this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
1003 points (95.3% liked)

Antiwork

8275 readers
2 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
uthredii@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
yogthos@lemmy.ml
mossy@lemmy.ml
1003
That's all it is. (lemmy.world)
submitted 5 months ago by BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world to c/antiwork@lemmy.ml
159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Steve@communick.news 12 points 5 months ago (4 children)

No. We suck at naming things. And communication in general.
"Black Lives Matter Too" would have been more clear.
"Replace the Police" would have been better also.

Even mainstream Democrats suck at it. They should be shouting every day, how they're taking on big corp's, going after antitrust abuses and unpaid taxes; While refusing to audit anyone making less than $250,000. But instead they just keep saying some variation of "The economy's great, stupid."

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They would have willfully misinterpreted both of those alternatives and convinced you they were poorly named anyways.

[–] Steve@communick.news 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

They may have willfully misrepresented, but couldn't really have an excuse to mistakenly misinterpret them. That was our bad.

[–] Nevoic@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Is your argument that a genuine, good faith interpretation of "Black Lives Matter" is "Only Black Lives Matter"?

This isn't how English works. If I say "I like your mom" to an SO, they wouldn't interpret it as I don't like them and instead like their mom. I don't have to say "I like your mom too".

[–] Steve@communick.news -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Anyone coming back with "all lives matter" proves the ease of confusion over the slogan.

My own immediate response to it was "Yah, of course they do. All lives matter. Why single out Black lives? The police shouldn't be killing anyone."

I'm not going to try mind read anyone else.

[–] Nevoic@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

People who go out and counter protest actively have given it more than a cursory thought. They know BLM isn't advocating for white genocide (okay, most of them understand this. There are some literal nazis/skin heads/white nationalists in the counter protesting groups that believe in The Great Replacement, but they believed this prior to BLM existing).

Yet they still go out and counter protest. It's not confusion at that point. You can't go up to an all lives matter reactionary and say "Hey! Did you know BLM doesn't actually want to murder all white people? Are you a fan of BLM now?" and actually expect any progress.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago

Why single out Black lives?

Isn’t that kind of the point of BLM?

[–] timmymac@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

It should have been called of course black lives matter then move on from the stupid race baiting movement and get back to living.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 months ago

Law enforcement based on the Peelian principles is not a tennable thing. Sure, every US beat officer will learn it in training but they also learn the public is the enemy, which has been the way of things for over a century.

if we could imagine a new age of policing, it would involve much less enforcement and much more prevention, mostly disincentivising people from engaging in desperation crime. Heck, we might even end retributive sentencing for a more restorative system.

If we dropped our current law enforcement -- the whole thing -- and turned to investigating and intercepting elite deviance (white collar crime) we would save more lives, prevent more damage and more cost by orders of magnitude. Not that law enforcement actually does much to reduce crime.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

"too" implies

a) they don't matter yet

and

b) mattering is a new concept we should consider.

The statement is clear without modifier and requires no qualification, clarification or context: do black lives matter or not?

Or to take the inverse: under what circumstances do black lives not matter? If the answer is "there are none" then obviously black lives matter.

[–] Naboo_calls_for_aid@sopuli.xyz 4 points 5 months ago

You're not wrong, I guess the biggest issue with it being misconstrued was by people who watch Fox news, but honestly Fox news was gonna find a way to spin it no matter what.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against "too".

Because yah, police specifically, and society generally, have been acting as though black lives don't matter. And the slogan "black lives matter" was created to argue against that idea. But it was easily confusing. Hell I was immediately confused the first time I heard it, and actually thought "Well yah. All lives matter. What are they talking about?" It took me a good min or two to understand. But simply adding the "too" immediately clarifies that.

"Black lives matter" isn't wrong. It's just not immediately as clear as it could be.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Leftists can name things appropriately. You just proved that. It's the "moderate" "liberals" that run the DNC that have the issue. That's just because they are desperately trying to to convince the right that "there won't be any significant changes," while still pandering to the center. They don't care about the left except to make us shut up and sit down.