Jump to content

Brandon Sanderson makes comment in support of BLM


Recommended Posts

Like most people on this thread have been saying, I’m very happy with Brandon’s answer. I think he had extremely valid reasons for not saying anything (it surprised me a little that he hadn’t yet heard people were calling for him, though not that he only uses Twitter as a marketing platform run by assistants, because that’s consistent with what I’ve seen previously) and I’m glad he made it clear that he might not immediately (or sometimes ever) say something on matters like these, but that his stance aligns with that of the themes his books promote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2020 at 8:17 PM, NattyBo said:

I think the takeaway that Brandon isn't doing activism isn't reading the full extent of his posts on the matter - he did outright say he supports the BLM movement and police reform, is donating to things behind the scenes, etc.

I see the criticism of the celebrity culture that Brandon and many posters here seem to echo as valid but also as a sort of distraction for people who are uncomfortable with their favorite author, musician, whatever, saying the words, in sort of the opposite way that folks like me were super uncomfortable with him NOT saying the words.  Just my opinion and hope that made sense, not trying to antagonize or criticize. 

I'm still hoping he will do a blog post that will discuss this in more detail, talk about his discomfort initially speaking out, how we as a fanbase can help him help, etc. But, anyway, as I said with the OP: I'm just glad he said the words.

And I personally think that while your opinion and approach toward these issues is valid, I respectfully ask you to think critically about your own position and approach to this issue in the same way that you ask others to think critically about theirs.  You have said that you don't want to antagonize or criticize others, but in the post you implied that those of us who don't like celebrity/social media culture are simply using this as a smokescreen to distract from our racist beliefs and/or our discomfort for those who advocate against racism.  These types of statements are hurtful and are what makes it difficult for moderates and conservatives who want to fight racism and authoritarianism to come on board with you.  

While I don't know anything about you as a person, you strike me as someone who sincerely and deeply believes that it's important and good for society for people like Brandon Sanderson to speak out on these issues.  There's nothing at all wrong with believing that.  You clearly want to do what you think is right.  I just ask that you have respect for those of us who differ with you on the best way to address these issues and respect for what is deeply meaningful to us that might not be meaningful to you.  It's important for us to have the same respect for you.  You are not the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong on these issues, neither am I.  If I disagree with you on some aspects of how to address this issue, it's not because I'm a secret racist.  It's because I think there's a better way to combat the issues faced by society.  And in the end, the best thing may be for people like me to do what we do best and for people like you to do what you do best and tackle the problem from both ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

And I personally think that while your opinion and approach toward these issues is valid, I respectfully ask you to think critically about your own position and approach to this issue in the same way that you ask others to think critically about theirs.  You have said that you don't want to antagonize or criticize others, but in the post you implied that those of us who don't like celebrity/social media culture are simply using this as a smokescreen to distract from our racist beliefs and/or our discomfort for those who advocate against racism.  These types of statements are hurtful and are what makes it difficult for moderates and conservatives who want to fight racism and authoritarianism to come on board with you.  

While I don't know anything about you as a person, you strike me as someone who sincerely and deeply believes that it's important and good for society for people like Brandon Sanderson to speak out on these issues.  There's nothing at all wrong with believing that.  You clearly want to do what you think is right.  I just ask that you have respect for those of us who differ with you on the best way to address these issues and respect for what is deeply meaningful to us that might not be meaningful to you.  It's important for us to have the same respect for you.  You are not the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong on these issues, neither am I.  If I disagree with you on some aspects of how to address this issue, it's not because I'm a secret racist.  It's because I think there's a better way to combat the issues faced by society.  And in the end, the best thing may be for people like me to do what we do best and for people like you to do what you do best and tackle the problem from both ends.

Hey, I want to apologize; you're right that my wording carried a hefty implication, and my thoughts clearly didn't translate to the written word properly. But it's what I wrote and it's wrong, so, do know that I am sorry.

