significant traction.

The sad part is, democrats are not a single issue party... They can't run on a BLM stance and hope that carries them to victory, and sadly, Democrats already believe they have Black peoples votes. They won't do much for them, as they know Black peoples other choice is another 4 years of Trump. It's terrible, disgusting and an unbelievable state of affairs, but it isn't going to get better by punishing the most left wing of the only party that fights for Black people, as Pelosi -is- the left wing, and pretty much everyone below her would push towards the centre, and even more Trumpism.

That said, I think 99% of Black Americans are fully aware of this already, which makes it all the more sad.

Without us the Democratic Party would not exist in its current form. I don't think you are wrong about BLM being an uphill battle but this is wrong-headed thinking overall. Black Americans can and should expect more from the party that pretends to represent us. There comes a point where we walk away from politicians like Pelosi. In 2016 voter turnout among blacks was depressed as the Democratic Party ran a candidate with a history of racist language and positions. Black people, especially younger ones, are getting to the end of their rope with this bullshit.

We aren't even asking that the Democratic Party be a one-issue party. We're just asking that mainstream Democrats support BLM! Instead of trying to qualify that support with racist dogwhistles. If that alienates some whites who care more about law and order than justice then so be it.
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,623
You don't actually have to explain it because it's super obvious to everybody except people who want to pretend to be stupid to cover up their racism
Most people aren't super plugged into politics, especially identity politics, and would likely never tuss out what is wrong with a fairly innocuous statement (on the surface) like "all lives matter."
 

junomars

Banned
Nov 19, 2018
723
It was a bad statement but she's walking a fine line. That she first admits she recognizes that black lives matter seems to signal she's aware of our gerrymandered reality of how Congress is won and how you need to keep a majority together. It was a carefully crafted statement and even though its offensive I think she really was signaling that she wasn't trying to say ALM as a dogwhistle.
Anybody with any basic understanding of context can see this though. People here aren't dumb. There has to be something deeper that people are sugar coating with conspiracy theory like posts about Pelosi trying to dog whistle in a statement that started and ended with acknowledging they need to do better by African Americans.
 

Deleted member 2533

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,325
From a pure branding standpoint, the movement may have been better served having been called "Black Lives Matter Too" because "All Lives Matter" was always the logical response. I get that ALM is used by racists to counter BLM but all lives do matter and having to always explain "yes, but" isn't helping (if you're explaining you're losing etc).

Partially yes, but people are always gonna hear what they want to hear and things get loaded anyway. If BLMT ended up being the slogan we'd still end up having people call it "black identity extremism" and then shift on to labeling people with that.
 

Double 0

Member
Nov 5, 2017
7,466
This statement was bad. It causes non voters. She fucked up and should walk it back as a minimum.

Also, the harping about "yaaas queen" shit is so blatantly anti-LGBT that I'm surprised mods haven't come down hard on it. If you have a problem with people around here or "establishment" supporters, fine.

But that shit isn't slick.
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
You must have a very specific reason then to keep peddling this as a reasonable stance to take when it isn't.

By saying all lives matters, she is telling conservative people that their agenda to keep on murdering black folk disproportionately is going to be tolerated. Enabling an imbalance within the justice system is terrible position to take.


By saying all lives matter, she is telling white democrats it's ok to put off taking this judicial imbalance seriously. The democrats has racists in the party but the majority isn't tolerant of racist ideology. But as long as the leadership continues to not address it they won't have any guidance on how to deal with this problem collectively as a group.

Basically every politician feeling skittish about saying BLM should be saying "BLM too" without any other equivocation. It doesn't feed into the conservative attack and shows they fully understand what BLM means.

Dude where do you come up with this stuff? This is looney man.


So you got nothing to say. You probably are ok with the murder rate by police is too. In the end you haven't given one reason to support your stance.
 

junomars

Banned
Nov 19, 2018
723
Not really, it's like saying "Yes I recognize that black lives matter, because all lives matter."

You don't see what's wrong with that? It basically makes the former redundant. The later is the not the point, the former is. Everyone knows all lives matter, what people forget is black lives are part of the All.
Not really, it's like saying "Yes I recognize that black lives matter, because all lives matter."

