Holding a BLM Sign In Arkansas

[Akemrelax]

Wow, hard to imagine this reaction where I live  I’m glad it was only the elderly.

@Parththakkar12 I think we can learn a lot from Daryl Davis, he changed many KKK members. I believe in his style of activism. The SJWs aren’t doing what he’s doing.

 

[Parththakkar12]

On 8/5/2020 at 8:44 PM, Parththakkar12 said:

Before doing this, step zero would be to do an honest enquiry on what's to be gained from doing this, what good will this do for yourself or the world. Will this boost your sense of significance? Will it give you a sense of intellectual superiority? Would they want to see what you're about to show them? I'm not saying the selfish reasons are bad, I'm saying it's important to be conscious of them so that your ego doesn't hijack the process.

The first step would be to wake up to the reality that they are a part of You. Leo describes this very well in his video on 'What is the Devil - The Mechanics of Evil'. When you see that, you are able to get insight on what they are missing. It almost always turns out to be something you weren't expecting! When you understand their perspective, you will understand the following - It looks like they're crazy to miss the elephant in the room that is systemic racism, but it's very easy to miss it from their perspective.

Then, you want to get good at communicating. You want to become conscious of projections on your part and their part. It's a good idea to understand why those projections are there. The point of this would be to have clear and coherent communication where you generally trust each other and are on the same page. You also want to become conscious of what their motivations are and what they need, what they're scared of. When you do that from a conscious perspective, you start to have answers for them on how they can get what they want. This makes your opinion very important to them, as importance corresponds to needs/desires. This will make it so that when you talk, they will be all ears.

The next step would be to go ahead and figure out a way to meet their needs. I don't have any business experience, so I'm still figuring out this part. But someone with business experience/marketing experience would be able to figure this out. Also, someone with a background in social work or activism would be able to figure this out.

The hope from this whole process is to first resolve the conflict, then to create incentives for them to wake up to it. What we need to understand is that they can deny it all they want, you can't take away their free will. So waking them up is a vulnerable process for you, where your success/failure entirely depends on what they decide to do.

Adding to this - If you're gonna go through with my solution, I feel it's important to not skip steps and go through the process in the right order. Every step will give insight on how to progress into the next step, if done in the right order. Genuinely being on each other's side, working on effective communication and resolving conflicts are very important prior steps if you look at it from my eyes.

Here's the point - once we have everyone working together to solve this issue, doing it will be much simpler. Then we will have multiple heads coming up with workable ideas on how to resolve this issue. The activists can be leading this process, using all the help that will be much more readily available once the conflicts are resolved. It will be a matter of creatively coming up with solutions. Of course there will be a lot of debate and deliberation even on the workability, feasibility and effectiveness of solutions. But the process will be a lot more frictionless if we're on each other's side and organized together.

[Forestluv]

8 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Here's the point - once we have everyone working together to solve this issue, doing it will be much simpler.

Who is the “everyone working together” and to what is being worked for?

In a roomful of health insurance CEOs, ‘everyone working together’ means designing ways to make billions of dollars in profit with plans that will evict millions of people into homelessness during a pandemic.

With differing self interests, who is the ‘everyone’? 

[Parththakkar12]

41 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Who is the “everyone working together” and to what is being worked for?

The 'everyone working together' is everyone who is a stakeholder in the specific issue we're resolving. What's being worked for will be decided in the process of resolution. The principal problem here is that we have different groups whose agendas clash. People will have to be willing to reconsider their agendas and ask themselves what it is that they're really wanting out of this. A common goal will arise out of that resolution process.

I feel this is important in today's time with the current situation, when there are so many warring agendas and differing perspectives. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but it is definitely worth a shot.

Now you may say 'What if the problem people don't participate in your resolution process?' Maybe they won't. That is the vulnerability of it. We want to do it anyways. Maybe we will have to fight them if they don't participate in the process, but this time it will be to resolve the conflict as opposed to winning it. The end goal of this process is to arrive at a peaceful state where everyone's happy with the result.

43 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

In a roomful of health insurance CEOs, ‘everyone working together’ means designing ways to make billions of dollars in profit with plans that will evict millions of people into homelessness during a pandemic.

'Everyone' in this example does not include the people they're hurting. What it could actually look like is this - they could work with activists who represent people's best interests, or politicians who want M4A and they could come to an agreement, provided everyone is willing to honestly question their agendas.

Is it practical in this situation? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the specifics of this issue.

45 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

In 1800 when 80%+ of white people supported a slave system, does “everyone working together” mean working toward maintaining and expanding slavery? 

This is a different scenario altogether. It depends on whether everyone is in favor of slavery or not in the specific society. The slave masters are of course happy with it, maybe even the slaves are happy with it as their survival needs get taken of by their masters. It is archaic and barbaric if you think about it, but there's gotta be a reason slavery lasted all those centuries.

So 'everyone working together' could mean working toward maintaining and expanding slavery. Or, once Black people start wanting out of slavery and start empowering themselves, then it's a completely different story. Then it would mean White people considering the perspectives of their slaves and letting them go, which is highly unlikely. Because of the nature of the problem and the time we're talking about, 'everyone working together' did not happen. It wasn't the best idea for Black slaves to wait for their masters to let them go, the better option was for them to fight the Civil war.

There are a lot of considerations for whether this strategy will work or not. Things like specifics of the problem we're addressing, the time we're talking about, the willingness of stakeholders, the level of consciousness of people. For example, pre-WW2, the concept of World Peace was not thought of yet. It is when America dropped atom bombs did we really become weary of potential extinction if we didn't keep our wars in check. For the first time in history, we're at a time where our level of consciousness is such that we can aspire to create a peaceful world. If we really want to do this, conflict resolution would be the way to go.

[Scholar]

On 29.7.2020 at 7:54 PM, Forestluv said:

This video shows how the phrase “All Lives Matter” can be used as a shield for racism. Quite often when I speak of inclusion and equality I am told “All Lives Matter” by white people. This is a common response of Blue to Green. 

I observe the same when talking about animal lives. People get offended when you pull something they view as inferior to their level. They cannot let go of viewing others as inferior, so equality to them means that they are being actually pulled down to the level of whatever they view as inferior.

 

They say "Are you comparing humans to pigs?". This is controversial to them because they view the pig as a lesser being. They also get offended when you use words like murder, rape and holocaust in the animal context. To use them in the animal context, in their eyes, means to downplay whatever it means in he human context, rather than to upplay what it means in the animal context.

Saying animals are equal to humans to them means to equalize the human to the level of the pig, when it actually means to equalize the pig to the level of the human.

 

This is far more depraved and unconscious than the racist position.

[Adam M]

Good share!