Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
To be fair those were pretty piss poor comparables.
BLM is an organisation that aligned themselves with a concept which, at the time, was controversial (still largely is to a section of the population) and did it to promote the importance of that concept. Because they’re an organization, like any organization, they’re fairly criticised all the time. The right wing largely demonise the organization and deny the validity of the concept.
Anti-Fa is a label for a loose, unorganised group of anti-fascist activists. Their concept is entirely non-controversial on any level: fascists are bad. Because they aren’t organised in any way, however, the right wing have taken to labelling any rioters, looters, violence, etc. as “anti-fa” and because there is no actual organization to attach it to, it doubles as a direct critique of the concept.
BLM weren’t being “clever” like the right wing were in labelling any random bad act as “anti-fascist.” The two scenarios are wildly different, though I’m sure we’d all love if it were true that “black lives matter too” were as uncontroversial and widely accepted as “fascism is bad.”
|
That's exactly my point.
"black lives matter" is pretty uncontroversial. You don't hear anyone really making an argument that black lives don't matter.
"Black Lives Matter" is controversial because the group also advocates for a number of other causes that are justifiably controversial.
So, yes, labels can be clever.