This is what happens when anger takes your sense away from you – you get into league with people that have a history of poisoning the well.

But we will come to that. The central issue here is that you have A LOT of justified anger that exists out there right now, and no direction as to where to place it in any constructive manner. Examples of this start with people blocking traffic to the Verrazano Bridge, and end with protests at the Barclay’s Center. Neither activity is serving a purpose other than to annoy and frustrate other citizens – people that could be allied with your cause, but are turned off to it based on the misguided protests.

And, it is misguided. This belief that protest should disrupt anything and everything to promote the message is why the art of the protest has been a facile act since the late 60s. When is the last time a protest yielded any real result? Is it possible that the current form of protest isn’t successful by design by the folks that generally organize them?

Now, there are those that are trying to help, but simply “don’t get it” (read: pretty much anyone that is not African American). These folks will never understand what is fueling the anger, and as such, they will tweet “#AllLivesMatter” because they see the larger picture (which there is) and just don’t get the premise of what is fueling “#BlackLivesMatter”.

…and let’s be clear, I am no racist. The problem here is that a 21-year-old black man carries ID to avoid being arrested, while a 21-year-old white man carries ID to make sure he can get into a given bar. That is the reality, and as such, a white man really is not in a position of “understanding” the issue. That is isn’t racism, it’s truth.

But, does that make these folks the “enemy”, in any sense of the word? Not at all – which is where Chu’s special brand of social retardation is offensive to the modern liberal thinker as well as those black folks that actually are engaged and focused on the goal versus the means. Chu’s posts mean only to aggravate and insult, and in the process, turn away those that are sympathetic, but have personalized the issue differently.

This is EXACTLY what he did vis a vis his GamerGate posts. In hindsight, for anyone that has been following the whole discussion, nothing constructive came from his comments there – if anything, his comments just intensified the angst, to a level where each side of that debate is deeply entrenched, and the issue is likely a permanent rift in the gaming community.

We in the black community can not afford that. We can’t afford to represent 12% of the population and have created a line in the sand where you are with us or against us – we will lose. Having the moral high ground in the argument will have been wasted.

…and that isn’t an “Uncle Tom” viewpoint, either. We NEED more than just a mobilized black community, because this sort of rhetoric also exists in the discourse:

My personal favorite piece of overt-but-not-so-overt-that-white-folks-can-point-it-out racism:

Let the people who pay for your government cheese and welfare checks get through so they can get to work- so in turn you can continue to protest and not work. Losers.”

If it were a “white” issue, would that sort of rhetoric be used?

So, does it help or hurt to push away those folks on that side of the equation that DON’T have such views? Because a white guy believes the issue is about police brutality as a whole, does it help or hurt to turn them away? THAT is what Chu’s comments do – because he is a moron, and while he knows a whole bunch of trivia, he has zero intelligence when it comes to politics or social interaction.

…and I am not naive. I know what “#AllLivesMatter” is – I can read between the lines. But why is my community unable to think more than a second ahead? The response to this shouldn’t be snark – take the hashtag and use it. It can convey the EXACT SAME POINT. “#AllLivesMatter” can easily be morphed into the premise of a black life mattering as much as any other life – just as ANY life matters as much as another.

It humanizes the issue beyond race, and creates allies if used in such a way. Why is it that the most vocal of my community doesn’t want that? Why is Arthur Chu being made relevant by the most vocal? Is the goal to lose?

Because, Arthur Chu’s tweets and the protest strategy, to me, point to a group that isn’t interested in the end game, but interested in burning shit to the ground, and the reality is that the other 88% aren’t going to allow that to happen.

Don’t let outrage cloud your judgment. Focus on the goal and attain it.