- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

The Moral Blindness of Identity Politics

Slate’s Jamelle Bouie analyzes the excellent “Black Jeopardy” skit [1] in which Tom Hanks played “Doug,” a Trump supporter who, along with his two black opponents, discovers that they have a lot in common. Bouie:

Then comes the final punchline, “Lives That Matter.” Obviously, the answer to the question is “black.” But Doug has “a lot to say about this.” Which suggests that he doesn’t think the answer is that simple. Perhaps he thinks “all lives matter,” or that “blue lives matter,” the phrasing used by those who defend the status quo of policing and criminal justice. Either way, this puts him in direct conflict with the black people he’s befriended. As viewers, we know that “Black Lives Matter” is a movement against police violence, for the essential safety and security of black Americans. It’s a demand for fair and equal treatment as citizens, as opposed to a pervasive assumption of criminality.

Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can’t sign on to the fact that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers, then that’s the end of the game. Tucked into this six-minute sketch is a subtle and sophisticated analysis of American politics. It’s not that working blacks and working whites are unable to see the things they have in common; it’s that the material interests of the former—freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention, and unjust killings—are in direct tension with the identity politics of the latter (as represented in the sketch by the Trump hat). And in fact, if Hanks’ character is a Trump supporter, then all the personal goodwill in the world doesn’t change the fact that his political preferences are a direct threat to the lives and livelihoods of his new friends, a fact they recognize.

What Bouie doesn’t seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites — and even, at times, their lives (hello, Brian Ogle! [2]).


Consider this insanity from Michigan State University, pointed out by a reader this morning. It’s the Facebook page of Which Side Are You On?  [3], radical student organization whose stated purpose is:

Michigan State University has chosen to remain silent on the issue of racial injustice and police brutality. We demand that the administration release a statement in support of the Movement for Black Lives; and, in doing so, affirms the value of the lives of its students, alumni, and future Spartans of color while recognizing the alienation and oppression that they face on campus. In the absence of open support, MSU is taking the side of the oppressor.

Got that? Either 100 percent agree with them, or you are a racist oppressor. It’s fanatical, and it’s an example of bullying. But as we have seen over the past year, year and a half, Black Lives Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is not affiliated with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality. If they were, this wouldn’t be a hard call. No decent person of any race supports police brutality. To use Bouie’s terms, the material interests of non-progressive white people are often in direct tension with the identity politics of many blacks and their progressive non-black allies. This is true beyond racial identity politics. It’s true of LGBT identity politics also. But progressives can’t see that, because to them, what they do is not identity politics; it’s just politics.

You cannot practice and extol identity politics for groups favored by progressives without implicitly legitimizing identity politics for groups disfavored by progressives.

Good luck getting anyone on the left to recognize the fallacy of special pleading [4] when it’s right in front of their eyes.

81 Comments (Open | Close)

81 Comments To "The Moral Blindness of Identity Politics"

#1 Comment By KD On October 26, 2016 @ 6:55 am

To paraphrase FiveString:

Some of my best friends are supporters of police brutality.

In all seriousness, if one’s identity preference is for dominance by your group, then obviously, a member of your group dominating the other group isn’t going to bother you. Nor, on the other side, will you be troubled if your group shoots perceived agents of the other side. But note, the justification for racial primacy or racial supremacy is always rhetorically made by asserting claims or the threat of racial primacy or racial supremacy by the Other. Further, racial tensions are always caused by the behavior of the Other, and your groups actions are always “self defense”. Of course, your actions are always portrayed as “aggression” by the Other, and lead to ratcheting up of anti-social behavior, but hey.

I sort of assume that is not how most whites feel, but the reality is whether it is or not, if you turn the political question from legal equality for blacks to legal primacy or dominance, then you will push whites into taking the adversary position.

In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics, political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the “outbid” the other party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake. Its a good way to destroy a democracy.

I love “Black Lives Matter” as a slogan, because it is ambiguous enough to be either a claim for dominance or primacy. Obviously, whether a BLM will support the assertion “All Lives Matter” is a litmus test for whether they are asserting racial supremacy or racial primacy. But plausible deniability is baked in.

#2 Comment By a commenter On October 26, 2016 @ 8:18 am

I don’t mind identity politics, by which I assume you mean people appealing to voters to vote for their pet interest because it will help people with a particular set of characteristics or “identity”. This is just people looking out for and lobbying the voting public on their interests, which is what democracy is all about.