You don't see what's wrong with that? It basically makes the former redundant. The later is the not the point, the former is. Everyone knows all lives matter, what people forget is black lives are part of the All.
Its only wrong if you take the irrational opinion that the three words "all lives matter" can only exist as a dog whistle that really means harm to black people.
 

junomars

Banned
Nov 19, 2018
723
Basically every politician feeling skittish about saying BLM should be saying "BLM too" without any other equivocation. It doesn't feed into the conservative attack and shows they fully understand what BLM means.




So you got nothing to say. You probably are ok with the murder rate by police is too. In the end you haven't given one reason to support your stance.
My brother you be blessed ok.
 

Jersey_Tom

Banned
Dec 2, 2017
4,764
This is precisely the kind of shit that people were railing against Pelosi for when we first started having a conversation of who was going to be speaker.

She's older, out of touch, and doesn't fully comprehend the problems and the victims of whom she claims to speak for.
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,701
Anybody with any basic understanding of context can see this though. People here aren't dumb. There has to be something deeper that people are sugar coating with conspiracy theory like posts about Pelosi trying to dog whistle in a statement that started and ended with acknowledging they need to do better by African Americans.
It's the whole way she framed it and danced around outright support that belies it wasn't just a gaffe or slip or whatever, it's the establishment viewpoint of BLM.
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
This statement was bad. It causes non voters. She fucked up and should walk it back as a minimum.

Also, the harping about "yaaas queen" shit is so blatantly anti-LGBT that I'm surprised mods haven't come down hard on it. If you have a problem with people around here or "establishment" supporters, fine.

But that shit isn't slick.


Yaas queen is annoying as fuck. On GAF I didn't even know the origin of the phrase and it was as annoying to read as keygrasm on reddit. On reset I eventually learned about the origin and the phrasing is still hot garbage. Just say it a loud. Anyone who did that in real life would be getting a side eye.
 

TinfoilHatsROn

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
3,119
I didn't. I've said many times that this is a conservative talking point but its a common talking point non the less and pretending it isn't for the sake of outrage helps no one but conservatives.
Okay then my bad. I must have misinterpreted your posts.

Well then congratulations to Pelosi for punching her black voting block in the gut to placate absolute morons who fall for a conservative talking point. Really makes you feel like voting for the people who use racist dog whistles to appeal to the feels of the real victims, whites and other minorities who don't understand what BLM actually stands for.


Like I don't know what you want man. She's literally pulling the both sides shit, aka 'reach across the aisle' Democrats always do. And you're telling people to calm down and let it play out? Democrats have enough of a problem getting out to vote, at what point are people going to say enough is enough...
 
Oct 29, 2017
5,354
Its only wrong if you take the irrational opinion that the three words a"ll lives matter" can only exist as a dog whistle that really means harm to black people.

"All Lives Matter" has a very specific meaning when talking in context with Black Lives Matter, which she was.

It's like saying the word "purity" when talking about immigration. "Purity" as a word on its own is not a dog whistle when, say, seeing the word appear in chemical engineering journal paper. It's all about context.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Are you blind? Have I said she is -right- to push this ALM bullshit? No. She's wrong. But the simple fact is, she, or anyone, for that matter, will not get into power on a BLM stance.

You're fundamentally incoherent here, because you want to have it both ways. If it's wrong to push ALM then it's wrong. If you're saying she needs to do it to win elections and help black people then you're saying she's right. Which is it? My reading is that you're pretty explicitly saying "actually, fuck black people, they need to suck it up so that Democrats can win elections."

This is, to say the least, an unconvincing argument. And the worst part is the Democratic Party already ran that play in 1992! It didn't work out!

They will -NOT- win on a BLM stance, and whether you want to accept it or not, your "allies" and "progressives" are not focused on Black people, even though they are one of the most oppressed people in the US.

Again, this is an argument for people of color to abandon the Democratic Party. Is that the outcome you want? Because that's the logical result of your position. If white progressives will never care about the plight of people of color, they're basically all Trumpists in embryo, and people of color should stop voting with them and form a party of their own.

It isn't ignorance, it's pragmatism, and the overton window you speak of, will move much further right if you have another 8-16 years of R leadership.

No, this is what I meant about how you're basically ignorant about how American politics work. There are two parties in America. When the parties are far apart, the window doesn't move much even if elections are lost (except, again, WE WON THE MIDTERMS BY A LOT AND HAVE NO REASON TO COMPROMISE ON THIS ISSUE). The danger is when the leftist party moves right or the rightist party moves left.