That being said, I guess the point that I *think* I was trying to make would be better made with a contemporary analogy: Colin Kaepernick's protest during the National Anthem. To a large extent, people who were against his message would argue that it's disrespectful to the flag - whether or not that is true, which I don't believe it is, it turned the discussion away from what Kap was highlighting. It's my personal feeling that in that specific situation, many were not arguing in good faith, and would have had a problem with however Kap choose to spread his message. To broaden this analogy to the current discussion, I often see people pointing out actions by a very small minority of the protestors as if that invalidates the root cause of the protest - without the first thought as to why these incidents occurred. 

Perhaps this isn't applicable to the Shard, but thats where I was coming from. Thanks for the reply. 

Edited by NattyBo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NattyBo said:

Hey, I want to apologize; you're right that my wording carried a hefty implication, and I my thoughts clearly didn't translate to the written word properly. But it's what I wrote and it's wrong, so, do know that I am sorry.

That being said, I guess the point that I *think* I was trying to make would be better made with a contemporary analogy: Colin Kaepernick's protest during the National Anthem. To a large extent, people who were against his message would argue that it's disrespectful to the flag - whether or not that is true, which I don't believe it is, it turned the discussion away from what Kap was highlighting. It's my personal feeling that in that specific situation, many were not arguing in good faith, and would have had a problem with however Kap choose to spread his message. To broaden this analogy to the current discussion, I often see people pointing out actions by a very small minority of the protestors as if that invalidates the root cause of the protest - without the first thought as to why these incidents occurred. 

Perhaps this isn't applicable to the Shard, but thats where I was coming from. Thanks for the reply. 

It's all right - we're all prone to this kind of thing.  I appreciate that you're willing to consider this from a different angle.

And for what it's worth, while I don't personally think Colin Kaepernick is quite as saintly as people make him out to be (imo - he tried to use this issue as a way to avoid a life of obscurity after NFL defenses figured out how to counter his playstyle and he had been pretty much permanently relegated to the bench, I would have had much more respect for him had he done this as a starter) I do think you are absolutely right about people using the "disrespect for the flag" issue as a distraction so they didn't have to think about the real implications.  Even if I'm not on board with Kaepernick himself, the countless other players (or more importantly, the underlying reason they wanted to protest) cannot be ignored.  People are doing it today too, like you said.  People do this all the time, so they don't have to confront uncomfortable realities for them.  I know I've done it in the past, we all have.  And trust me, even though we don't see totally eye to eye on this, the way people on "the right" use these distraction tactics is very frustrating for me.  In some ways, I could say almost it's more frustrating for someone like me who is a moderate with light conservative lean on some issues, slight liberal on others - because these are people who I might otherwise identify with, proving themselves to be unworthy.  And it makes me worry about myself - what might I be doing that is contributing to these problems, without knowing it?  And how do I forge my identity as someone who respects his own cultural roots, while agreeing with some of the values that you have, but disagreeing with others?  

For me, when I see people like that I try to explain the situation to them, put it in new context.  Most conservatives (justified or not) feel that their way of life and belief is under attack.  And they feel like they are not even allowed to think for themselves anymore.  So when someone tells them "If you don't support Kaepernick, you're supporting racism!" they get upset and look for ways to sidestep the issue.  But if you put it in the right context, at least imo, it let's them think about it in new ways.  They may not change their mind right then and there, but the next time an issue comes up, they will think of it in a more open way.  That's what seems true and real to me - helping people understand what they're really saying and what it really means, outside of partisan political context.

