Amazon.com’s Whole Foods Market doesn’t want to be forced to let workers wear “Black Lives Matter” masks and is pointing to the recent US Supreme Court ruling permitting a business owner to refuse services to same-sex couples to get federal regulators to back off.
National Labor Relations Board prosecutors have accused the grocer of stifling worker rights by banning staff from wearing BLM masks or pins on the job. The company countered in a filing that its own rights are being violated if it’s forced to allow BLM slogans to be worn with Whole Foods uniforms.
Amazon is the most prominent company to use the high court’s June ruling that a Christian web designer was free to refuse to design sites for gay weddings, saying the case “provides a clear roadmap” to throw out the NLRB’s complaint.
The dispute is one of several in which labor board officials are considering what counts as legally-protected, work-related communication and activism on the job.
You can get mad at Amazon, but really it’s the Supreme Court you should be mad at. Amazon is going to take advantage of whatever it thinks will make them more money. The government is the thing that is supposed to keep them in check.
Edit: A lot of people seem to be reading something different from what I wrote. I didn’t say you shouldn’t be mad at Amazon, or that Amazon isn’t at fault for their own actions. What I did say is that you should expect this type of behavior from a business and should expect our government to do a better job at keeping this behavior in check.
I’m mad at both. Amazon is trash. The current court is trash. And all the ghouls that got us this shit ass court are trash, from Mcconnell to Trump to every dummy that votes for Trump to the stupid stupid Democrats who didn’t fight tooth and nail when Obama’s pick didn’t get a hearing and didn’t pack the courts at the 1st opportunity. Oh and fuck RGB who should have fucking retired at the start of Obama’s 1st term. Octogenarians who survived multiple bouts of cancer don’t have the luxury of hanging out so the 1st female president gets to appoint their successor. Democrats are so fucking inept it’s hard to believe that they aren’t sandbagging us on purpose
it’s hard to believe that they aren’t sandbagging us on purpose
It’s hard to believe that they’re not doing it on purpose exactly because they are doing it on purpose. The system isn’t broken, it’s doing exactly what it is designed to do. You cannot use the system against itself. Voting helps prevent the greater evil but that just gets you the lesser evil. If you want an answer that is not evil at all, we need to create that entirely separately, outside of the established system and politics.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. You’re right on every account. We’re still seeing it in action as Feinstein refuses to step down and backing up the appointment of judges. RBG and Feinstein both destroyed their legacies by hanging on to power for far too long. It’s insane that Mitt Romney, of all people, is the one I agree with. He’s not going to run and encouraged other old people to stop running and let the next generation have a chance.
I’ll take both please
When the corporations can fund the politicians there is no difference between them.
“Amazon is going to take advantage of whatever it thinks will make them more money.”
Yea I will in fact get mad at that kind of behavior. Lots of businesses doing it (and commenters like you normalizing it) doesn’t make them less responsible for their shitty behavior.
They specifically said you can be mad. It’s the first sentence in OP’s comment. WTF are you on about?
Did you miss where where the point of their comment was to deemphasize Whole Foods’ fault and culpability in this? Or are you starting a linguistics discussion?
Edit: in other words, they say “You should expect businesses to act this way” and I say otherwise
You either get it or you don’t. I can’t help you with your lack of reading comprehension.
They specifically said that “you can be mad” about it.
You want to have it the way that they’re pushing some kind of agenda, when in fact they’re simply stating what’s true.
what the fuck is this shit, on my lemmy? fuck them both is the only sane conclusion, not “it’s a business so it’s fine”
I didn’t say it was fine… I said it’s to be expected and the reason they need guard rails.
You expect too much from people. The majority of this platform, like most others, is comprised of emotionally immature children. They simply want to screech when they see something they don’t like. Not approach the subject from a dispassionate viewpoint.
We both know what you said. But since you didn’t publicly attack Amazon, they’ll strawman it so it appears you’re defending them.
It’s kind of wild that Lemmy seems to be even more left and hive minded than Reddit was. In the earlier days, it seemed like it wasn’t going to be that way.
I joined Reddit in 2014. It was great back then. Open discussion (for the most part) was common place. You could disagree, but not everyone was a “fascist” or “liberal commie”. Now insults, extremism, and radical attitudes are common place. No middle ground. “agree with all my viewpoints or you’re the enemy”. Lemmy doesn’t look much different.
I’ve only been on this platform for maybe a week, and I’ve already blocked a dozen instances/communities. Not interested in extremism.