What I don’t like is the stunning illogic and flawed reasoning behind some of the appeals, such as the “you’re either with BLM or against black people” arguments, the policing of miniscule variations in speech (eg pronouns) as signs of haaaaaaaate, and the labeling of all white people as “white supremacists” unless they self-flagellate and take personal blame for all the police shootings. And, I think these people know that the reasoning is flawed. It’s just that they also know that if you repeat it long and loud enough and have enough leaders behind you willing to fire or otherwise silence anyone who points out the flaws in your arguments, then you can convince everyone that it all makes sense.

I think what is being lost is really the underlying logic of morality itself. Kids are being taught that it doesn’t matter what your intention is, it doesn’t matter what your reasoning is, it doesn’t even matter whether an outcome is predictable from your action. What matters is how the people in identity groups feel about your action. It’s consequentialism run amok.

It’s as if someone took Catholic reasoning on morality (grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent, don’t do wrong things in order to achieve good ends, principle of double effect), reversed it, and then decided that this upside-down reasoning will be our new publicly mandated morality.

It’s fascinating to watch but I feel a bit frightened for my children, because they will have to deal with this new and deeply flawed public morality.

#3 Comment By M. F. Bonner On October 26, 2016 @ 9:29 am

“Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy.”

For the most part, probably a fair observation. And it only took a couple of hundred years (or more, depending on where you chose to say “white identity politics” started and when (or if) you chose to say it ended).

Low long have black identity politics had any influence?

How long does it take, and at what “price” to atone for the past? Haven’t we been grappling with that since Lincoln’s second inaugural address?

Will black identity politics be around longer than that? And when will white identity politics end? Not to mention all of the other identity politics in society. But, identity politics always takes at least two sides. You can never have identity politics without “the other.” Black identity politics wouldn’t last without white identity politics, and vice versa. So too for feminism identity politics, religious identity politics…and…so…on… Each has its counterpart on the other side.

In a perfect world, identity politics would not exist, but in the real world, they have existed for as long as politics.

Not that I don’t see some hope. By and large, the younger generation gives me every hope that, some day, we might get over this, but probably not until a few score more generational replacements happen. But that too, might be a source of reassurance. A few score generations isn’t really that long a time, after all.

#4 Comment By JWJ On October 26, 2016 @ 9:50 am

Jesse wrote “62% of white people have either a “great deal” or a “quite a lot” of confidence in the police – ( [5]) – I’m not saying all 62% of those people are OK with police brutality, but they seem not to be that bothered by it.”

How in the blue blazes do you possibly do you go from folks having confidence in the police to them ALSO NOT being bothered by police brutality? How are those two things linked in your mind? Can you not possibly fathom that another human being could have confidence in an institution (or a group) while ALSO condemning the bad actors in that institution (or group)? Or in your mind do a few bad actors condemn an entire group?

Here is your “logic” re-written in another way. Does it help you see my point?
61% of non-white people have either “very little” or a “no” of confidence in the police. I’m not saying all 61% of those people are OK with attacking or murdering the police, but they seem not to be that bothered by it.

Now possibly I am the only who finds your thought process disturbing and wonders how many other folks make the same leap of absurdity.

#5 Comment By DennisR On October 26, 2016 @ 9:57 am

In reply the religious liberty comments, I think almost everyone who supports BLM would say that it is about giving African Americans basic human rights in the United States. You might not agree with that, but that’s how things stand from their point of view. To many liberals, religious liberty seems like special pleading, even though to you it seems like the advancement of a universal principal.

#6 Comment By GSW On October 26, 2016 @ 11:03 am

“All politics is identity politics!” @Ferny

“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.” Karl Marx

“All that is not race in this world is trash… All historical events… are only the expression of the race’s instinct of self-preservation.” Adolf Hitler

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” Groucho Marx

#7 Comment By The Wet One On October 26, 2016 @ 11:54 am


So we basically agree that people are the same all over. Which is to say terrible, awful, nasty beasts. Good.

For the second time (possibly the third, I know we agreed it was Miller time once upon a time) we agree.

I guess that’s progress.


#8 Comment By KD On October 26, 2016 @ 12:40 pm

I do not think that all politics is “identity” politics.

The Populists going after the gold standard, or the New Dealers attempting to deal with the problems of labor and capital, where not primarily about identity politics.

Certainly, there was lots of identity politics on the state level, whether in the South, or in states like NY, in the battle between upstate WASPs and ethnic political machines in NYC.