All I can say is, I know I've put my foot in my mouth plenty of times before.  I've said things out of ignorance that I should never have said.  And I don't expect you to agree with me, all the time.  I just hope that everyone can respect that most of us are trying to come from a good place even if it leads us in a different direction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not particularly familiar with american conservatives, but i don't think most of them are racist. I think a lot of them would be more along the lines of "yes, it's a tragedy that a guy was killed by the police like that, and the guilty policemen should and will be punished according to the law. but look from the other side, how many policemen get killed because they play it nice? because they don't put the knee on the suspect's neck and the suspect take the chance to pull a knife on them when he's close? or they get shot because they hesitate to shoot first? we must not remove the police's capacity to defend themselves"

which is not a bad argument. as a rule of thumb, most people aren't that stupid, if a large % of the population holds an opinion, they must have some good reason. they aren't necessarily right, but it's unlikely they are totally in the wrong. also, most people aren't particularly evil, some may upheld oppression because they profit from it, but most would not, if they were given an honest alternative. which is pretty much the point; people will rarely pick clear evil over clear good, but they will easily pick evil against what they perceive as a greater evil.

conservatives are rarely blind against social injustices. they merely see greater evil in the alternatives. in this case, they may think that making the police more nice will get more policemen shot. or that giving money to help the poor will take away money from the more productive parts of society, resulting in economic collapse for all. or even yet, they may think that if people make a riot, and we give them money, that would only encourage them to riot worse. or they may even think, we already run programs to fight racism, isn't that enough? why would we need even more?

all those are reasonable concerns that need to be addressed if you want to win minds. you can often get people to your side - if not to agree with you, at least to accept that you have a fair point - if you listen to their concerns. if you try to understand why they don't agree with you - under the premise that they are neither stupid nor evil - and then you show them good answers for their concerns (of course, you need to actually have good answers to their concerns). attack them, accuse them of being stupid or evil, and they will go all defensive, even if they may agree with you at some point.

most people are not evil. most people do evil when they see no better options. give people better options, and most often they will stop doing evil. those who still misbehave are the truly bad ones, and you can focus your attention on them. if a few people misbehave, they are probably evil, and should be repressed. but if large portions of society misbehave, they probably don't see good options, and you should try to help them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

I'm not particularly familiar with american conservatives, but i don't think most of them are racist. 

Here's a quick lesson for you: the nature of systemic racism is such that any person of privilege (shorthanded to "white" for the rest of this post) will and does have racist thoughts, attitudes and behaviors. That means conservative whites, liberal whites and oooo boy, don't get me started on Green Party whites. 

They all have them. 

I have them. I used to have waaaay more. A key to all of this is to accept accountability for our beliefs and actions, even when they are not intended to be racist. Even if it was the product of being raised in a systemically racist society and culture. 

Another takeaway is to not conflate white supremacy with racism. White supremacists are racists, but that's not the end all to racism. 

So, are all American conservatives white supremacists? No. Does their ideology create an environment that can foster white supremacy? Yes, the nature of conservatism, at its core, is that there are "betters" that should run society. 

What "betters" mean can vary by time and place. Classic conservatism would say aristocracy. Some technocrats would say experts.

White supremacists would say the white race.

You can see where this ethnonationalism can intersect with the American conservative consciousness. And for the most part, they do so insidiously. And if we aren't constantly self-reflecting, we'll find ourselves unwittingly repeating and accepting racist ideas. 

This post focuses on conservatism because I'm trying to focus on a few aspects. American liberalism contributes its own set of issues that will have to wait for another post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectfully, Agrabes it's somewhat contradictory to lead into a plee for respectful discourse by saying how little you respect Kaepernick.  Life as a second string NFL quarterback is far from "a life of obscurity".   Do you really think Kaepernick is so vain, so insincere? Why? The BLM movement has been so patient and so restrained, despite routine violence against them and so little justice for the lives lost.  Let's talk about civilian review boards, anti-bias training, deescalation tactics, bail bond reform, scaling back sentences for minor drug possession, standardizing policing across the country, changing the police culture of fear and silence.  I dont want to have another conversation about when and how I should be upset.

Edited by ConfusedCow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Orlion the Platypus said:

Here's a quick lesson for you: the nature of systemic racism is such that any person of privilege (shorthanded to "white" for the rest of this post) will and does have racist thoughts, attitudes and behaviors. That means conservative whites, liberal whites and oooo boy, don't get me started on Green Party whites. 

