Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

The Political Efficacy of Black Lives Matter

Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 1:28:25 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I thought this was a pretty good profile of the Black Lives Matter movement.

http://www.newyorker.com...

The one thing that really made me think was the comparison to Occupy Wall Street. I've always thought of Occupy as a case study in how media driven movements that fail to coalesce around a platform and organization are doomed to fail. Occupy seemed to fizzle out with little policy impact. But the article points out that the success of Sanders can be viewed as a continuous with Occupy- the question is would Sanders' success have been feasible without Occupy?

Maybe the true power of these movements is the impact they have on shifting public opinion in the long term. Those involved in the movements don't view this as their goal- the individuals profiled in the article clearly want to see immediate policy impacts. I don't think movements like OWS or BLM are successful in the short term, but maybe I underestimated their impact on public opinion in the long term.

Even so, I still disagree with a lot of BLM tactics - I don't think it is helpful to shut down bridges or sabotage political rallies.

It's also worth comparing these left wing grass roots movement to a right wing movement- the Tea Party. This is another (more or less) grass roots movement, but unlike OWS or BLM, this movement was able to have a major impact on the immediate political landscape, even to the extent that current politics are essentially defined by the elected officials that emerged from the Tea Party movement. I can think of a lot of reasons why the Tea Party has been so successful, but I'm not sure why grassroots leftist movements haven't been able to emulate the success.

A final question I have: which is more valuable- short term political gains or long term shifts in public opinion? The American political system is built to favor inertia, and political change comes on in spurts depending on which issue is the hottest in the eye of the public. So it might be the case that short term victories persist long past their public opinion expiration date.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 4:11:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/10/2016 1:28:25 AM, Raisor wrote:

Great post and you stole my thunder; I was going to make a similar post after hearing the author's interview on NPR.

I don't have time now to respond substantively and address your questions, but I do agree that BLM, as a relevant social movement, is on the decline. Once Obama is out of the white house and we are out of an election year, their political relevance will be dissipated and I suspect the movement, in its current form, will be replaced within a few years.

The occupy wallstreet movement is an apt comparison, insofar as these are movements where the fire burns bright but for a short time. The teaparty movement was more successful politically, but I don't think that's a surprise given their primary demographic.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 4:15:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/10/2016 1:28:25 AM, Raisor wrote:
I thought this was a pretty good profile of the Black Lives Matter movement.

http://www.newyorker.com...

The one thing that really made me think was the comparison to Occupy Wall Street. I've always thought of Occupy as a case study in how media driven movements that fail to coalesce around a platform and organization are doomed to fail. Occupy seemed to fizzle out with little policy impact. But the article points out that the success of Sanders can be viewed as a continuous with Occupy- the question is would Sanders' success have been feasible without Occupy?

Maybe the true power of these movements is the impact they have on shifting public opinion in the long term. Those involved in the movements don't view this as their goal- the individuals profiled in the article clearly want to see immediate policy impacts. I don't think movements like OWS or BLM are successful in the short term, but maybe I underestimated their impact on public opinion in the long term.

Even so, I still disagree with a lot of BLM tactics - I don't think it is helpful to shut down bridges or sabotage political rallies.

It's also worth comparing these left wing grass roots movement to a right wing movement- the Tea Party. This is another (more or less) grass roots movement, but unlike OWS or BLM, this movement was able to have a major impact on the immediate political landscape, even to the extent that current politics are essentially defined by the elected officials that emerged from the Tea Party movement. I can think of a lot of reasons why the Tea Party has been so successful, but I'm not sure why grassroots leftist movements haven't been able to emulate the success.

A final question I have: which is more valuable- short term political gains or long term shifts in public opinion? The American political system is built to favor inertia, and political change comes on in spurts depending on which issue is the hottest in the eye of the public. So it might be the case that short term victories persist long past their public opinion expiration date.

Long term shifts in public opinion matter more; though BLM currently is toxic to both short term and long term efforts to improve race relations in America, for the very reasons you've alluded to: the problems with their methods.
Tsar of DDO
Knadra
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 5:02:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The key difference between the two is that the Occupy movement had a goal, something that was actually real or even conceivable as a goal. Whether or not they tackled an actual problem or whether it was a good goal are completely debatable and I would say no overall.

With BLM, I just don't know what they are fighting to achieve and how exactly they intend on achieving it. They destroy property and they ruin many of the lives that they pretend to care about.
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 7:43:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Someone remind me to post in this later - love the topic.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 8:15:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I need to find ways to embed myself in a leadership position in these movements, so I can spark riots that end in the lynchings of well known political figures, establishment institutions and scares people from openly being against them. If we could have some sort of freedom movement, whether from the left or the right that was genuinely dangerous and could stick around for a while, the country would be better off. I wish the Black Panthers were still around. Not the pussified version that persists, but the actual black panthers. I bet they could have directed BLM towards something destructive.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 2:29:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/10/2016 7:43:55 AM, lamerde wrote:
Someone remind me to post in this later - love the topic.

You should talk about how many members, perhaps even the (former) leader of #BLM likely suffered from paranoid personality disorder. Like, to what extent #blm embraces a higher than average number of people who are so affected. It's fascinating how those who perceive others benign actions as malicious are afflicted by multivariate psychological problems. I'm looking for studies on this, though I doubt they exist.
Tsar of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 3:57:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/10/2016 5:02:18 AM, Knadra wrote:
The key difference between the two is that the Occupy movement had a goal, something that was actually real or even conceivable as a goal. Whether or not they tackled an actual problem or whether it was a good goal are completely debatable and I would say no overall.

With BLM, I just don't know what they are fighting to achieve and how exactly they intend on achieving it. They destroy property and they ruin many of the lives that they pretend to care about.

I think BLM does have some clear policy objectives - demilitarizing police, reducing incarceration for low level drug crimes, more accountability for police misconduct.

I don't disagree that a lot of BLM tactics are counterproductive, I do disagree with your assessment that they destroy property and ruin lives. That is a step too far, even if the movement has been associated with some acts that got out of hand.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 4:50:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
These "lash out" movements don't solve anything. It's just feelgood exercises.

Even were the entirety of wallstreet to suddenly burn down in an occupy riot, the culpable politicians will simply find another organization to subsidize for profit. No solution of the real problem where politicians sell out the poor to the rich.

Similarly, if every police department were to suddenly burn to the ground in a massive BLM riot, the majority of non-blacks in America will still see these Blacks as participating in a diverse and perverse thuggish behavior. No solution for the racial perception problem.