Yeah, but a lot of dumb people who could have supported BLM were swayed by Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter bullshit, especially if they work in or around emergency. There's a lot of non-conservatives in emergency fields that are especially succeptable to that kind of bullshit despite being otherwise good human beings.

I've talked at least two away from the "Blue/All Lives Matter" ledge. You have to do it delicately, but the whole problem with all this shit is that there ARE people who are not really racist who can be convinced that "there's a lot of cops dying in BLM riots" because that's what they're being told. When you have black friends who says "I don't want to be anywhere near BLM because they just make us look bad", you know that people are spreading some real fake shit. But instead of hating on them, you can just show them that BLM is not riots and Blue Lives Matter is not about stopping cops from being killed.

And then, the ones who aren't racist... they do listen.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am not an American, so I'm not means an expert on anything American. What I do think is that globally, us on the political left are shit at making slogans at least compared to the political right. While I can't deny that Defund the Police resonated with people who have been oppressed by them their whole lives, I also can't deny it doesn't actually do anything to inform bystanders of the solution being proposed. The 'gentry' who actually have the political power to effect change, and in fact had the opposite effect. Honestly I think actors on the political right just spend a lot more time and money on spinning a good message.

Tl;Dr; BLMs message was so confusing it made it so right wing actors could flip Defund the Police on its head and scare centralists from the idea.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'll give a different angle, as I see it.

A problem is that reality is complicated and makes shit for soundbytes. That means your options are to lie to constituents, or to actually have policy ideals that are just harder to explain.

Defund the Police is a great example. We simply lean on the police too heavily. We DO need to defund them. They should not be the first line for mental health breaks, the first line for non-physical domestic disputes, etc. I know other countries do this, but in the US I would argue the current format of police shouldn't be used for situations where violence is unlikely... and yeah, I mean things like driving infractions. Not only are they not great at it, but they are also not TRUSTED. In a country where someone getting a ticket for pulling through a stop sign literally fears for their life because they're black, we should be offering a justice system that makes such a danger impossible because it won't be kill-trained people with guns giving them their ticket.

Similarly, our police are over-equipped. Too many SWAT teams, used too lightly in situations without elevated risk or without enough red tape to require better information-gathering. And not unlike a bad comic book, SWAT team members have to hide their identity because they know the masses hate and fear them. I've known spouses of SWAT team members, and the rule is that nobody but those closest to you can know that's what they do. Not unlike drug dealers.

So stepping back, all those things are a nice ball of "what I fucking want to vote for". If you had 5 seconds to explain it, what would you say? I would say "defund the police". Because it's strictly accurate in a dozen ways AND it isn't even pretending to say "abolish the police" because that would be "absolish the police".

So yeah. The Right looks at Defund the Police and says "see, they're trying to abolish the police. Let's back the blue" and it's all over.

I'm gonna say BLM was the same. BLM had clear numbers, clear figures, a clear message. Stop killing black people. They had people marching with (posters of) unarmed black people who were killed without any reasonable suspicion of a crime. They had everything you could need. But then you had an orange fascist prick saying "All lives matter". NO SHIT all lives matter. But how many white people do these idiots know who have been wrongfullly abused by police? Post-BLM, we are way down on black deaths by cop; it's only TWICE their representation.

You say you're not an American, so I get it. But the real problem with BLM is exactly what we have complained it is... full-on-racism. BLM became a riot in many areas because White Supremecists working with the police started the riots to give an excuse to end the protests. The message was trampled on, not because it was bad, but because we are a horrible country right now. And yes, innocent people only see the fallout and the sound bytes on TV. When the most powerful man in the country has this message that "all lives matter", anyone who is not politically savvy is going to just nod their head and agree.

[–] woobie@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

You've made some good points. I hope that a fair number of people read through the whole post, but I fear that not enough will. Most seem to have about a three sentence threshold.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

You made some good points, I'll have to think on it. Have an up-boat.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So… what? The point remains that black lives exist, not blue lives.

[–] Yondu_the_Ravager@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. In case my original comment wasn’t clear, I was (I guess too subtly) pointing out the problematic and racist origins of the blue lives matter phrase

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You left the end of your statement unsaid so it wasn’t clear to me. It could be taken more than one way. Such as “Don’t complain that blue lives don’t exist, because if BLM hadn’t started it, blue lives wouldn’t even be a thing.”

Glad to know you didn’t mean it that way.

[–] Yondu_the_Ravager@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gotcha yeah, sorry about that lol. Maybe I’ll edit my original comment to be a little clearer

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for clarifying - no apology needed.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is my favorite argument to tell blue lives matter people. Along with my original point

I've even gotten a few of them to truly understand that it is inherently racist by design by using these two arguments specifically

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, can you clarify what the argument is? I read the comment you replied to and it didn't seem like an argument so much as a fact check, which while powerful requires something kind of different. Am I missing something?

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

That "Blue Lives Matter" wasn't ever about caring about police lives, only a counter to Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter was formed because innocent black people kept being killed. Blue Lives Matter was formed because being challenged with that fact offended them.

When a police officer shoots a black man because he's intimidated by his skin color, the defense "his life matters, too" is bullshit. Since Blue Lives Matter didn't actually have anything to do with violence against police officers, it's bullshit.

Ironically, I would say Blue Lives Matter caused people to target police officers, who really hadn't been targeted before. One could argue it is more accurate that Blue Lives Matter caused more unjustified police incidents against black people, which caused more misguided vigilante-style violence against police.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

So… what? The point remains that black lives exist, not blue lives.