Exclusionary Inclusion

19 Comments for “Exclusionary Inclusion”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The activists’ definition of “inclusion” seems limited to people who embrace their own left-wing ideology.

    And your point is?

    Reply
  2. posted by MR Bill on

    I’m an old white guy, nay, hillbilly, and I can see that “Blue Lives Matter” is a deflection…
    And setting up in opposition to Black Lives Matter is ideological.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Sorry, I think the black lives matter movement started that particular skunkfight.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        BLM is an anti-Israel hate group. Antizionism is antisemitism and antisemitism is racism. There are NO exceptions to this rule.

        Reply
  3. posted by Jorge on

    Several members of the LGBT community cite the “Blue Lives Matter” flag as an opposing movement to “Black Lives Matter,” which has been supported by many members of the LGBT community for its efforts in inclusion and equality.

    I’m not impressed by “several members of the LGBT community’s” ignorance of the faults of the BLM movement, or of the principle that people don’t like each other. I could also wish for a greater insensitivity on their part to the sensitive issue of police assassinations. One can see where Mr. Miller’s headline comes from.

    I didn’t even know there was such thing as a blue lives matter flag. But anyone who doesn’t know there’s such thing as a blue lives matter f** is an idiot.

    I would think, given the great worldliness of the Several Members, that they would be familiar with recent developments: leaders of the police and black communities are looking for ways to bridge the gap by having them meet with each other. This is something LGBT communities have done as well.

    But it seems to me that a logical consequence of well-meaning “alliances” is censorship like this. We listen to the loudest and most radical voices among the allied movements because, rather than making our own alliances with other movements, we really just end up listening to the few people who are present in multiple movements. But who are the people who maintain their presence in more than one movement with the same fervor? They are neither the most moderate nor honorable in either.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      I could also wish for a greater insensitivity on their part… >> greater sensitivity

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Stop saying el-jibbity. Say gay.

      Reply
  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Exclusionary Inclusion

    Does the principle apply both ways? Are gays and lesbians who believe that the gay rights movement should embrace Blue Lives Matter but not Black Lives Matter as guilty of “exclusionary inclusion” as gays and lesbians who believe that the gays rights movement should embrace Black Lives Matter but not Blue Lives Matter?

    What about gays and lesbians who think that the gay rights movement should embrace both, and gays and lesbians who believe that the gay rights movement should embrace neither?

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I think that I figured out the key to StephenWorld™ lexicon (after much head scratching):

      Exclusionary Inclusionist — embraces Black Lives Matter but not Blue Lives Matter
      Inclusionary Inclusionist — embraces both Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter
      Exclusionary Exclusionist — embraces neither Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter
      Extraordinary Illusionist — embraces Blue Lives Matter but not Black Lives Matter

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Extraordinary Illusionist — embraces Blue Lives Matter but not Black Lives Matter

        Just because the masses don’t understand greatness doesn’t mean it’s magic. I think Extraordinary Philosopher is a much better fit.

        Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        I think Extraordinary Philosopher is a much better fit.

        Doesn’t rhyme. And doesn’t reflect the fact that gays and lesbians who think that the gay rights movement should embrace Blue Lives Matter but not Black Lives Matter deny the fact that they are every bit as much “Exclusionary Inclusionists”” as gays and lesbians who embrace Black Lives Matter but not Blue Lives Matter. “Illusionist” us the right term.

        Reply
        • posted by Lori Heine on

          For those of us who are rooting for neither dog in the fight, posts like this one are comedy gold.

          I could never write about politics if I were on either side in this never-ending Clash of the Titans. After a while, I’d simply get tired of all the kindergarten-level pettiness.

          Reply
        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          Glad you are amused. You don’t see the irony. But then you never do.

          Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Black skin ≠ blue uniform

      Reply
  5. posted by esperanzakl2 on

    Updated engagement sheet:
    http://angelica.forum.telrock.net

    Reply
  6. posted by Lori Heine on

    Ah, but I do see the irony. That’s exactly why I’m amused.

    Back and forth, tit for tat, I’m rubber and you’re glue…and on it goes.

    I point and laugh at both sides because I detest them both. That has nothing to do with failing to understand irony.

    Reply
    • posted by JohnInCA on

      Eh, the name-calling might go “back and forth, tit for tat”, but the accomplishments don’t. That’s pretty much one-sided.

      Reply
  7. posted by Matthew on

    GAY Lives Matter

    Say gay or STFU.

    Reply

Leave a Comment