They all have them. 

I have them. I used to have waaaay more. A key to all of this is to accept accountability for our beliefs and actions, even when they are not intended to be racist. Even if it was the product of being raised in a systemically racist society and culture. 

Another takeaway is to not conflate white supremacy with racism. White supremacists are racists, but that's not the end all to racism. 

So, are all American conservatives white supremacists? No. Does their ideology create an environment that can foster white supremacy? Yes, the nature of conservatism, at its core, is that there are "betters" that should run society. 

What "betters" mean can vary by time and place. Classic conservatism would say aristocracy. Some technocrats would say experts.

White supremacists would say the white race.

You can see where this ethnonationalism can intersect with the American conservative consciousness. And for the most part, they do so insidiously. And if we aren't constantly self-reflecting, we'll find ourselves unwittingly repeating and accepting racist ideas. 

This post focuses on conservatism because I'm trying to focus on a few aspects. American liberalism contributes its own set of issues that will have to wait for another post. 

Racist thoughts, yes. To be fair though, I think all societal groups (white people, black people, christians, muslims, rich people, poor people, etc) all have biases and ideas for and against other groups. I’d argue that doesn’t make you racist however. In that case, everyone is racist, and thus the word loses a lot of its meaning. 

As for your comments on conservatism, you make good observation. I identify as a conservative (do note: not in an american context, since I’m not american) and have always considered the core of it to be a healthy dose of skepticism towards societal change, along with valuing traditions and older ideas quite highly. Sure, there is much elitist ideas in there too, but I wouldn’t personally consider those the core of the ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everyone.  Thank-you all for the efforts to be respectful.  I am just popping in to remind everyone that the subject of this thread is Brandon's response to the currently ongoing BLM movement.  There are other places on the internet to discuss or debate the nature of conservatism, so please try to stay on topic here.  Thank-you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone back and forth on the whole 'celebrity endorsement' debate in my head (from the perspective of a supporter of the BLM movement).

On the one hand, if the celebrity supports the things I support, that's nice to know.

On the other hand, there's definitely groups (e.g. the NFL, as Sanderson pointed out, or that infamous Pepsi advertisement - I still don't understand how that ad got greenlit), that are more willing to use a statement on politics as a marketing tool/a way to avoid backlash instead of out of any real good faith in wanting to help this issues.

But on the other hand, even if it's disingenuous, what matters is it still helps to make the BLM movement harder to ignore and go away like it has every other time before now, and might actually lead to some kind of change, such as the overturning of qualified immunity, demilitarisation of police departments, and better funding of social work so that a cop isn't the only resource for things that don't need a cop, like dealing with people with mental health problems. In that sense, it's the end that counts, regardless of intent. (And I know about 50 of you are going to want to start quoting 'Journey Before Destination' at me... as a utilitarian, I have a lot of mixed thoughts on that, but this is not the place - if people are interested, let me know and I'll start another thread somewhere to discuss it.)

But on the other hand, I'm not sure how many people are actually convinced by celebrity endorsements these days. I heard a talk once where a person working in advertising was describing how a certain ad technique has a lifecycle of about 5-10 years - it gets created, has enormous success, which leads to a whole bunch of people imitating it, meaning people get wise to it, and begin to start mentally tuning the ad out until it's something fresh. And if you're trying to convince the masses to support a political position, that in some ways involves a degree of advertising, only it's for an ideology instead of a commercial product. And the 'celebrity endorsement'... it used to be really effective, but in this increasingly polarised world I don't think it is anymore. On political issues, nearly everyone is basically set into one of three camps - pro, against, and the 'Why do we have to talk about politics' crowd. And none of them are going to change their opinion based on the opinions of a celebrity who is not an expert in their given field. There are exceptions, but they're rare. The exception to this rule is if there's an issue no-one's talking about, then a celebrity can use their platform to bring it to the public arena and get people to talk about it, but that's certainly not an issue with the BLM movement. The problem right now is not getting people to talk about it, the problem is getting public support, and, ultimately, policy change.