I joined Reddit in 2011, it was great. I joined Lemmy after the API price changes meant I couldn’t use my favorite app anymore. Lemmy at that time was a lot like early Reddit. It changed at break neck speed. I guess that’s just the times we’re in now. Everyone in their tribes and if you’re not part of their narrowly defined tribe, you’re the enemy.
I can get mad at Amazon and Supreme Court at the same time, but not for this. Having uniform requirements is reasonable thing to do, especially for customer facing employees.
why?
Because business is about making money by providing best services. Having dress code is part of it.
I fear for the public education system when someone like you has to ask this question.
deleted by creator
These people are morons with 8th grade reading comprehension skills.
Come to think of it, maybe they are in fact 8th graders?
Fuck Wholefoods
None of my homies shop at Wholefoods
You don’t shop at Whole Foods because of it’s policies.
I don’t shop at Whole Foods because I don’t believe in paying $4 for a apple.
We are not the same.
It’s $6, grandpa.
It’s Amazon/Whole Foods’ policies that lead to charging such ridiculous prices for their items. You are the same, even if you don’t realize it.
Whole Foods was charging ridiculous prices long before Amazon got involved.
True. And that hasn’t changed either.
I absolutely would be willing to pay 4 or more for an apple, if it were local, and profits go to a local farm. I’m aware that means I eat in-season then too
So just drive to your local farmers market. Get a pound or two for $5 and cut out the middle man. I go occasionally, I get good deals like $1 massive sweet onions, 3 for $1 bell peppers (like softball sized ones), etc. Go early though, they usually sell before official times and are sold out within 3 hours (restaurants hit them hard)
I do
I live very close to the largest continuous fruit growing area in Europe. In-season 5kg crates go for five Euros, at the end of the season as low as one euro for 5kg on clearance. Don’t expect fancy-pants new strains to go at that price, though, it’s going to be Elstar or Holstein Cox.
And, fun sidenote: Out of season it’s indeed more CO2-advantageous for us to import apples from New Zealand than to store them. Buy apple sauce.
Out of season it’s indeed more CO2-advantageous for us to import apples from New Zealand than to store them
Not necessarily true, it would depend on the how clean the energy source of the refrigeration is. The only other major CO2Eq emission from storage of perishables is refrigerant leakage, but in most commercial scale usages that’s really low.
There isn’t one in my town so boycott goin strong for N years?
Idk that 5% cash back is hard to beat. I mean sure, fuck amazon for being anti-union, definitely need to trust bust them to but until then I can’t get 5% cash back when buying household goods anywhere else.
That 5% would be great, if WF wasn’t like 50% more expensive LOL
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/whole-foods-vs-trader-joe-180008164.html
Reminder that Amazon is funding cop city https://news.littlesis.org/2022/11/15/meet-the-major-corporations-and-cultural-institutions-helping-build-cop-city-in-atlanta/
It’s not “Whole Foods” it’s Amazon. Whole Foods died when Amazon bought them.
source: I’m from Austin and know several people that work there from employees to management. They killed everything that was whole foods.
Pretty sure Whole Foods had shitty conservative executives back then too didn’t they?
deleted by creator
They also fought against tighter regulation and labeling of organic and GMO products.
deleted by creator
Profit sharing ended in 2019. It’s all been big ol Amazon now
And then Amazon bought them and as I’m certain it was fucking awful to work there.
edit: seems familiar… package deliveries, pickers, warehouse workers, pee bottles
You can’t escape those fucks living in Texas. They’re everywhere.
deleted by creator
It’s been like that about Whole Foods since the 80s. John Mackey is a libertarian fuckhead and it’s been a series of people realizing it ever since.
They hired union busters all the time.
In the 10’s he tried to sell his book “conscious capitalism” on the shelves. Surprise surprise, no one bought it.
I think I’ve heard about this.
removed by mod
Jesus y’all. Let me spell this out plainly.
-
BLM is a political organization.
-
Wearing BLM gear is a political statement.
-
Whole Foods doesn’t want employee uniforms to make a political statement.
Bet every single person here would be pleased if this was about banning Trump masks. I’ll give you a crisp $20 bill if those are allowed. Or any other sort of political speech.
The statement Black Lives Matter is not political, you absolute ham sandwich…
Then neither is “Make America Great Again”
That’s multiple candidates campaign slogans. It’s was a Republican presidential slogan in 64 and 80, very famously part of Reagan’s campaign.
The statement itself is as political as the statement “black lives matter”.
Let me make it a little more clear: how about “All lives matter”?
So you deny that BLM is a political org?
They sure seem to be calling for political action.
Having a just cause does not make a movement apolitical. Agreeing with that cause does not make the statement apolitical.
