or otherwise disagree with them in public?

majority, we cannot at all expect prioritization of our issues. clearly, because our lives and our priorities are not as important.

don't get me wrong, i strongly believe income inequality is a huge problem, but addressing only that will not fix why black people are getting killed by cops, or being incarcerated at incredible rates although their drug use is less than that of white people.

of their own free will--it must have been some white person's idea somewhere.

It couldn't possibly be that people seeking to raise awareness of their cause would target a successful presidential candidate. No, they don' think for themselves, it must be some white person--Hillary, George Soros, Karl Rove--who are pulling their strings.

SMH.

as though those donors control the leaders of blacklivesmatter.

SO RIDICULOUS

away from us???

You know I love and respect the shit out of you.

get their issues on the front burner it becomes "divisive". None of us are so simple minded that we don't know who's left standing when minorities and women are relegated to the background either.

we are told that our issues are clearly not as important.

I think the NN action was a success for them.

Are we talking about it or not? I had not heard of this group prior, but it seems as though they are doing good things. They are a voice that should be listenned to, not shoved aside.

I suspect the candidates will grow and hopefully let these views have a spot at the discussion table.

and was defensive as a result.

i fault people who pretend that these people should see the bigger picture and remove their 'distracting issue'. that's what bothers me. the fact that there are Democrats who think the injustices black people are dealing with in the criminal justice system, is a small issue. it's really not.

Smart phones and internet have allowed information to get out that was previously hidden from the public eye. The veil has been lifted on how widespread the police violence and injustice against POC is. My white privilege has sheltered me from first hand knowledge, but I am now able to see how bad it is. I stand in support of their cause.

HRC was heavily criticized for saying "all lives matter."

So there they both were, with a golden opportunity to connect with that audience, and yet neither handled it well. First O'Malley actually said "white lives matter"; and then Sanders, seeing the response O'Malley got, threatened to leave the stage.

Relative to how it usually goes it was amazing, the protesters were given the stage and a mic. Two videos, one is candidate Bill Clinton, 1992, going after an ACT UP activist. The second is Barack Obama shaming and ejecting an undocumented trans woman for disrupting a speech he was giving at the WH. Just for comparison. Both are examples of what usually happens when one does such things.

in case you were wondering...

There are people who legitimately worry, for example, about Climate Change and who believe all other issues pale by comparison because if all human life is extinguished nothing else will matter.

They certainly can (and should) state their case to try and convince others of its importance. But if they try to shout you down or call you a dismissive jerk (or variations of that) for believing that racism is also important, then that person is being needlessly divisive and self defeating. And they sure aren't going to win you over to support their way of thinking that way. On the contrary, they are going to get your back up.

That goes for all issues, racism included.

pointed this out when it came to how Caitlyn Jenner was being embraced as a woman while Serena Williams has consistently been castigated, ridiculed for her "non-femininity" for years, we were silenced and/or accused of being bigots.

It happens every single time.

We cannot have a movement or highlight the critical importance of issues that uniquely impact us without being shut down and/or accused of not embracing others' needs.

The saddest part? No other segment of the population has been more forgiving, more embracing, or have been asked or forced to accept other people's pain and forego our own than black people.

That's true.

tackle one issue at a time.
We can tackle income inequality, climate change, racism, sexism etc at the same time. I kinda get the feeling that the answer to the "Big Issues" involves fixing up the "Divisive Issues" as well. But that's just me.

1.) Mocking copycat threads that turn an individual disagreement about a particular current issue into two competing versions of "what is wrong with everyone at DU"

2.) People using "we" as if they are part of the problem when they issue sweeping condemnations of DU, but really meaning "YOU people" and exempting themselves from the negativity of which they are accusing everyone else

Sometimes I wonder if the awful negativity and condemnation and cluelessness etc. are less traits of individuals or groups here, and more embedded in the very essence of partisan politics.

When I used "we" I really did mean We. I will freely admit that I can be as much of an a'hole as anyone else here.

I try to follow my better instincts on DU, and have, over the years, been engaged in many debates (and even heated arguments) with people, but the discussions stayed respectful and good natured and good humored.

However, when someone makes the differences personalized and hostile and rigidly dogmatic, I respond likewise. Guilty as charged.

My vent was not about disagreement but the "You don't agree with me 100 percent so you're a jerk" tone that too often infests DU and the left side in general.

As an "almost-white" DUer, I find the "you people vs us" rhetoric over race demeaning and exclusive.

As a "border state" DUer, I find the "those people need to be gotten rid of" rhetoric against southerners demeaning and exclusive.

As a gay but not particularly vocal about it DUer, I find the "you people in the straight community" and "you gay people" rhetoric equally demeaning and exclusive.

As someone who is totally sympathetic to everyone's religious experiences, and totally unsympathetic to anyone's religious beiief systems, I find the "you believers' vs. "you atheists" hatemongering equally demeaning and exclusive.

