Current Events > NYT writer demands whites cut off contact w/ relatives unless they join protests

(+) Yeah! (+)

"Don't call out those who say they support your cause, yet refuse to lend any substantive aid" is a very weird take

---

gamepimp12 posted...

I know I said the last response was the last response but what profession outside of professional Rope noose maker would prevent you from making any sort of statement. Even then its not stopping you from making any sort of donation.

at this point youre just trolling

I'm in the Army and I can't really go out and protest right now. They've more or less said don't protest, and definitely don't make publicly viewable statements in the name of the Army. All of this has been my own personal opinion(as well as CE is hardly public)

Maybe I have other financial obligations I need to address before I consider donating? Also at this point donating would basically feel like I've been guilt tripped into doing so.

Regardless I support your right to fight. I want you to be better than getting caught up in a binary "ally/enemy" mindset. I want to see the movement expand and succeed but I know it will only create problems for itself if it continues with a "you must support me or you're my enemy" mindset.

It pains me to see any American get abused or killed by police or through systemic racism. I've chosen my own path in addressing it though. You've chosen yours.

I hope you can see that you're only creating more work for yourself and the movement later by throwing accusations of racism at people who (would) support your cause.

I'm not so petty as to turn against the whole movement because you think I'm racist because I can't support right now. But there are people who are. And if you think they're not important to the cause then you've already lost or at best handicapped yourself unnecessarily.

I know it sucks and that you want it to be cut and dry "you're racist or you're anti-racist" but reality isn't nearly that simple.

---

BeantownHero posted...

"Don't call out those who say they support your cause, yet refuse to lend any substantive aid" is a very weird take

You can call them out but you have to be tactful when doing it.

Saying they're racist for not doing so is a fast way to get them to either adopt the "masked" ally and donate once or a way to get them to swear you off because why would they bother wasting their time on someone who considers them racist?

---

BeantownHero posted...

"Don't call out those who say they support your cause, yet refuse to lend any substantive aid" is a very weird take

Some people may not have the financial capacity to help or the health to protest. They should not be punished for raising awareness. Also while indifference is not something to be proud of, I'd rather someone do nothing that trying to fight against the movement

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Yeah its pretty weird. Theres definitely some of this is why Trump won energy with people essentially saying people will be racist if you dont coddle their insecurities.

You don't have to coddle actual Nazi flag toting, KKK robe wearing racists. But being hostile with those types will only get them to be hostile back. You think Daryl Davis went in naming and shaming all the KKK members he deconverted? No. He took the time and effort needed to slowly get them to see the errors of their way.

And it's not "coddling their insecurities" to say you shouldn't go in calling people racist when they might not be or never considered themselves to be. It's a fast and easy way to offend someone. Running around like a bull in a China shop stomping all over their insecurities is a fast way to get them to turn against you. You can win them over by just not saying "you donate. You're not racist. You refuse, you are"

See what issues they may have concerning them. Talk to them like a human being. Address their concerns. See why they won't or can't donate. See their individual situations as to why they believe what they do. And address it. You'll win them over far faster than saying "you're racist because you refuse to donate right now"

---

wackyteen posted...

I think Artemis just wants you to condemn that one bad actors actions. Otherwise it makes you look like you agree that he was in the right to stab people bad try to kill them under the name of being an ally of the BLM movement.

Im not saying I agree with the implication that you agree with this rogue actors actions but that's what he seems to want

I hear over and over ad nauseam that the left isnt like the right. "We don't excuse our own doing wrong," they say. And yet, how many posts in are we now? And nothing. Not a single one of them could even mount a tepid "he doesnt do these things in our name" response. Just whining about how I'm using their actions to smear their movement. The actions they still refuse to condemn. Kind of like the crowd at the protest, who welcomed the dude right back in like nothing had happened.

Now, ultimately I am unconcerned about one person. What's concerning is this notion that people deserve harm or death for "wrong" opinions. So then I asked straight up if they consider political violence against people they dont agree with to be acceptable or not. How'd that turn out? Oh yeah, not a single person said "Hurting or killing people over politics is bad." Just more deflection and accusations.

They can't say it. They are apparently incapable, too much zealotry. And that is fucking scary.

Fine. I'll say it again. I don't condone violence or killing in the name of politics.

You know why it's so hard to get out of people? You know why they respond with hostility to "if you have this opinion, you must condemn this thing"?

Because it's never enough for you.

Because topic after topic, day after day, week after week, there's another and still another claim of "they did this bad thing! Condemn it now or I'll never accept you!" And it's very often the same events on repeat and it's never enough.

Because our local indolent centrists never have anything to say but "but what about", and it's never enough.