Today we are increasingly nationalizing identity politics. Moreover, we are mainstreaming a slogan based on racial primacy /supremacy, e.g. “Black Lives Matter”. You are seeing increasing attacks on traditional American symbols and calls for their replacement with “diverse” symbols. This is not just identity politics, it is ethnopolitics.

The reality is that the political symbol is in the heart of the people a promise that they’ll be treated preferentially. I think that is part of the racial tension post-Obama. We elected an African-American, who appointed a lot of African-Americans, but on the street, he hasn’t done $#!+ to help Blacks.

Now, if I thought that whites would just lay down and not resist racial subjugation and discrimination, I wouldn’t be concerned. But I doubt whites are seriously going to go gracefully into that good night as the bottom rung of a racial caste system.

“Virtue signaling” is very different from “virtue”–you can’t tell a white nationalist from a white liberal based on their housing or dating preferences.

If whites collectively grow to FEAR other groups politically, say due to demographic displacement and claims by minorities for primacy/supremacy, they will change teams overnight. All this anti-racism rhetoric presupposes white noblese oblige and security.

Any serious movement from equality to some claim of primacy or supremacy is likely to trigger a counter-movement toward a claim of primacy or supremacy by the other group. Moreover, once you polarize racially, the political process encourages extremism, not moderation.

One reason not to worship the U.S. Constitution is the limited understanding of factionalism by Madison, who accounted for interest group factions (which can break up or wax and wane) but failed to consider identity group factions based on immutable characteristics. It is these identity-based factions which frequently destroy attempts to create liberal democracy the world over.

The reality is that representative democracy is only an effective system in ethnically homogeneous societies with a strong ethic of individualism (rooted in Protestant ancestors). While Korea and Japan get along politically, their political systems are “different” from a Western perspective, mostly due to lower levels of individualism.

China is probably a better model for most countries than liberal democracy, because multiethnic societies generally degenerate into authoritarianism anyway.

This is why, given multiculturalism and secularism, the likelihood of a serious institutional transformation in America seems increasingly a certain bet.

#9 Comment By Rick On October 26, 2016 @ 1:56 pm

Here’s the brutal truth. We created Black Lives Matter.

We did it with 400 years of brutal policies, physical violence, economic apartheid and ill conceived do gooder nonsense that could not even begin to counter the former impacts.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s you had one branch of the Federal Government — the Federal Housing Authority– both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result of FHA red-lining polices that were was causing the decay — total madness. The black community has yet to recover from that by the way — trillions in lost equity in today’s dollars.

We are incredibly lucky to JUST have Black Lives Matter. It’s a miracle that the black community hasn’t amassed in force and burned large swaths of this country to the ground peppering us with automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure.

It’s a testament to their fortitude, generosity and patience as a people. That they have formed this group is inevitable.

To lump BLM in with the white coddled SJW ignores their unique history and context. BLM has no obligation whatsoever to be rational, or contrite, or forgiving, or magnanimous.

What has that ever gotten them in this country? Here’s a hint, f%$k all. That’s what it’s gotten them.

[NFR: Well, BLM can behave however it wants to, but don’t be surprised if being irrational and bullying gets you nowhere, except on campus run by noodle-spined administrators. — RD]

#10 Comment By KD On October 26, 2016 @ 2:18 pm

On the other hand, the notion of color-blind standards is a joke.

If you belong to a group that has an average IQ of 100 in economic competition with a group that has an average IQ of 85, and you believe that hiring/firing be based on merit, you are promoting a standard that benefits your group over the other guys.

Likewise, if you are from the second group, you are arguing for proportional representation in the work force (and especially the elite), and you are promoting a standard that benefits your group over the other guys.

If you look at Anglo-Saxons v. Blacks, Anglo-Saxons always want meritocracy.

However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were competing against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. They also generated a lot of Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories blaming their failures on Jewish nepotism, rather than say Jews just being smarter.

The problem for America is someone will decide on a standard, and that decision will privilege one group over another. Always.

The more groups, the more divisive and polarizing each decision becomes, until democracy stops being capable of functioning, e.g. making decisions, even bad ones.

You can have “racial equality”, but not “racial equality” in accordance with a definition that all groups will ever agree upon. Further, many persons in all groups will secretly desire supremacy no matter the rhetoric, so will work to undermine and limit nominal “equality” every political chance they get.