I'd rather Trump beat Kamala than have Ojeda beat Trump. Trump can make the Republican Party a white nationalist party. But only a victorious Ojeda can do the same to the rest of the country.
 

Froyo Love

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,503
Anybody with any basic understanding of context can see this though. People here aren't dumb. There has to be something deeper that people are sugar coating with conspiracy theory like posts about Pelosi trying to dog whistle in a statement that started and ended with acknowledging they need to do better by African Americans.
Trump tweeting a year after Charlottesville:


Do you think this message about "all types of racism" and "peace to ALL Americans" reflects an anti-Nazi view? Because it's very obvious by invoking the equivalence what his real agenda is.

It's the same issue here. That's why it sucks that Pelosi would drag out the phrase "All Lives Matter" when that phrase has literally only been used as a rebuke to protesting the police murdering black people.
 
Oct 26, 2017
19,801
All lives matter. It is a given. It doesn't need said. Except that people in this country don't seem to give a shit about minorities. Black people are gunned down left and right by those sworn to protect them. Politicians want to treat every minority like a criminal. So it raises the question: do black lives matter? Giving any ounce of breath to All Lives Matter or even Blue Lives Matter is shameful and is a gross misunderstanding of BLM. No one is confused whether cops lives matter---they aren't the ones being treated like second-hand citizens. Black Lives Matter exists because this country's actions say otherwise, and no one seemed to be paying attention other than those whose lives were and still are in danger.

The proper answer to, "do all lives matter?" is to state the obvious that according to this country, blacks do not.
 

Icemonk191

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,814
It says a lot that someone saying "Fucker" can get media coverage but Pelosi saying "All lives matter" gets jack shit.
 

junomars

Banned
Nov 19, 2018
723
It's the whole way she framed it and danced around outright support that belies it wasn't just a gaffe or slip or whatever, it's the establishment viewpoint of BLM.
I guess I don't see whats wrong with acknowledging both phrases.
"All Lives Matter" has a very specific meaning when talking in context with Black Lives Matter, which she was.

It's like saying the word "purity" when talking about immigration. "Purity" as a word on its own is not a dog whistle when, say, seeing the word appear in chemical engineering journal paper. It's all about context.
No I think you just read too many forums/websites(aka your bubble) where it can only be interpreted this way and not anyway else. That's not how the real world works and you all can't make it that way. I've said my peace though. Y'all do your thing.
 

TheGhost

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,137
Long Island
I think the way she meant it was pretty straight forward. The party is for all the miniorities in this country that have been forgotten, shunned, disrespected and vilified by the republican party.

If you really think Nancy Pelosi of all people are dog whistling? Idk, if Trump, Pence or some right wing commentator like Hannity said it sure, it would be rightfully interpertated that way.

But look who it's coming from, I highly doubt she meant any ill will at all.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
The simple fact is, your country has made BLM to be toxic, to paint is as a singular focus on Black people above all others. It is no wonder that someone who wants to push for election is trying to distance themselves from it, wrong as it is. It doesn't matter that BLM isn't exclusive, but a focus on how black people are murdered without care, or due diligence as your media, your president, your politicians have made it to be exclusive. She could fight against it, and probably should, but when the left wing of your "progressives" feels they're better off trying to push an ALM vs BLM movement, then you probably should just accept that BLM as a movement is dead in terms of winning elections.
BLM stopped protesting after the election and shifted tactics. They moved to behind the scenes direct advocacy, community outreach etc. to become less public-facing.

Part of this is because they weren't going to have a Clinton DoJ to appeal to for executive action. But part of it was also that there's a lot of racist white people out there who end up swing voters because they fall in the populist category (socially conservative, economically liberal) and when you look at what motivated Obama->Trump voters, it sure as hell wasn't economic anxiety, it was straight up racism. This is why Obama, when running for office, pretty much avoided explicit overtures on any racial issues as much as he could until he won re-election, at which point he no longer had to fear electoral backlash. Jamelle Bouie has a few good pieces on the topic out there on this. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...er_summit_and_racial_division_in_america.html

BLM and Pelosi face the same awkward balancing act here because of the presence of these obnoxious white swing voters being massively overrepresented and overempowered in our voting process. This leads to both BLM and Pelosi having to do an awkward balancing act between directness and indirectness, because if you don't push, nothing happens, but if you say what you think directly, there is massive potential for dangerous consequences from fragile white populist voters. In BLM's case, you react to this by stopping the protests. In Pelosi's case, you try and hedge a statement to make it clear where your support lies without freaking out the fragile snowflake voters. And a statement like this is the result. It's awkward, imperfect, and leaves no one completely happy, even if Pelosi had rephrased to avoid accidentally using the dumbass conservative phrasing outside of the "buhbuhbuhALM" dogwhistle context.
weak. it's sad that even a supportive response needs to have a performative 'no worries white people - we still support you too' attached to it because dealing with minority issues alone is too """divisive""".
If the Senate and E.C. didn't exist this would be a very different conversation.

