LogFAQs > #940366912

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	NYT writer demands whites cut off contact w/ relatives unless they join protests
CyricZ 06/08/20 4:27:27 PM #219:	s0nicfan posted... "the same list as it's always been" included telling your family you won't talk to them anymore unless they protest or give money? No, fuck off that's not "the same old demand." First it was "silence is violence", that if you didn't actively show support you were tacitly endorsing the status quo. Now a show of support isn't enough. Now it's "you better disown anyone who doesn't donate or you're not part of the cause." It's an ever increasing set of demands, the next set being offered the moment the prior set is achieved, with no clear end goal. Like I said, you understand perfectly how people feel when articles like this are dropped. As well you should, because you seem pretty good at feeling out unreasonable demands, and this article has some unreasonable demands. Like you don't have to do those things. You don't have to throw yourself in front of a black man about to be shot and take the bullet for him. You don't have to write off every last member of your racist family. Just don't say "I'm helping!" while refusing to help, is all. That's what this article is saying to me. Yes, they're severe. The author admitted that, but I think what he's saying is that this whole issue is going to take some sacrifice of comfort before we come out the other side. Like seriously, everyone's fixated on the "Texts" bullet point of the article, but no one really bat an eye at the "Protection" bullet point. I have no idea what to make of that. Your posts suggests you don't put out social media platitudes, so this article isn't even directed at you, yet you take offense to it all the same. And hey I apologize on behalf of everyone that "equality of the races" doesn't have a 100% clear end goal. It's muddy waters here, but this is a macro-scale issue on pretty much the highest level of "macro" that we have. Equating that to CEfolk being snippy centrists to justify their own inaction just strikes me as petty. BeantownHero posted... imagine getting this defensive about a movement where you arent asked to do anywhere near the heavy lifting of your black counterparts. You dont risk the emotional labor, nor the risks (financial, political, law enforcement etc.) and yet you're still so hostile. Its wild to look at. Am I not allowed to get angry? Am I not allowed to ask for more than excuses from my fellow white person? Like serious questions here. I need to know if I'm not allowed. --- CyricZ <cite>CyricZ posted [p:940366912] in NYT writer... [t:78752041]...</cite> <quote>s0nicfan posted... </cite> <quote>"the same list as it's always been" included telling your family you won't talk to them anymore unless they protest or give money? No, fuck off that's not "the same old demand." First it was "silence is violence", that if you didn't actively show support you were tacitly endorsing the status quo. Now a show of support isn't enough. Now it's "you better disown anyone who doesn't donate or you're not part of the cause." It's an ever increasing set of demands, the next set being offered the moment the prior set is achieved, with no clear end goal. Like I said, you understand perfectly how people feel when articles like this are dropped. As well you should, because you seem pretty good at feeling out unreasonable demands, and this article has some unreasonable demands.</quote>Like you don't have to do those things. You don't have to throw yourself in front of a black man about to be shot and take the bullet for him. You don't have to write off every last member of your racist family. Just don't say "I'm helping!" while refusing to help, is all. That's what this article is saying to me. Yes, they're severe. The author admitted that, but I think what he's saying is that this whole issue is going to take some sacrifice of comfort before we come out the other side. Like seriously, everyone's fixated on the "Texts" bullet point of the article, but no one really bat an eye at the "Protection" bullet point. I have no idea what to make of that. Your posts suggests you don't put out social media platitudes, so this article isn't even directed at you, yet you take offense to it all the same. And hey I apologize on behalf of everyone that "equality of the races" doesn't have a 100% clear end goal. It's muddy waters here, but this is a macro-scale issue on pretty much the highest level of "macro" that we have. Equating that to CEfolk being snippy centrists to justify their own inaction just strikes me as petty. BeantownHero posted... </cite> <quote>imagine getting this defensive about a movement where you arent asked to do anywhere near the heavy lifting of your black counterparts. You dont risk the emotional labor, nor the risks (financial, political, law enforcement etc.) and yet you're still so hostile. Its wild to look at.</quote>Am I not allowed to get angry? Am I not allowed to ask for more than excuses from my fellow white person? Like serious questions here. I need to know if I'm not allowed. --- CyricZ</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1