You seem to have your emotions mixed up with facts. And here I thought that was a conservative trait.
While I would agree that it is political, it’s because it is a movement and has become political. The organization was created after the movement and does not necessarily reflect the will or intentions of the actual movement. It’s like if back in the day there was an org called Women’s Suffrage. It doesn’t mean the focus of all people who want women’s suffrage are part of an organization named that after the movement started.
Women’s suffrage is probably the worst example you could have chosen – in what way is fighting for the right to vote not inherently political?
I was saying that BLM is a political movement. It’s not necessarily an organization.
I refer you to Skunk Anansie, though.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://youtu.be/mcaUer4fuU8?si=b8g5NIuCk3-1w2AT
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
removed by mod
On its own it’s not, but it definitely is in the current political and cultural context. There’s no getting away from that. It’s going to provoke a political reaction in any conservative and there’s no point in pretending otherwise.
deleted by creator
That’s an indictment of Conservatism. What are they trying to Conserve and when was America great? Cause it was not great for folks of color or queer folk back then, and we wont go back.
I can and do agree with everything you argue while also maintaining the objectively obvious fact that context matters in politics.
The statement itself shouldn’t be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it’s fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.
Ah, so if I wear a hat at work that says “save babies” and then an organization pops up called “Save babies” and they start donating to politicians, should I no longer be allowed to wear my “Save Babies” hat?
Yup
If the company you’re representing would prefer you didn’t, then sure.
Let’s use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, “save fascists”, would you prefer the store couldn’t prevent them from wearing that?
How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?
I’d say the difference comes down to choice. You choose to be a fascist. You choose to be a trump supporter. You don’t choose to be black. You don’t chose to be an infant.
Examples. If you wore a SPLC clothing article, I think the employer would be allowed to object, but if you wore clothing showing support for women, or indigenous people, then they should abide it.
The fact that there is an organization of the same name does not mean they own the slogan. People using the slogan almost never do so in reference to this organization nor are necessarily even aware that such an organization exists.
BLM is more of a human rights statement. Anything is “political” if the right choses to whine about it. An example is putting pronouns on name tags. It’s a great idea to ensure employees are addressed correctly and frankly shouldn’t be any more political than a name tag containing your name, but the right choses to view them as political because they need a constant culture war.
This might mean something if “BLM” was owned by an organization.
So Black Lives Matter is not a political slogan, let alone an organization? Saying Black Lives Matter means nothing to anyone except by taking it literally? Nothing to do with politics whatsoever?
By that metric any opinion is political.
You only think it’s political because conservatives don’t like it.
Let me spell it out plainly:
- BLM is a movement concerned with police brutality against minorities
- There is a political organization called BLM, but nobody but right wing whack jobs gives a shit about that organization
- There is also the Bureau of Land Management that is also refereed to with the acronym BLM,
- Somehow you know BLM on a mask doesn’t refer to the Bureau of Land Management but you’re being deliberately stupid it referring to a political organization and not the movement.
- Jeff Bezos isn’t going to give you any money no matter how wide you spread your asshole for him.
You are really jumping through some hoops to prove that the saying, “Black Lives Matter” has nothing to do with politics. Say it out loud for us. Say it’s not a slogan and has no ties to political views.
Not accepting facts contrary to your position? How very conservative of you.
No matter how far left I am, there’s always assholes like you pushing people back to the right. I’m not going right because a bunch a angry teenagers are… angry. But you’re not doing the liberal cause any justice here. In fact, you’re actively hurting it.
Are you saying black lives don’t matter?
Where is the debate on the statement “black lives matter”? Please argue against that statement.
No what you’re saying is that the statement has been politicized by bad actors. But those are the politics of the bad actors, not politics around the statement itself.
Should the depiction of the Earth as being round be banned as well? There is controversy around that, by idiots and grifters of course, but how is it different about the controversy around BLM?
Surely you share the same opinion about those who wear gear that says “All lives matter”? They’re just good people preaching a message of love?
Maybe I would if I bash my head into a wall enough to cause enough brain damage that I don’t understand that “all lives matter” is part of the politicization effort by bad actors.
See there is an actual real world where people did things with motives that are very well understood. If your “logical” arguments are completely dependent on ignoring specific realities, it’s not really a logical argument at all. Demanding someone ignore reality so you can have a big “aha! I proved you to be a hypocrite!” kind of moment is rather silly isn’t it?
So you only bashed your head enough to not understand that the phrase “Black Lives Matter” is borne out of a social/political movement?
Are you saying all lives don’t matter?
Where is the debate on the statement “all lives matter”? Please argue against that statement.
