Official Black Lives Matter Thread

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think the team probably wanted the patches on their uniforms because they don't like racism.

[Phil Titola]

Acting like you didn't expect blowback is basically admitting you haven't tried to understand the entire movement going on.

[chum1]

I, too, can imagine a scenario in which one objects to the patch for non-racist reasons. That has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to recognize what all available evidence tells me about these particular people and their basis for objecting to the patch.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think the team should continue wearing the patch even if Gene tells them not to. It's their first amendment right and there is absolutely nothing the university can do about it.

[ChiComCat]

I think the team should continue wearing the patch even if Gene tells them not to. It's their first amendment right and there is absolutely nothing the university can do about it.

I would assume the patch was agreed upon as part of negotiations to get the players back to practice after racist tweetgate.  It isn't going anywhere, nor should it.  The "damage" is already done anyways.

[michigancat]

disliking the patch is not "unrelated to racism"

It certainly can be when the patch is associated with a movement whose positions exceed what can be reasonably described as anti-racism/anti-discrimination.

IMO those "positions" have been deliberately misinterpreted/misconstrued/blown out of proportion by racists. And I think it lets a lot of casual racists breathe a sigh of relief

FWIW i also think people pulling season tickets is a titch overdramatic.

But my point is, the patch is legitimately controversial.  I think there are valid reasons for wanting it on there, and valid (and also some other, racist) reasons for not wanting it on there.  Given the obvious and predictable blowback that such a controversial decision would cause at a time when the AD is in a bad spot financially, I thought it was a pretty courageous move by the AD to include that patch (i haven't seen it on any other unis this CFB season).  But then Gene gets back and acts like "gee I was little surprised we got some blowback" and then it made me think that maybe it wasn't such a courageous decision after all, and maybe instead Gene is just an idiot.

I agree it's controversial, but the right thing for Gene to do is to tell people who object to it to eff off (or more diplomatically say "This is the right thing to do and is more important than your ticket money")

pretty sure KU wore a "BLM Unity" patch. Also worth noting not every campus had a high-profile racist student controversy this summer.

[DQ12]

the patch reminds me of one of those old timey optical illusions where some people see a beautiful lady but if you look at it a different way you see some ugly old gal.  it's unobjectionable and very objectionable at the same time.

it'd be helpful if, instead of the name of the organization who gets into a lot of economic stuff, the zeitgeist phrase was something only slightly different but still meant the same thing, so as to avoid any confusion.  "We Support Black Lives" or something to that effect.

[michigancat]

I think the team probably wanted the patches on their uniforms because they don't like racism.

Pretty sure it was actually about destroying nuclear families. We all know that's what it REALLY means

[Trim]

I'm confused by people who aren't able to distinguish any of the many organizations (very loosely defined, and some grifts themselves!) that have Black Lives Matter in their name from the words "Black Lives Matter."

There's also a lot of people who can distinguish it but choose not to.

I wonder if the confusion has anything to do with the words being exactly the same.

I'm sure it is for people who don't know anything about what an organization is or how one comes to be, or for those who want to feign confusion. 

I dug deep into this a few months back when I saw news stories here that said "Black Lives Matter" was suing the city and wondered how a concept can sue.  I pulled the case and saw what "Black Lives Matter" actually was in that context, a small local nonprofit that came to be for tax-exemption purposes, legal qualifications like that suit, shielding from personal liability, etc.  Looking it up on the SOS site, I found there are a number of such groups just in this state alone.  For obvious reasons, they all like to profess that they are Black Lives Matter.

Then there's the group that got the best website name, and the one that Dax cryptically refers to with its 16 chapters (none of which are the local crew purporting to be Black Lives Matter and suing with that name).  Looks like they've removed the chapter list since I looked before and now there's reference to 40 chapters.  Overall they purport to be a "network."

Any of us could start our own Black Lives Matter group that would stand for whatever we say it does.  Nobody controls the term.  But normal people can know that it simply means that Black lives matter too.

The wikipedia page does a great job explaining all this.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

[Phil Titola]

the patch reminds me of one of those old timey optical illusions where some people see a beautiful lady but if you look at it a different way you see some ugly old gal.  it's unobjectionable and very objectionable at the same time.

it'd be helpful if, instead of the name of the organization who gets into a lot of economic stuff, the zeitgeist phrase was something only slightly different but still meant the same thing, so as to avoid any confusion.  "We Support Black Lives" or something to that effect.