But on the other hand, the whole "neutrality always favors the oppressor, not the oppressed" argument is something I generally agree with. Even if a celebrity's opinion doesn't count for as much as it used to, does that mean they should sit back and do... nothing? That doesn't feel like it sits right with me either. But if I don't think they do any good regardless putting out a statement, and I don't think they should do nothing, I'm not sure what's left.

But on the other hand, I have about 7 hands now, so I need a new analogy. :P

TL;DR: Can definitely see both sides of the issue about whether Brandon needed to speak out, or should have spoken out, etc. I'm glad the statement is in support, that that it seems to be a good faith attempt to figure things out instead of a PR statement that's not genuine. However, I'm sceptical if that's actually going to change peoples minds - the pro-BLM crowd doesn't need convincing, the anti-BLM crowd isn't going to listen to some celebrity who clearly doesn't understand why they oppose BLM, and the non-partisans are going to roll their eyes and say they only want to know when Rhythm of War comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 20. 6. 2020 at 11:52 AM, Young Bard said:

But on the other hand, the whole "neutrality always favors the oppressor, not the oppressed" argument is something I generally agree with. Even if a celebrity's opinion doesn't count for as much as it used to, does that mean they should sit back and do... nothing? That doesn't feel like it sits right with me either. But if I don't think they do any good regardless putting out a statement, and I don't think they should do nothing, I'm not sure what's left.

 "Silence is violence" you say?  Absolutely grotesque concept. At least for me.

p.s: I love Marcellus Wiley`s position on the matter.

On 20. 6. 2020 at 11:52 AM, Young Bard said:

TL;DR: Can definitely see both sides of the issue about whether Brandon needed to speak out, or should have spoken out, etc. I'm glad the statement is in support, that that it seems to be a good faith attempt to figure things out instead of a PR statement that's not genuine. However, I'm sceptical if that's actually going to change peoples minds - the pro-BLM crowd doesn't need convincing, the anti-BLM crowd isn't going to listen to some celebrity who clearly doesn't understand why they oppose BLM, and the non-partisans are going to roll their eyes and say they only want to know when Rhythm of War comes out.

Not a fan of Brandon becoming politically involved. While i like his response. For starters, seeing a post void of partisan platitudes and having honesty is a refreshing treat these days.

Edited by Kain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Kain said:

 "Silence is violence" you say?  Absolutely grotesque concept. At least for me.

Eh... I think you're putting words in my mouth. Just that it's usually the case, whether it be on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, religion, class, or whatever other power imbalance you can think of, that the people who have power are almost by definition unwilling to use that power to change the system, because it's clearly worked well for them. And because of that, it takes an active collective push in order to change the status quo, and in being silent, you're helping to maintain that status quo, whether or not that is your intention.

"Silence is violence" is probably not a slogan I'd personally use, but not even because I disagree with the spirit of it, just that sometimes in trying to come up with a snappy slogan you make your point harder to understand rather than easier, and I feel this case is one of those ("Silence perpetuates a system of unjust hierarchies" is probably more accurate, but much harder to chant at a rally.)

23 hours ago, Kain said:

p.s: I love Marcellus Wiley`s position on the matter.

And I just looked up Marcellus Wiley - I only found a 2 minute clip of him speaking, so maybe he produced a more substansive criticism elsewhere that I couldn't find in a quick Google search - he found a list from somewhere which he said was BLM's mission statement, and criticised points from it like the dismantling of the nuclear family (which he viewed, and the data backs him up, as a destructive goal that's likely to increase crime and poverty, not decrease it), and ending white supremacy (which he views as trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist in the 21st Century, pointing to his career as a successful TV show host).