No. Because they are in bad faith inverting the wording of the phrase to sound like “muh common sense” but in reality are just reactionary contrarians that are communicating their social conservative opinions.
Saying Black Lives Matter is only political to right wing racists who believe that the status quo, that Black Lives Don’t Matter, is fine.
So it’s political then? Just because one side of the spectrum has heinous beliefs does not make a thing non-political.
It’s both because one side wants it to be to diminish its power. But at its core it’s a human rights issue. It’s the words Black Lives Matter, strange if you get upset hearing that and think it’s purely political and should be snuffed out where you don’t like facing it. 🤔
BLM is a political organization.
This is like saying “Trump has Little Hands” is a political organization because some guy wants to copyright “Trump has Little Hands” to sell on merch. Absolutely ridiculous take and it clearly show where you stand on these sorts of issues.
removed by mod
If this thing was a fight to wear “Make America Great Again!” masks, these people would sing a different tune. And some ass will be along to explain how that’s totally different…
The whole notion of BLM is political. In the same sense that no one denies making America great is a bad thing, no one denies black lives matter. Yet they are political slogans, end of story. Whole Foods does not want employees wearing controversial political slogans.
I’ve supported the idea of BLM from day 1. Even dumped a right-wing buddy I was slowly turning around. I have zero patience for the haters. Zero. But if I owned a business, employees would not be wearing anything that even smelled of politics.
These children can’t get their emotions untied from facts.
deleted by creator
-
Amazon bought Whole Foods, they’re the same company now.
iiuc, wf is not saying that customers can’t wear BLM masks. They don’t want to show a political stance and, as a result, don’t want BLM masks worn by their employees, because that could be misconstrued as wf or Amazon taking a political stance. I can understand that. However, they, then, must ban ALL shows of politics in their store by them and their employees, and that includes LGBTQIA+ stuff. Otherwise, they’re just banning BLM stuff, which will be
misconstrued (notice the crossed out ‘mis’) as them taking a political stance against black folks.On one hand, I agree with you
On the other hand, how do we live in such a fucking hellscape that “black lives matter” is a politically charged statement and not an obvious fact. Same for LGBTQIA+ folks deserving equality. (frustration not pointed at you, but at the social climate)
I agree with you completely. It’s unacceptable.
Interesting that pride stuff is considered political because my shitty mega corporate big box employer considered a BLM shirt political but let us wear our pride pins whenever because that was within the dress code
How dare our employees imply to the general public that we think Black Lives Matter!
Being tired and thinking Bureau of Land Management made this very confusing at glance.
Also fuck the courts for that BS.
Why is it “fuck the courts”? This whole thing is about what a worker can do while on the job… If a company doesn’t want to be associated with something it should have a right to employ whatever restrictions on dress it wants. That’s kind of the point of dress codes with companies to begin with.
dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world
why does a company’s right to “employ whatever restrictions on dress it wants” overrule the person’s innate wish to express themselves?
Companies can choose who works there just as people can choose who to work for. If companies don’t like what an employee is wearing then they can fire them, and if people don’t like what a company isn’t allowing them to wear they can quit.
but in actual practice, people are basically locked into jobs. it is not reasonable for someone to have to switch jobs over dress code and you know that; the employer shouldn’t just get to slowly immiserate people
Oh okay, we have just as much choice about where we work as they have about who they hire? 🙄
dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world
If you say so captain.
dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world
This is a ridiculous notion.
There are plenty of people that would show up to work without bathing while wearing sweatpants and teddy bear slippers if they were allowed. Source: I worked in a low-end call center fresh out of school and a good quarter of the people actually did dress like this most days.
Without a dress code a business has no grounds to address the situation.
If I walked into a new grocery chain or restaurant and everyone was dressed in dirty house clothes the best reaction I would have is to ask someone if this was a joke day. The more likely reaction would be just turning around and walking out.
Do workers have the right to refuse to be associated with something that the company want them to display on their dress code? For example, a corporate sponsor? If no, why do companies deserve more rights than people?
Do workers have the right to refuse to be associated with something that the company want them to display on their dress code?
Yes… by leaving/quitting/etc…
So that’s a no, then - you don’t have a right for something if you have to leave the system to exercise the right. For example you wouldn’t have the right of freedom of speech if I said “yeah you can say whatever you want if you leave the country!”
So, why do companies deserve more rights than people?
So, why do companies deserve more rights than people?
They don’t… It’s their property. Just like you would have a right to ask someone to leave your property at anytime for any reason.