If this site can't find a reason to exist other than demeaning and excluding progressives, or racially ambiguous and ambivalent people, or regionally ambiguous and ambivalent people, or religiously ambiguous and ambivalent people, it's sunk. It's all about extremists demeaning one another.

thank you...

Racism is something social scientists and psychologists have been exploring for decades. It stretches across history and practically every culture that has existed in advanced civilization has racism to some degree.

You are not going to solve this by passing a bill in Congress or the President signing an executive order. Racism in America today is a social/cultural problem, it's not so much a political one anymore. Changing the laws and winning elections is easy. Changing the way 1 person thinks is very hard. Changing the way an entire society and culture thinks is damn near impossible.

You are asking for an immediate solution. It's not going to happen, and most people realize that. There is no law that you can pass that will make the KKK suddenly take off their sheets and start liking black people. Sure you can make it harder for Dylann Roof to get weapons. But that won't stop his hatred he has for blacks.

I know you don't want to hear this, but it's reality. Have you ever had an honest conversation with a racist? It's like talking to a brick wall. What exactly do you want the government to do that will magically make them listen? Seriously, what do you want the government to do?

have you been the victim of racism lately. There are laws that can marginalize the KKK. I saw some the other day threatening to hang, kill, hurt POC that were watching them make fools out of themselves. Verbally threatening, up close and personal. I truly respect the restraint of the people they were threatening.. The cops standing between them said nothing. Nothing. They were threatening to kill POC. The decades old problem has not been solved because the privileged of society/government/PTB at large doesn't want it solved. The rest of that social scientist, psychologist BS is just that. It's not going to happen because a majority of the privileged doesn't want it to happen and realy don't care that #Black Lives Matter. Never have.

I can talk to bigots until I turn blue in the face, and get nothing in return. However, the impact they have on my daily life can be lessened.

Here's just a few things the gov't can tackle: Disparate sentencing, Militarized policing, and Police brutality...

I can dismiss a bigot on the street and keep moving. But, what if that bigot has a badge and a gun and has no reason to think he will suffer any consequence for whatever ill he chooses to visit upon me, should he be caught? As a citizen I would think that asking for some commitment from a candidate to those things government CAN help with should not be a heavy lift.

You have been missed.

the simplicity of the issue stated in such an eloquent manner. Irrefutable truth....

Democrats strategy worked.

years. It was not that long ago that the Democratic Party itself had to be forced to accept and acknowledge the LGBT constituency. The Party's strategy was to marginalize and minimize our priorities as much as possible, or strategy was to force them to do otherwise using money, votes, wit and if need be confrontational tactics.

Being basically told to 'shut up and wait your turn' when it comes to social injustices appears to be par for the course every presidential election season by fellow progressives. It's very disheartening to keep seeing that sentiment on this website. I hope this will change sooner rather than later.

there's only one half of the party that says to ignore any and all problems because it'll magically get better because "we're not Republicans even if we back everything they do"

agree on a course of action. That's what makes us all genuine and not so vulnerable to the lockstep authoritarian programming that causes so many Republicans to vote against their own best interests. Bill O'reilly and Shawn Hannity tell them that Obama is coming to take their guns and magically the fact that banksters are robbing them fucking blind isn't the least bit important.

Yes, our priorities are not all identical. So what's the most constructive way to proceed?

He sees the big picture, the legitimate problems. You kids just like to say things to get a rise out of Dad, don't you -- probably egged on by your ninth grade teacher Mrs. Clinton over there at Oligarchy Junior High -- it was a mistake to let you kids join the Social Justice Warrior club after school. That's it, go to your rooms and don't come out until you've learned to show a little respect.

Some of what I say was defense for the "all or white lives matter" which eventually got O'Malley forced off the stage here in Phoenix but considering his zero tolerance policing strategy that locked up 100,000+ of a city of 600K in a single year people were right to critique him on but have seen a few ugly dishonest threads about a month ago that one had a racist brutality photo and a Protestant painting in the walls of a government building and another slamming Bernie as "not good enough" for the crowd of white faces when he announced his run in Burlington. Made the assertion he didn't mention race then a DUer pointed out he did in the speech with an edited correction saying so but still slamming as "not good enough". I'm certainly on you're side here and I could see the division coming from the recent OP a mile away so don't mean him so I'm certain many supporters here certainly support the movement & the issues but see opponent's supporters slamming him for talking too much about the 1% so I see a lot where the discussions are coming from with the exception of the recent Op.

Some who seem hell-bent on defending 'all lives matter' seem more interested in criticizing the movement rather than anything I mention on perceptions of a attempts to create a division as far as supporters of political opponents are concerned unless there is something in their record that highlights such a concern such as O'Malley's zero tolerance policing.