The thing is, I don't even disagree with any given sentence Marcellus said? The problem is, BLM is a grassroots movement, and I am confident that there are probably hundreds of different mission statements out there, a large number of which are easy to poke holes in, and I feel Marcellus is constructing a strawman that doesn't actually address, or even mention, the core of the BLM protests, which is trying to end (or failing that, at least reduce) racism in the criminal justice system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BLM being against the nuclear family is a total canard, just like Colin Kapernick’s protest got twisted. Anyone can say any movement is about anything, but the vast majority of people out protesting are against police violence towards minorities, not the dissolution of the nuclear family haha. It’s just such a wild left field assertion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NattyBo said:

The BLM being against the nuclear family is a total canard, just like Colin Kapernick’s protest got twisted. Anyone can say any movement is about anything, but the vast majority of people out protesting are against police violence towards minorities, not the dissolution of the nuclear family haha. It’s just such a wild left field assertion 

I'm going to try not to make this turn out like the 'I am disappointed in Brondon's silence' thread but, well here is a quote from https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Quote

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and 'villages' that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

So it's not a twist it's part of their goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disrupt isn’t the same as destroy. I read that as a community coming together for mutual support to provide what a nuclear family would, not to destroy it and replace it with something else. In any case, I still stand by what I wrote. BLM is a largely decentralized movement with widely disparate people from a variety of walks of life and races/ethnicities participating.
 

I’d bet my life if you asked 100 protestors at any given BLM protest, less than 10% would respond in a negative fashion about the nuclear family. I’ve been to several BLM protests in Maryland and Washington DC in recent months and no one has ever mentioned anything like that, speakers or random folks I’ve talked to.  It seems interesting that this is becoming talking point instead of the ongoing systemic oppression and literal murder of black folks in this country by the police.
 

Given that Brandon has unequivocally said he supports BLM, do you think he is for the dissolution of the nuclear family?

 

Edited by NattyBo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be helpful if you could quote me so I can see when you respond, thanks.

1 hour ago, NattyBo said:

Disrupt isn’t the same as destroy. I read that as a community coming together for mutual support to provide what a nuclear family would, not to destroy it and replace it with something else.

I don't see how asking for help from your extended family or friends is something that you can't do under a nuclear family structure. 

1 hour ago, NattyBo said:

In any case, I still stand by what I wrote. BLM is a largely decentralized movement with widely disparate people from a variety of walks of life and races/ethnicities participating.

Would you still be ok if they meant to turn all control of children over to a collective instead of their parents?

1 hour ago, NattyBo said:

It seems interesting that this is becoming talking point instead of the ongoing systemic oppression and literal murder of black folks in this country by the police.

think it has to do with the argument that a lot of the problems in the black community would be solved by having a father in the home, but I can't say for certain.

1 hour ago, NattyBo said:

Given that Brandon has unequivocally said he supports BLM, do you think he is for the dissolution of the nuclear family?

Not sure he knows about it. And he would certainly be against it.

Edited by Frustration
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, NattyBo said:

It seems interesting that this is becoming talking point instead of the ongoing systemic oppression and literal murder of black folks in this country by the police.

I think people are prone to discuss what they disagree about, more than they discuss their agreements. And most people are in favor of putting an end to systemic oppression and murder of black people, which is why that isn´t a talking point when debating BLMs effectiveness as a movement. 

Furthermore, since the general climate on a lot of places at least seems to be "If you dont like BLM or support them, then you are silent coward at best, or a racist at worst". Most people who won´t support BLM are neither of those things, but instead question various policies that the official BLM-site says that the organization has. Every issue (or suggestion for societal improvement) that BLM adds to its list of "things we are fighting for" will just make it more complex (like pretty much any polical movement that lives beyond one week). The more complex BLM becomes, the more dissenters it will have (again, just like any political movement). Long story short, you can´t have an organization that is portrayed as something every decent person should agree with unconditionally, if that organization is even the tiniest bit complex. 

Tl;dr: More policy questions leads to more complexity, more complexities leads to more disagreement, and most people dont want to place their wholehearted support behind an organization that they, in some manner, disagree with on an important level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...