I see what you are saying and I agree.  I think that's why you see a lot of organizations rephrasing their social justice stance to not use simply "black lives matter"

[Rage Against the McKee]

the patch reminds me of one of those old timey optical illusions where some people see a beautiful lady but if you look at it a different way you see some ugly old gal.  it's unobjectionable and very objectionable at the same time.

it'd be helpful if, instead of the name of the organization who gets into a lot of economic stuff, the zeitgeist phrase was something only slightly different but still meant the same thing, so as to avoid any confusion.  "We Support Black Lives" or something to that effect.

It's really only unobjectionable.

[DQ12]

disliking the patch is not "unrelated to racism"

It certainly can be when the patch is associated with a movement whose positions exceed what can be reasonably described as anti-racism/anti-discrimination.

IMO those "positions" have been deliberately misinterpreted/misconstrued/blown out of proportion by racists. And I think it lets a lot of casual racists breathe a sigh of relief

While I think that's probably true in some respects, but I don't think it's fair to completely ignore or discount the context. 

Like it or not, support it or not, the Black Lives Matter (the org) does/did have a platform (or whatever you want to call it) of some fairly radical left wing ideas (apparently they removed their page on "What we believe" from the BLM website in the last day or two). 

I'm sure you're already familiar, but the disruption of the nuclear family stuff, the "trained marxists" stuff.  Like, that all exists and there's plenty of reasons, independent of race, to object to that stuff.  This is a remarkably complex topic, and to boil it down to "people who don't support Black Lives Matter are racists" is far too simple.

[Phil Titola]

disliking the patch is not "unrelated to racism"

It certainly can be when the patch is associated with a movement whose positions exceed what can be reasonably described as anti-racism/anti-discrimination.

IMO those "positions" have been deliberately misinterpreted/misconstrued/blown out of proportion by racists. And I think it lets a lot of casual racists breathe a sigh of relief

While I think that's probably true in some respects, but I don't think it's fair to completely ignore or discount the context. 

Like it or not, support it or not, the Black Lives Matter (the org) does/did have a platform (or whatever you want to call it) of some fairly radical left wing ideas (apparently they removed their page on "What we believe" from the BLM website in the last day or two). 

I'm sure you're already familiar, but the disruption of the nuclear family stuff, the "trained marxists" stuff.  Like, that all exists and there's plenty of reasons, independent of race, to object to that stuff.  This is a remarkably complex topic, and to boil it down to "people who don't support Black Lives Matter are racists" is far too simple.

To Trim's point there is no one BLM "org".  One doesn't get to declare the idea/platforms no matter the domain they registered.

[DQ12]

I'm confused by people who aren't able to distinguish any of the many organizations (very loosely defined, and some grifts themselves!) that have Black Lives Matter in their name from the words "Black Lives Matter."

There's also a lot of people who can distinguish it but choose not to.

I wonder if the confusion has anything to do with the words being exactly the same.

I'm sure it is for people who don't know anything about what an organization is or how one comes to be, or for those who want to feign confusion. 

I dug deep into this a few months back when I saw news stories here that said "Black Lives Matter" was suing the city and wondered how a concept can sue.  I pulled the case and saw what "Black Lives Matter" actually was in that context, a small local nonprofit that came to be for tax-exemption purposes, legal qualifications like that suit, shielding from personal liability, etc.  Looking it up on the SOS site, I found there are a number of such groups just in this state alone.  For obvious reasons, they all like to profess that they are Black Lives Matter.

Then there's the group that got the best website name, and the one that Dax cryptically refers to with its 16 chapters (none of which are the local crew purporting to be Black Lives Matter and suing with that name).  Looks like they've removed the chapter list since I looked before and now there's reference to 40 chapters.  Overall they purport to be a "network."

Any of us could start our own Black Lives Matter group that would stand for whatever we say it does.  Nobody controls the term.  But normal people can know that it simply means that Black lives matter too.

The wikipedia page does a great job explaining all this.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

I think the team probably wanted the patches on their uniforms because they don't like racism.

Pretty sure it was actually about destroying nuclear families. We all know that's what it REALLY means

disliking the patch is not "unrelated to racism"

It certainly can be when the patch is associated with a movement whose positions exceed what can be reasonably described as anti-racism/anti-discrimination.