Rural white overrepresentation is an existential threat to the country. To help stem it, we need to win 4 Senate seats next cycle. Only 1 or 2 are in "friendly" territory, the rest are going to be hard, even in a cycle like 2018. We're quickly approaching a point where we could see the House of Reps and possibly the White House in near-permanent Dem control but the Senate ends up locked in GOP control, resulting in mass gridock.
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,623
Partially yes, but people are always gonna hear what they want to hear and things get loaded anyway. If BLMT ended up being the slogan we'd still end up having people call it "black identity extremism" and then shift on to labeling people with that.
Sure, but those people were always lost to us.

The real battle is for those well meaning people that have never had to think about these issues but would generally be open to siding with BLM (what's the point of a movement besides gaining supporters and allies to affect change?). White privilege is ultimately the privilege of not having to worry about or think about your race, so some consideration to that is appropriate.

It's like our English teachers always said --"Write your paper as if the reader has no background on your topic."
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
Its only wrong if you take the irrational opinion that the three words "all lives matter" can only exist as a dog whistle that really means harm to black people.
So that's your hangup. Praytell when All Lives Matter was first being thrown about as a phrase who was doing?


That was a rhetorical question.


Even if you look past the people against BLM who used ALM as a moralizing club you don't see how Pelosi in her position has the power to guide Democrats so BLM is always synonymous with ALM without having to say ALM?
 

TheIlliterati

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
4,782
This statement was bad. It causes non voters. She fucked up and should walk it back as a minimum.

Also, the harping about "yaaas queen" shit is so blatantly anti-LGBT that I'm surprised mods haven't come down hard on it. If you have a problem with people around here or "establishment" supporters, fine.

But that shit isn't slick.

You can reply and call me out directly as I mentioned it negatively. Let me tell you I personally only know "Yas Queen" as used by Ilana from Broad City in the show and in the gif and in reference to Hillary. It has zero to do with being anti-LGBT. It has all to do with being an irritating thread title I scrolled past for a person I support but do not think is a flawless god.
 

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
30,023
Oof, that was not great even if she was trying to toe the line between the progressive/moderate wings of the party. When I saw the excerpt in the twitter post text, I held out hope that she was at least saying it to link to some kind of "Hispanic lives matter/LGBT lives matter" sort of pivot, which still wouldn't have been good, but she went in a much worse direction. Certainly another example of why Pelosi may be an effective leader in the Capitol but not an effective one outside of it. I wish we could have a leader that could consistently do both well.
 
Oct 29, 2017
5,354
No I think you just read too many forums/websites(aka your bubble) where it can only be interpreted this way and not anyway else. That's not how the real world works and you all can't make it that way. I've said my peace though. Y'all do your thing.

You can't just say "nuh uh" and pretend like it's an actual argument when it isn't.

"All lives matter", this exact, verbatim combination of words has a singular meaning when speaking in adjacency to the "Black Lives Matter" combination of words.

Learn about context, specifically how vocabulary, dog-whistling and innuendo has been used around social issues for hundreds of years. You can't just plug your ears and be angry that other people aren't doing the same.
 

junomars

Banned
Nov 19, 2018
723
You can't just say "nuh uh" and pretend like it's an actual argument when it isn't.

"All lives matter", this exact, verbatim combination of words has a singular meaning when speaking in adjacency to the "Black Lives Matter" combination of words.

Learn about context, specifically how vocabulary, dog-whistling and innuendo has been used around social issues for hundreds of years. You can't just plug your ears and be angry that other people aren't doing the same.
Ok bro.
 

Deleted member 3058

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,728
All Lives Matter has always been a dogwhistle used to take away from the main point and focus of the protest.

The unarmed killing and violation of a citizens due process of law by Law Enforcement.


