Ok, so I just wrote a diary in which people assumed that just because I'm criticizing BLM's tactics it must mean that I'm a privileged white guy who loves Bernie Sanders. Gchaucer in particular wrote a diary addressing me directly. Ironically, she makes assumptions about me even as she argues that I'm whitesplaining things on topics I never experienced.
She said:
I actually read a comment that said (paraphrased): "Well, what if someone interrupted something something climate change?" Change the topic if you will -- but you or your kid, today, won't be walking out the door hoping you won't be shot rather than drowned.
I'll address the part about climate change in a second. But here's the thing, when I was a kid a bunch of people in masks tried to barge into our home because we were a poor immigrant family and they didn't want us there. That's right, I'm not a privileged white guy, I grew up a poor immigrant in a predominantly poor black neighborhood, and I feared for my safety while I was there. But I'm not black and I still say that it's easier growing up a poor immigrant kid in America than a poor black kid. I get that I still don't understand what it means to be black because at least when I eventually got out of that awful neighborhood, I could leave my fear behind. And often when I debate racists, I make the same arguments you made. But that's not the discussion I'm having right now.
Right now, I'm talking tactics. And I said that, at least a couple times but, very few responses have actually addressed the issue that I raised. I support the movement and their goals as I said, but I don't support the tactics. And my point about someone interrupting you about global warming is about that. Ironically, when you accuse me of changing the topic, that's exactly what BLM did. And that's ok, I don't mind people protesting at rallies too much, except if they are protesting allies and if they don't stop.
You see we, as regular, have visceral negative reaction when we see people getting shouted down because it's not engaging dialogue. It's one person talking at someone else and not listening to what they have to say in return. This is the definition of BULLY tactics and it's beneath us. It leads to a negative reaction amongst neutral people and doesn't garner any sympathy except amongst people who are already convinced. And people naturally have that reaction because we, as individuals, don't like it when WE get shouted down.
And I can prove that. For the sake of experiment, imagine that you have a burning response to this diary and you want to share it. But, every time you open your mouth I ignore it and start talking about climate change. It doesn't matter what you say, even if you agree that climate change is a huge problem I still keep shouting about it. You would naturally get frustrated and upset and rightly so. Because I'm not engaging in a dialogue with you.
I have to admit Vargas is a classy guy for not ejecting the protesters and sanders is a classy guy for responding well after, but this could have ended better.
If I had to do it, knowing the importance of the issue, I would make sure it happened long enough that they would address the issue, and when they do, I would stay silent. Anything more and you start to alienate people.
I would appreciate it if people addressed the arguments I am making instead of ignoring them and assuming I'm a white guy. My earlier diary was ironically an example of people ignoring what I said and making a straw man and attacking that instead. You can also read all my diaries where I defend Obama during the worst of his presidency here on Dkos if you still think I'm a racist.
And yes, there are minorities and people who care about the issue on both sides, so I would appreciate it if the issue was addressed rather than the person raising it. Even if I was a rich white guy you still need to address the issue.