#11 Comment By Mary On October 26, 2016 @ 2:54 pm

” A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy”

And what has it done? American social capital has been destroyed, our society is slowly turning into an atomized hell, and our politics will increasingly resemble tribal warfare. The fiction that we could make race irrelevant needs to die, group differences are real and ethnic tribalism is hardwired into humans by our DNA. Our founders chose to limit citizenship to whites of good character for a reason, just as Japan seeks to remain Japanese for a reason. Diversity + close proximity = war

#12 Comment By VikingLs On October 26, 2016 @ 3:09 pm

All politics is not identity politics. America has a rich tradition in positions of relative privilege taking on the political cause of disenfranchised groups.

Given how many well off white people, including men, are Democrats, I really don’t see why progressives would even make that argument.

#13 Comment By Pepi On October 26, 2016 @ 4:07 pm

This article showed me how many people in the US live a completely different life than I do. Not only did it change my understanding of race relations and prompt a great deal more study but it made me more aware, generally, of how little I know of how the other 99.9% live.


#14 Comment By Jeff R. On October 26, 2016 @ 4:49 pm

Lots of hypocrites in this comment thread commenting that “identity politics is just politics, period.” Okay, white nationalism it is, then! Time to bring David Duke back out from whatever rock he’s been under and put him at the top of the ticket. Maybe Louis Farrakhan can run for something, too. After all, why would anti-semitism ever go out of fashion, anyway! Isnt’ that just identity politics which is just regular politics, like marginal tax cuts and subsidies for electric cars?


#15 Comment By Liberty&Virtue On October 26, 2016 @ 4:51 pm

A few comments:

-I don’t think it’s that difficult to understand the anger, stridency, and even vitriol coming from SJW/BLM supporters. With BLM, it’s a mostly righteous indignation over a long history of abusive police tactics and laws, exploded by multiple recent captured instances of police abuse.

As for LGBTQ-issues, I think many advocates–especially those in the vanguard–view themselves as participants in the Second Civil Rights Movement–that the laws and cultural attitudes they are fighting against are analogous to Jim Crow and racism. There is some degree of truth to this.

The danger comes with the disturbingly common–or at least effective–practice of refusing to grant their opponents *any* goodwill. Like racists, opponents of full legal and cultural inclusion–if not acceptance–are deemed to be totally devoid of any redeeming features, and thus ought to be opposed relentlessly and by any means necessary. The same goes for those who aren’t indulgent or repentant enough. We can partly thank the poisonous legacy of Marcuse’s “tolerance” for this. We can also thank old-fashioned lust for power–especially to take down “the elite” or to take revenge–and the intoxicating feeling of being on the cutting edge of righteousness.

How do you deal with this? As KD suggested above, if one group sees itself as against others and acts accordingly, then those others will fall into the “tribal struggle” mindset as well. If extremist social justice advocates (SJAs) define themselves in opposition to other attitudes, values, etc–and more importantly, if they refuse to engage in respectful dialogue and are not willing to compromise–then those who endorse those attitudes, values, etc will inevitably see themselves as being defined through opposition to SJAs. Thus the poison of identity politics–it exacerbates, rather than seeks to contain Us vs Them antagonism.

The only ways I see out of it are direct, full-throated defenses of SJA’s targets–such as last year’s “Coddling of the American Mind” and U Chicago’s defense of free expression and respectful challenging debate. Ignoring it–as many seem wont to do by dismissals of “oh, they’re just stupid college kids, they’ll grow out of it”–isn’t viable because though many will, some will pursue positions of power and influence. Besides, the less challenged, the more the extreme views will be seen as respectable if not correct.

-The debate over which groups are or are not practicing identity politics: In (academic) political theory, “identity politics” narrowly refers to a style of politics based on the self-organization of *oppressed* groups and pursuit of policy changes to their advantage. Identity comes to the forefront of members of oppressed groups’ consciousness because it is that defining characteristic that puts them in an inferior position.

The way some have described it here suggests it’s more like practicing politics in a way meant to provide benefits for oneself–but that’s just self-interest. A better broad view of identity politics would focus on the deliberate and open advocacy of benefits for a particular group one is a member of, when that group is defined by a specific and fundamental trait relevant to one’s sense of self. In other words, if the phrase “As a (adjective) (personal-characteristic noun), I believe/support/oppose X” is central to your approach to politics, you’re practicing identity politics.

#16 Comment By Axxr On October 26, 2016 @ 5:28 pm

JWJ, you are missing the entire point of identity politics.