Que pretty much every white person who doesn't really have a stake in it all to think a message like "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter" is being used to equalize and be fair to everybody.

White people and even other minorities always do this shit. Black people can't be allowed to focus and speak on issues that plauge us specifically. It always needs to be opened up and included for all. As if this an 'Us' issue, and not hurting and targeting black people discriminately and disproportionately

Black Lives Matter was never in the context of 'Only'

But that won't stop fragile ass white people from getting upset and completely misrepresenting the issue and trying to distract and pull it out of context. And this is exactly why Pelosi said it...

Because she wants to look like she supports Black People while placating fragile and sensitive white racists.... One hell of a conundrum to sit on the fence on. She's playing politics... But Im not a big fan on a stance like this. It's a binary choice. You either support Black People speaking out against injustice or you don't.

And the truth of the matter is that Black People asking for justice bothers the fuck out of White Liberals too... If that wasn't the case, then Nancy could have easily just said yes and keep it at that.... Think about that. Digest it.

The last thing you do is dogwhistle slogans that are used purely to detract from our social cause.

This is the part where White Liberals tell me I shouldn't be so damn annoying when she's using language better than a Republican. It's not enough. I'm not satisfied. You see who's running the government? You think answer like that will satisfy me as a black man? When I hear about a police brutality killing, I think of my cousins. My uncles... My friends ... Black mothers think of their husbands, Sons, Brothers, nephews....

It can be any one of us! That's how real it is. It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's about the lives of real people, with emotions, with goals....

You know what? I wouldn't even be mad if people actually meant that All Lives Matter......

But don't fucking lie to me. When people say ALM, they damn sure don't include Black People. And they damn sure aren't trying to defend us by using the phrase.

It's used to downplay and dismiss. That's it.

If All Lives Mattered, Black People wouldn't be fucking protesting and marching in the first place, right?!!!..... We wouldn't be seeing disproportionate extrajudicial killings if they did!!! Right?!!! Or any killings for that matter!!

If Black Lives Mattered, then nobody would have ever said Trayvonn, Mike Brown, or James Crawford deserved to die....... Let alone proudly

But we know thats not how white people respond to the death of black boys.


Also she wants to talk about racism as a "past grievance", another favorite white racist/white liberal talking point

Like we didn't just have a man shoot a black 7 year old baby for no reason in the last 3 days.....

Like we don't have a racist Clown Pres wreaking havok on the social climate and racial lines in the US.

Like Black People aren't dealing with mass income and wealth inequality...

This shit never stopped! These issues aren't in the past. Racism was never solved. Black People arent speaking about "previous greivances"... We're talking about shit we deal with now to this very day because of that previous fuckery.

What's cute is that a phrase such as "past greivances" suggests that Black People are complaining about old shit.... Gotta love how this plays with majority of white americans.

Again, White Liberals let it slide because you don't have a stake. You don't have to worry about getting terrible treatment from an officer of the law. It doesn't compute in your daily lives. However, It's something that you have to consider when living while black. Be vigilant for.

This was a prime example to show how Black US Citizens and White US Citizens live in 2 different realities when it comes to America.

Yeah, I guess everything she said is all cool...

Is that why the woman who asked the question looks like this during the answer?


Here's another fun fact

Agreed 100% Damn good post/thread opener
 

Froyo Love

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,503
I guess I don't see whats wrong with acknowledging both phrases.

No I think you just read too many forums/websites(aka your bubble) where it can only be interpreted this way and not anyway else. That's not how the real world works and you all can't make it that way. I've said my peace though. Y'all do your thing.
The fuck do you mean, "the real world"? Do you think Nancy Pelosi is some random grandma who isn't completely aware of the political meaning of the things she says? It's like pretending that people talking about "welfare queens" couldn't possibly be talking about race.
 

Novel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,933
Pelosi being offensive to minorities? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Well. Okay. Not that shocked. Or shocked at all.
 

ISOM

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
2,684
Considering how integral black people are in Democrat's voting base it was an incredibly tone deaf and stupid comment.
 

Tomohawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,014
She said black lives matter, but doesnt vocally support the movement in the quote which is why she followed up with all lives matter bit. I don't think Pelosi opposes BLM but she doesnt want to seem radical because the connotations media has associated with BLM. Pelosi should defend BLM from slander instead of trying to play the fence cause she satisfies no one right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.