IMO those "positions" have been deliberately misinterpreted/misconstrued/blown out of proportion by racists. And I think it lets a lot of casual racists breathe a sigh of relief

While I think that's probably true in some respects, but I don't think it's fair to completely ignore or discount the context. 

Like it or not, support it or not, the Black Lives Matter (the org) does/did have a platform (or whatever you want to call it) of some fairly radical left wing ideas (apparently they removed their page on "What we believe" from the BLM website in the last day or two). 

I'm sure you're already familiar, but the disruption of the nuclear family stuff, the "trained marxists" stuff.  Like, that all exists and there's plenty of reasons, independent of race, to object to that stuff.  This is a remarkably complex topic, and to boil it down to "people who don't support Black Lives Matter are racists" is far too simple.

To Trim's point there is no one BLM "org".  One doesn't get to declare the idea/platforms no matter the domain they registered.

And you guys still don't think that any of this may be a little confusing?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't think it's all that confusing. People find the statement "black lives matter" offensive and have since people first started saying it. These people are racists. I guess it's possible that the "all lives matter" people are more narcissistic than racist, but I think you also kind of have to be narcissistic on some level to be racist, anyway.

[DQ12]

I don't think it's all that confusing. People find the statement "black lives matter" offensive and have since people first started saying it. These people are racists. I guess it's possible that the "all lives matter" people are more narcissistic than racist, but I think you also kind of have to be narcissistic on some level to be racist, anyway.

eh fair enough, i guess.

[Trim]

And you guys still don't think that any of this may be a little confusing?

No. But I’m also good with business structures and basic formation concepts being taught earlier in school to everyone. I’ve had to do this same explanation to college student workers at Threads scared about printing “EMAW.”

[michigancat]

I'm sure you're already familiar, but the disruption of the nuclear family stuff, the "trained marxists" stuff.  Like, that all exists and there's plenty of reasons, independent of race, to object to that stuff.  This is a remarkably complex topic, and to boil it down to "people who don't support Black Lives Matter are racists" is far too simple.

If they aren't racist, they're very heavily influenced by racists because they haven't actually done any research about those two items (which are the only attempts at non-racist criticism I've seen).

[WildcatNkilt]

If the football team wins lots of games, the donors who were mad about BLM will no longer care that the team supports BLM.  It will turn into "I just wish they wouldn't do it" versus "I won't support/watch them if they do it." 

[LickNeckey]

i am more upset by the fact that the players chose "Black Lives Matter" over "Marxism Rules, Nuclear Families Drool"

clearly a missed opportunity in terms of messaging.

[steve dave]

gene should not have been surprised by the blowback only because he should have known we have an unfortunate amount of racist fans. but hey, that's kansas. if you can't love us at our worst, etc.

[steve dave]

counterpoint, maybe gene decided to come to KSU based solely off goEMAW and our relatively low number of racist posters (earned over years of back breaking work).

[DQ12]

I'm sure you're already familiar, but the disruption of the nuclear family stuff, the "trained marxists" stuff.  Like, that all exists and there's plenty of reasons, independent of race, to object to that stuff.  This is a remarkably complex topic, and to boil it down to "people who don't support Black Lives Matter are racists" is far too simple.

If they aren't racist, they're very heavily influenced by racists because they haven't actually done any research about those two items (which are the only attempts at non-racist criticism I've seen).

What research would one need to do about the "trained marxists" admission that would quell any concerns an otherwise well-meaning person would have about the Black Lives Matter org?  I've done a little research and, as i recall, it seemed pretty unapologetic -- also explains all the cringe "comrade" verbiage they use/used.  I think it's valid to be concerned that K-State may be tacitly supporting an organization that is run by self-described "trained marxists" -- even if I don't think that's what K-State meant or is actually doing.

[DQ12]

I mean, I get the point that "black lives matter" is not "Black Lives Matter" - I just think that's a little confusing for the average joe and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.  But what I don't get is Rusty's point that there's actually nothing reasonably objectionable about the organization Black Lives Matter -- assuming that's actually Rusty's point.

[Trim]

I mean, I get the point that "black lives matter" is not "Black Lives Matter" - I just think that's a little confusing for the average joe and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.  But what I don't get is Rusty's point that there's actually nothing reasonably objectionable about the organization Black Lives Matter -- assuming that's actually Rusty's point.

There's no single organization that is "Black Lives Matter."