Speaking, explaining, reminding, over and over again and for what? For who? Who are you that we have to prove ourselves?

There's a call to action, and the response is "well do this and maybe I will" and it's never enough.

There are many of us out there hoping "is now enough? This happened and isn't it enough? Can't you say 'enough'?"

And then "but what about" and it's never enough.

You see how that might get exhausting? You see how people might interpret you as in bad faith?

---

CyricZ posted...

Fine. I'll say it again. I don't condone violence or killing in the name of politics.

You know why it's so hard to get out of people? You know why they respond with hostility to "if you have this opinion, you must condemn this thing"?

Because it's never enough for you.

Because topic after topic, day after day, week after week, there's another and still another claim of "they did this bad thing! Condemn it now or I'll never accept you!" And it's very often the same events on repeat and it's never enough.

Because our local indolent centrists never have anything to say but "but what about", and it's never enough.

Speaking, explaining, reminding, over and over again and for what? For who? Who are you that we have to prove ourselves?

There's a call to action, and the response is "well do this and maybe I will" and it's never enough.

There are many of us out there hoping "is now enough? This happened and isn't it enough? Can't you say 'enough'?"

And then "but what about" and it's never enough.

You see how that might get exhausting? You see how people might interpret you as in bad faith?

You just perfectly described why people find the NYTs writers demands unreasonable. Like, it's a flawless summary of how the constant call to take ever-increasing action or risk being called intolerant or racist wears people out. How we went from Facebook campaigns, to "silence is violence", to "words and vocal support aren't enough", to this new NYT demand that if you're not actively investing financially in the movement you might as well be the enemy. Or how every single action taken in reform is responded with a new, larger set of demands for even more reform. A renewed reminder that nothing short of literal revolution will calm the unrest, and even then there will be people saying that revolution is just the beginning.

You get it. Hit the nail on the head. Flawless victory.

---

s0nicfan posted...

You just perfectly described why people find the NYTs writers demands unreasonable. Like, it's a flawless summary of how the constant call to take ever-increasing action or risk being called intolerant or racist wears people out. How we went from Facebook campaigns, to "silence is violence", to "words and vocal support aren't enough", to this new NYT demand that if you're not actively investing financially in the movement you might as well be the enemy. Or how every single action taken in reform is responded with a new, larger set of demands for even more reform. A renewed reminder that nothing short of literal revolution will calm the unrest, and even then there will be people saying that revolution is just the beginning.

You get it. Hit the nail on the head. Flawless victory.

Hey. There might be a difference.

Theirs are specific demands for reform, for bettering. If you continue half-measures? If you continue on in the name of "compromise"? If you let those who you know and have proven themselves in bad faith continue to write the rules and say "meet me in the middle" as they continue to take steps back, then it's not enough, and more die. And more are driven down to poverty and left voiceless. And this happens all over again.

"Here are some specific ideas to reform the system."
"Yeah, but if we just... not do that?"
"It's right here in the data! This improves everyone's lives!"
"Yeaaaah we'll give you half of that. We have to compromise with those guys that wish to see you brought to heel, after all!"

Yours are "condemn him". "Condemn her." And for what? Your approval? Will you finally commit to supporting BLM if I condemn that bad actor? How about the next one? How many is required? Or is it just "We'll see"?

Like seriously, the most anyone can hope for if they do condemn is that you stop posting, wait for the next thing to latch onto to take away the legitimacy of the argument, and then we start all over again.

I don't see how you can equate the demands of bad faith centrists who would just wish we could all do nothing and forget about it with the demands of people who have been fighting for their entire time in this country for equality.

Then again, maybe I can see how you keep making those leaps.

---

CyricZ posted...

Hey. There might be a difference.

Theirs are specific demands for reform, for bettering. If you continue half-measures? If you continue on in the name of "compromise"? If you let those who you know and have proven themselves in bad faith continue to write the rules and say "meet me in the middle" as they continue to take steps back, then it's not enough, and more die. And more are driven down to poverty and left voiceless. And this happens all over again.

Yours are "condemn him". "Condemn her." And for what? Your approval? Will you finally commit to supporting BLM if I condemn that bad actor? How about the next one? How many is required? Or is it just "We'll see"?

Like seriously, the most anyone can hope for if they do condemn is that you stop posting, wait for the next thing to latch onto to take away the legitimacy of the argument, and then we start all over again.

I don't see how you can equate the demands of bad faith centrists who would just wish we could all do nothing and forget about it with the demands of people who have been fighting for their entire time in this country for equality.

Then again, maybe I can see how you keep making those leaps.