The morality inheres in the identity, not in the behavior.

If brutality occurs, it is not a behavior, it is an identity (“Police”). If you are confident in “Police” you are thus confident in “brutality” because the behavior is not separable from the identity. And for similar reasons, your confidence in brutes means that you, too are a brute (of course this goes double if you are white, since all whites are brutes, for similar reasons).

Identity politics is the refusal to separate identity from acts. Whiteness *is* slaveowning, blackness *is* victimhood, and so on, regardless of whether one has ever owned or been a slave; these things are irrelevant; they inhere in the identity.

#17 Comment By Loudon is a Fool On October 26, 2016 @ 6:08 pm

@ M F Bonner

How long does it take, and at what “price” to atone for the past? Haven’t we been grappling with that since Lincoln’s second inaugural address?

But here’s the problem. It’s not like the whites who are supporting Trump got fat, rich and happy during their period of “white identity.” Whatever privilege attaches to whiteness it hasn’t exactly trickled down (even in a Trumped-up fashion) to Trump voters. No doubt Mr. Bonner is either upper middle class or high status (academic, journalist or government employee). But low status whites see the world a bit differently. This is the real tragedy (or, if you’re a fat cat, the beauty) of the situation. The lower classes will always fight among themselves for scraps, the high status (but often low pay) elites would scold the various parties for their various thoughtcrimes and the fat cats will high five and do the truffle shuffle, bouncing their greased bellies against each other. Thanks for doing your part.

#18 Comment By M_Young On October 26, 2016 @ 8:23 pm

“Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side.”

No, when correcting for crime rates, there is no racial discrepancy in police killings. In fact, blacks are underrepresented and whites overrepresent, given the underlying proportion of criminality in the communities.

“Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress,

Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment. ”

Uh, Hilary “whites must listen” Clinton. And lots more.

#19 Comment By M_Young On October 26, 2016 @ 8:28 pm

“However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were competing against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. ”

Why shouldn’t the people who, you know, built the universities remain in charge of them? No one asks Brandeis to become a WASP bastion.

#20 Comment By M_Young On October 26, 2016 @ 8:30 pm

“In the 1950’s and 1960’s you had one branch of the Federal Government — the Federal Housing Authority– both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result of FHA red-lining polices that were was causing the decay — total madness. The black community has yet to recover from that by the way — trillions in lost equity in today’s dollars”

LOL, someone’s been drinking the TNC Kool-aid (purple, I imagine). It causes people to reverse causality.

The neighborhoods were redlined because they were poor risk. They were poor risk because of their demographic composition.

#21 Comment By M_Young On October 26, 2016 @ 8:32 pm

“It’s a miracle that the black community hasn’t amassed in force and burned large swaths of this country to the ground peppering us with automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure.”

Uh, they have. See Detroit.

#22 Comment By VikingLS On October 26, 2016 @ 8:39 pm

There’s not one word in the BLM guiding principles page about the police. Not one word. If you go to their home pager and click on “what we believe” this is what you get.


Black Lives Matter may be talking about police brutality right now, but by their own words, it’s not their primary cause.

#23 Comment By Caroline walker On October 26, 2016 @ 11:25 pm

Criminality matters.

#24 Comment By Esti On October 27, 2016 @ 7:17 am

If we would look into how much blacks have been killed by the police last year, the figure will be about few hundred at maximum. If we would look into the same category for whites, the result will be few thouthands, minimum. If we look into the statistics abut the main cause of death for the same period, it will be black on black homicide for blacks and car accident for whites. Also, blacks are about 13% of the American population or so, but make at least as much homicides as whites do. And most homicides are comitted within offenders race group.

If anything, whites become targets of poluce brutality much more often. And yet, BLM are out there preching, as if police is hunting them for no reason. That’s everything you need to know about BLM and their so called care about black lives.

That’s the main problems with such groups. They don’t really want to improve the lot of the groups they are supposedly fighting for. They are just exaggerating the problem and imitating fighting for something important, because they’ll get money and recognition for it. Without real risk to boot.

