Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, No Lives Matter

This is going to sound like a rant - it's not. This is me trying to think through a problem. <br><br>So I grew up with the understanding that racism is bad, and that we should be more accepting of others. I remember as a young man people claiming that we were moving towards a post-racial society. I have never felt that way. Not only that, I believed that we were moving in the wrong direction. <br><br>So then Black Lives Matter happened and it seemed like a good - or at the very least positive - thing. They were raising awareness about police brutality and about how black people were being targeted. I remember reading articles in major publications about how the movement was gaining steam, how it was raising awareness of very real issues in the black community, and how it was inspiring a new generation of activists. <br><br>Then, a few months later, it seemed like everyone hated BLM. The All Lives Matter movement had formed, and while I didn't agree with their take, I did feel that BLM had gone off the rails. The police were under attack, not just as an institution, but as individual members of the public. There was rioting on both sides, people were dying, and it felt like the conversation had been hijacked by radical elements on both sides. I was particularly disheartened by the attitude of some members of the BLM movement, who seemed to openly call for violence against police. <br><br>Then, two years ago, the George Floyd protests happened. The BLM movement exploded back into the mainstream, and this time it felt like they had largely won the day. The media and the public at large were creating an entirely new paradigm around how people talked about race. Discussion of bigotry and prejudice was widespread, and seemed to be centered on the idea that "racism" was not just problematic, but that it was an active obstacle to progress. This was the point that I really became disillusioned with the whole thing. The conversation had been hijacked by radical elements, to the point where any dissent was seen as not only problematic, but as actively immoral. The whole conversation was centered on the assumption that the legacy of historical racism combined with the specter of present-day prejudice meant that race would always be a flashpoint. It seemed that the whole conversation was centered on the idea of irreconcilability - that there was a divide, not just between races, but within races. <br><br>Fast forward to today. The George Floyd protests are mostly a memory, and the BLM protests have been replaced by Anti-Critical Race Theory protests, Anti-Vaccine Mandate protests, and Pro-Abortion protests. In a lot of ways it feels like the whole conversation around race has died. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it feels like the whole thing was a massive waste of time. It's not like the conversation is dead because the issues have been resolved; the conversation is dead because it seems like the whole thing devolved into radical posturing. <br><br>This seemed to happen in part because of social media. The radical elements on both sides - QAnon-esque conspiracy theorists on one side, intersectionalists on the other - were able to create an "us versus them" attitude that was impossible to ignore. If you were on Twitter, you likely saw hundreds of tweets over the past few years about how Trump was a racist, or how BLM was a terrorist organization. If you were on Facebook, you saw thousands of posts - not just from your friends and family, but from the algorithm itself - about how the country was being divided. This conversation created a massive amount of social pressure, the kind of pressure that meant that you had to pick a side, lest you be seen as complicit or problematic. <br><br>I didn't want to pick a side. I felt like the whole conversation was spurious and that it was being driven by radical elements on both sides. I believed, and still believe, that the vast majority of people do not want to be bigoted or prejudiced. I felt, and still feel, that the majority of people in our society recognize that prejudice is problematic, and that they want to be fair and equitable in their dealings with others. <br><br>The reason that I didn't say anything about this at the time is that I was afraid of being called a racist. I was afraid that if I came out against BLM, I would be lumped in with the radical right. I was afraid that if I said that I believed in the principles of liberalism - namely, that all people should be treated fairly, regardless of race or creed or color or religion or whatever - I would be seen as being actively reactionary. <br><br>Of course, not everyone felt this way. There were plenty of people who spoke out against BLM and against CRT. Many of these people were labeled as reactionaries or racists. Many of them actually were. Some of them were even radicalized by their hatred of BLM and the media and the government and society. To listen to some people on the right, you would think that the ills of modern society could be laid entirely at the feet of the media and the deep state, and that anyone who thought differently was complicit. <br><br>So, in the end, what was accomplished? It feels like we went through the three stages of a relationship: romance, followed by disillusionment, followed by rampant anger and resentment. <br><br>- In the first stage, people were excited to talk about race. They were excited to listen to the stories of members of the black community, and to learn about how racism had affected their lives. They were excited to talk about how we could solve the problems of racism, and to create a better world for everyone. This was a period of optimism and idealism, and it was incredibly inspiring to see. <br>- In the second stage, people began to see the problems. They began to see that some members of the BLM movement were not interested in creating a better world - they were interested in tearing down the existing one. They began to see that some members of the black community were not interested in reconciliation, but were instead interested in fostering anger and resentment. <br>- In the third stage, the relationship exploded. Members of the BLM movement were openly calling for violence against police, and against members of the white community. Members of the white community were openly calling for violence against members of the black community, and against anyone who they saw as a collaborator. The media at large was continuing to throw gasoline on the fire, pointing out any example of bigotry that they could find, and creating a narrative around how the biggest divisions in society were divisions of race. <br><br>So what was accomplished? What was the result of all this anger and resentment and bitterness and hatred? <br><br>It feels like the only result was further division, further polarization. The radical elements on both sides were able to hijack the conversation and drive a massive wedge between people. They took our desire to help others, our desire to listen and to learn, and they twisted it into anger and hatred and resentment. They took our desire to create a better world and they twisted it into a desire for conflict, a desire to see our enemies burn. <br><br>So what's the takeaway? What can we learn from this? <br><br>The only thing that I can see is that creating a better world is not something that you do through social media, or through radical posturing. Creating a better world, creating a society that is more equitable and more just, is something that you have to do in your personal life. It is something that you have to do through your actions, not through your words. <br><br>It is something that you have to do by listening to - and empathizing with - other people. It is something that you have to do by engaging with people who disagree with you, not by attacking them or dehumanizing them. It is something that you have to do by being willing to compromise, not by digging in your heels. <br><br>If we want to create a better world, we need to be willing to engage with other people - not as enemies, not as irreconcilable adversaries, not as representatives of warring factions. We need to engage with them as people. <br><br>If we want to create a better world, we need to be willing to listen - to listen to their stories, to listen to their fears and their insecurities, to listen to their opinions. We need to listen to what they have to say, and we need to try to understand their perspective. <br><br>And we need to be willing to change our minds. If we want to create a better world, we need to be willing to evolve, to adapt, to change. We need to be willing to say "I don't know" and "I was wrong." We need to be willing to take a step back, to re-evaluate our values, and to change our opinions. <br><br>So what is the answer? The answer, the only answer, is empathy. If we want to create a better world, we need to be willing to put ourselves in other people's shoes. We need to be willing to feel what they feel, not just to listen to what they have to say. We need to be willing to imagine ourselves in their situation, to imagine what it would be like to walk a mile in their shoes. <br><br>And then, once we've done all that, once we've listened and empathized and evaluated and changed our opinions, only then are we ready to act. Only then are we ready to start building a better world. <br><br>But if we want to create a better world, we need to be willing to engage with other people. We need to be willing to listen to their stories and opinions. And we need to be willing to change our minds. <br><br>So, to everyone who is still willing to listen, I urge you to do just that. Let's start a conversation.