I'm equating the responses from people who feel like they are doing their part and being told with ever increasing severity that the part they're doing isn't enough. If you find it exhausting having to condemn bad actions, then you can probably understand why someone who also condemns bad actions but is now being told in the New York Times that they need to do significantly more might also feel that way.

---

s0nicfan posted...

I'm equating the responses from people who feel like they are doing their part and being told with ever increasing severity that the part they're doing isn't enough. If you find it exhausting having to condemn bad actions, then you can probably understand why someone who also condemns bad actions but is now being told in the New York Times that they need to do significantly more might also feel that way.

News: "Here are things you can do to actually help instead of telling everyone how sad you are. Here's a list. It's the same list as it's always been. No, stop just telling people how sad you are. It is actually not enough."

CE Centrists: "Condemn him. Condemn her. Keep condemning. I'll tell you when to stop."

---

Also it seems your goals are a bit weird in all this. Is your goal to fix things? Or is your goal is to not be called racist?

Like, what's that all about?

---

CyricZ posted...

News: "Here are things you can do to actually help instead of telling everyone how sad you are. Here's a list. It's the same list as it's always been. No, stop just telling people how sad you are. It is actually not enough."

CE Centrists: "Condemn him. Condemn her. Keep condemning. I'll tell you when to stop."

"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.

---

epik_fail1 posted...

Some people may not have the financial capacity to help or the health to protest. They should not be punished for raising awareness. Also while indifference is not something to be proud of, I'd rather someone do nothing that trying to fight against the movement

If you have the time and energy to declare yourself an ally, you have the time and energy to figure out how you can do your part, even if it's making a legit effort to raise awareness around those in your life


---

shockthemonkey posted...

Is anyone ITT actually arguing against the premise which is dont make black people coddle your feelings and tell you youre alright; go fucking do something useful?

I mean....it sounds like the person's friends were trying to show them love and support and the article tears them to shreds. I don't feel like you should get angry at somebody who loves you and is trying to show support even if you think they could best support you in another way. The text that was shown as an example is somebody who is trying their best to let their friend know they are there for them and then all of it got picked apart to make it sound like they were being selfish.

---

CyricZ posted...

Also it seems your goals are a bit weird in all this. Is your goal to fix things? Or is your goal is to not be called racist?

Like, what's that all about?

My goal is to be left to support people however I choose without being told I'm against a movement for not supporting it their specific way. Like... I don't donate money on autism awareness week. Does that mean I'm tacitly in support of making autistic people suffer? What about during Woman's History month? If I don't donate to a shelter or disown anyone else who doesn't does that mean I endorse domestic abuse? There are a trillion causes out there, and I support many of them when and how I can, so anyone demanding that I support in some specific way or consider myself a part of the problem can fuck off.

I didn't change any social media icons for blackout tuesday. I'm not donating to bail funds. I'm not disowning people who are avoiding crowds and skipping protests. I actively vote for candidates who support police reform. I donate my time every year to teaching lego robotics to poor kids, many of them black. I visit local schools to give talks on engineering and help teachers find free resources to teach STEM in the classroom, all on my own time. If you demand my support in a specific way under threat, I'll take my support to other good causes who won't. Then you can debate me on whether I'm a bad person for putting my money towards cancer research instead of bail funds.

---

CyricZ posted...

Fine. I'll say it again. I don't condone violence or killing in the name of politics.

You know why it's so hard to get out of people? You know why they respond with hostility to "if you have this opinion, you must condemn this thing"?

Because it's never enough for you.

Because topic after topic, day after day, week after week, there's another and still another claim of "they did this bad thing! Condemn it now or I'll never accept you!" And it's very often the same events on repeat and it's never enough.

Because our local indolent centrists never have anything to say but "but what about", and it's never enough.

Speaking, explaining, reminding, over and over again and for what? For who? Who are you that we have to prove ourselves?

There's a call to action, and the response is "well do this and maybe I will" and it's never enough.

There are many of us out there hoping "is now enough? This happened and isn't it enough? Can't you say 'enough'?"

And then "but what about" and it's never enough.

You see how that might get exhausting? You see how people might interpret you as in bad faith?

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.


---

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 posted...

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

You're allowed but don't call them racist if they don't give more. You can consider them implicit or useless or whatever but you should reserve the racist label for actual racists.

And as I've said I'm just afraid in your (not you specifically) quest to get as much support as possible, you're going to burn and spurn too many and cost yourself in the long run.

---

CyricZ posted...

Fine. I'll say it again. I don't condone violence or killing in the name of politics.

I looked through your prior posts in here and found no prior condemnation so I dunno whwre the "again" comes from, but ya know what? I dont care.

THANK YOU! This is literally the first time anyone ever actually said it, of all the times. First ever!