#25 Comment By John Smith On October 27, 2016 @ 8:57 am

The BLM radical movement is built on a lie. Blacks are 12% of the population yet commit 53% of murders and 70% of gun crime. In this era of cell phones, know the number of black people who have dubious interactions with police, thanks to the scandalous behavior of the news media. We can be sure police brutality is not an epidemic because the examples offered as evidence are,at best , dubious. Each example given, eg Ferguson Missouri or Trayvon Martin, are at best arguably due to the bad behavior by the black person. The real epidemic is black crime, black fatherlessness, and too many people indulging this “I’m a victim” culture. Shame on you Mr. Dreher for delineation this into a black and white cipher in this article. The entire country suffers from this epidemic of black crime and the false narrative that black people are mistreated by society. This is just another example of the madness on the political left the radical extreme hateful positions that are exposed on that side it seems solely.

#26 Comment By The Wet One On October 27, 2016 @ 5:15 pm

So all I’m getting from the comments here is that the human species ought to have been consumed in nuclear fires in a WWIII which unfortunately did not come to pass (perhaps now is the time to start building more nukes. Maybe Trump is the answer we’re looking for…) and more evidence that God messed up by not destroying us in the Flood.

Ah well.

It’s just another day.

#27 Comment By DGJ On October 27, 2016 @ 5:22 pm


“Nobody speaks up for the poor,” says Walsh, explaining Trump’s appeal to those she grew up with. “There is systemic racism but black people have advocates. Poor white people don’t. They’re afraid. They’re afraid that they’re stupid. They don’t feel racist, they don’t feel sexist, they don’t want to offend people or say the wrong thing. But for them white privilege is like a blessing and a curse if you’re poor. The whole idea pisses poor white people off because they’ve never experienced it on a level that they understand.

#28 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 27, 2016 @ 5:59 pm

Umkm… John Smith, Trayvon Martin’s case had nothing to do with “police brutality.” You make the same error as “Black Lives Matter” (TM). Martin was maliciously stalked by a man who was by no means a police officer, although he may have harbored wannabe fantasies. Let’s not conflate unlike things and call them like categories.

#29 Comment By JonF On October 28, 2016 @ 2:26 pm

Moreover there is zero evidence that Trayvon was doing anything wrong except walking down the sidewalk babbling on a cell phone when Zimmerman decided he was a suspicious character. He was not armed, had not just stolen anything, was not high* on anything, etc.

*I think there may have been evidence of cannabis in his system, but that sticks around for days to weeks after one smokes it.

#30 Comment By Mia On October 29, 2016 @ 6:12 pm

“No decent person of any race supports police brutality.”

People keep saying this, but I have never known this to be true. As a white victim of police brutality 20 years ago with a very clear-cut case of an illegal arrest that I had ample documentation of that, I found very many people in my own community were quite happy to join in with the mud slinging against me. I was pretty much forced to stop talking about what happened and trying to get something done about it after the first two years of running into brick wall after brick wall. I couldn’t even hire a lawyer. It is not the default position of the vast majority of the white community at all. As one man put it to me, if they can get away with it, the more power to them. The black community, however, doesn’t have a problem naming the issue, so they have taken the lead on this reform. (Don’t bother with all of the Soros stuff, Communists often come into countries exploiting real problems that do exist for their own ends. If you don’t want them to exploit it, fix it.)

This publication is one of the few I have found on the right that even admits there is a problem; meanwhile, Frontpage Mag for example has gone batsh-t crazy condemning anyone even questioning any bad behavior on the part of the judiciary/police/DAs as being identical as someone who wants them all dead! I for one am tired of the way this whole issue is being handled on both sides, and those of us who actually know what is going on because we had it happen to us and have been paying attention to the issue longer than the past two years need to speak up.

While I don’t agree with the co-opted BLM movement, which is all Third Wave Feminist activists rather than the earnest little girls who had a good point that I agree with in starting it, it has finally taken the stranglehold off of the silence I have been forced to maintain about what was done to me for decades. So yeah, I get more than a little irritated with the “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” nonsense. Why? Because the issue of police brutality and other justice system problems have been swept under the rug for a long time, and it keeps getting worse. Other reform groups are allowed to have their say about pet issues without being co-opted or pushed to make stands on unrelated issues that other groups are handling to prove their sincerity. Are pro-life activists harangued for not having a position on the children starving in Africa? See, this is what it sounds like to us. It’s just another way of not talking about the problem. I’ve actually learned when I see either slogan brought up, no matter how good the argument started, I click away. Thanks for playing.

#31 Comment By Fran Macadam On October 30, 2016 @ 9:19 pm

“Here’s the brutal truth. We created Black Lives Matter.”

What do you mean “We,” paleface?

I thought it was the three transgender, LGBTQ and illegal immigrant SJW lady advocates.