CyricZ posted...

You know why it's so hard to get out of people? You know why they respond with hostility to "if you have this opinion, you must condemn this thing"?

Because it's never enough for you.

Its enough for me. I just wanted one person to look past all the politicking and just show some basic decency.

CyricZ posted...

Because topic after topic, day after day, week after week, there's another and still another claim of "they did this bad thing! Condemn it now or I'll never accept you!" And it's very often the same events on repeat and it's never enough.

Because our local indolent centrists never have anything to say but "but what about", and it's never enough.

Speaking, explaining, reminding, over and over again and for what? For who? Who are you that we have to prove ourselves?

I dont need to ask again. You condemned it all full stop. Only reason it would ever come up is if you started defending violence in some individual incident.

CyricZ posted...

There's a call to action, and the response is "well do this and maybe I will" and it's never enough.

There are many of us out there hoping "is now enough? This happened and isn't it enough? Can't you say 'enough'?"

And then "but what about" and it's never enough.

You see how that might get exhausting? You see how people might interpret you as in bad faith?

So are you just applying generalizations of centrism to me here? Because I'm perfectly content with your answer and its just odd you telling me I am not.

wackyteen posted...

You're allowed but don't call them racist if they don't give more

I've been very careful to temper my name-calling.

Also I'm formulating a response to your question. It's taking longer than I anticipated.

Artemis86 posted...

I dunno whwre the "again" comes from

The multiple previous times I've been asked to condemn bad actors to prove... I don't even know anymore. If you've truly never done this before once, then you're a rarity. Don't make it a habit to hold people to this.

And now that I've condemned the bad actor, what will you do?

---

CyricZ posted...

I've been very careful to temper my name-calling.

I haven't noted any from you and I can appreciate that. And it was less about you specifically but more of a generality.

Also take as long as you need.

---

CyricZ posted...

The multiple previous times I've been asked to condemn bad actors to prove... I don't even know anymore. If you've truly never done this before once, then you're a rarity. Don't make it a habit to hold people to this.

I tried before but no one ever actually condemned violence, or they always made some exception to justify it.

CyricZ posted...

And now that I've condemned the bad actor, what will you do?

Same thing I would do if no one responded: wait for the fairweather activists calling me racist to get bored and move on to whatever new pet issue they pick up next, and continue to quietly illuminate police brutality cases that go unnoticed, just like I did for years before. I'll have a talk with anyone on how poor policing harms even those not affected directly by it with any who will listen.

Ftr, I also dont agree with this article in the slightest. People need encouragement and positive reinforcement, it isnt just empty words. Hell, I saw someone on here announce they were intending to protest peacefully, and no one on their "side" made a peep about it.

Next time I saw em, I made a point to let em know I supported their efforts. And they actually seemed genuinely thankful for the encouragement. This article seems to be strongly implying that such exchanges are meaningless or even bad, and I strongly disagree.

sylverlolol posted...

I'm already an introvert so I barely talk to my family as is. I don't agree with what some are saying about blue lives, yadda yadda, throwing around the all lives matter BS too, but I'm not going to create drama by making some large, public display about cutting them off. I know I'm never going to change their mind so I'll just keep doing what I always do and ignore them.

This.

This is what makes the NYT article so stupid.

Some people don't realise not everyone wants to be the centre of attention. Young people often want this but not a lot of people over 30. Not everyone wants to make social media posts that 100s of people can see and some people dont even want to go out and protest for causes they believe in(even taking away the risk of COVID)

I really question the life experience of some of the people in this topic and americans in general. Not everyone has to be extremely loud and obnoxious. A silent ally is clearly better than no ally at all... especially when it comes to voting

---

CyricZ posted...

Fine. I'll say it again. I don't condone violence or killing in the name of politics.

You know why it's so hard to get out of people? You know why they respond with hostility to "if you have this opinion, you must condemn this thing"?

Because it's never enough for you.

Because topic after topic, day after day, week after week, there's another and still another claim of "they did this bad thing! Condemn it now or I'll never accept you!" And it's very often the same events on repeat and it's never enough.

Because our local indolent centrists never have anything to say but "but what about", and it's never enough.

Speaking, explaining, reminding, over and over again and for what? For who? Who are you that we have to prove ourselves?

There's a call to action, and the response is "well do this and maybe I will" and it's never enough.

There are many of us out there hoping "is now enough? This happened and isn't it enough? Can't you say 'enough'?"

And then "but what about" and it's never enough.

You see how that might get exhausting? You see how people might interpret you as in bad faith?

This is so bizarre to read. It looks like you're taking a stand against alt leftists but you're complaining about centrists instead. Is this Bizarro World?