Okay so imagine that you’re on Elon Musk’s private jet, 36000 feet in the air, and he asks you to strip down into a thong and perform an erotic dance for him. It’s his property, he has the right to tell you what to wear. If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave; of course. Do you think that’s acceptable?
Yes you would have a right to leave at any time. Failure on Elon’s part to allow you off the craft promptly and in safe manner would literally be kidnapping or unlawful detention. Which I believe would be up to 3 years of imprisonment… and generally a felony.
Also, would probably be soliciting and probably a whole slew of other illegal actions here if that situation would occur.
Did you think you had a gotcha there?
If someone had a necklace with a cross on it, can Amazon ban it? Should they ban it?
How about non-religious ear rings or other jewelry? How about a hair bun? Wedding ring?
There’s generally some leeway given for cultural adornments. So the question is what specifically is bad about a BLM adornment?
If someone had a necklace with a cross on it, can Amazon ban it? Should they ban it?
Yes, but not “Ban” but make “not visible”. Things that cannot be banned are required religious symbols. Think Yarmulca or the Sikh turban (sorry I don’t know the proper name). Where the religion requires wear. The cross can simply be worn under the shirt and not be visible. Dress code is all about visibility. You won’t find a dress code that mandates undergarments for example. There is of course caveats with some jobs where wearing of the item presents an actual safety risk… Eg necklack falls out of the shirt and gets caught in machinery and now there’s a bloody mess all over the floor. But even with protected items like a turban, if it displayed logos the company would probably be in the right to ask you to change into a different turban that was more neutral.
How about non-religious ear rings or other jewelry? How about a hair bun? Wedding ring?
Yes… I’ve worked in places that had such rules. A simple example would be the military. I’ve not seen Wedding ring restriction… but can think of several cases where that would be reasonable to also limit. Lots of people willingly stopped wearing their wedding bands in my motorpool after someone degloved a finger… I have seen plenty of places that ask people to remove other piercings/jewelry and it was a non-issue.
There’s generally some leeway given for cultural adornments. So the question is what specifically is bad about a BLM adornment?
If they’re applying the policy fairly… which according to the court case findings they are/did… And that policy was effectively “no logos”… Then everything you’ve mentioned doesn’t fall within the policy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a wedding ring with a Mountain Dew logo on it (like articles of clothing).
Here’s a rendition of the general policy per a thread from 2 years ago https://www.reddit.com/r/wholefoods/comments/nxgnje/whats_the_dress_code/
You must wear plain tshirts (no pattern or multiple colors, only plaid) pants must be one color and in good shape (no holes) you can wear shorts in grocery and front end and produce but must wear pants in prep foods. Close toed shoes. Hats must only be whole foods logo and if u wear leggings you have to wear a shirt that is long to cover the butt. No pins on your apron and no logos or sports teams or bands.
Similar codes published by other users at https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Whole-Foods-Market/faq/what-is-the-dress-code?quid=1bk0o1sch5n8v93m in 2020. It’s a quick google search to find more references if you’d like.
Nothing here would limit religious garb, rings or other jewelry, and I’m sure some other section would cover hair than the one that was furnished. Requiring a bun or other hair style for longer hair makes sense for anyone dealing with food, so at face value not illogical to see. So I’m not sure why you’re bringing all this up. Could a company require compliance with these things? Sure… If you want to be paid to work, you follow the rules. Otherwise, go find another job elsewhere. It’s like trying to work for a high end upscale restaurant… then being mad that you have to wear a suit.
I’m bringing it up because the rules are inconsistent. A wedding ring is a cultural adornment. It’s allowed except in scenarios that involves using machinery that it would be a health hazard.
So we have many cultural adornments allowed, except this one particular one. So it’s not “the rules are the rules” kind of scenario. There is a specific reason why the BLM masks are being singled out.
Masks are allowed. Similar to a hair scrunchy or hair clip it’s something the company should prefer the employees to wear because it improves safety.
Does having BLM on the mask make it a safety concern? Nope, it doesn’t. The mask improves safety having a mask that the employee likes wearing makes it more likely they’ll wear it, so allowing BLM masks is encouraging better safety.
And what’s the reason? The far right has deemed a cultural item to be undesirable. Why would a political movement deem a cultural adornment often worn by a certain ethnicity to be undesirable?
Sorry but logic just isn’t on your side with this one. It’s discouraging a commonly accepted cultural adornment that’s being done solely out of political motivations of the employer. Other cultural adornments are allowed (some are even encouraged when they improve safety) but this particular adornment is being singled out despite the fact that it improves safety. The BLM masks are only considered political speech by a subset of the population who are of a certain political persuasion.
It’s a politically motivated attack against cultural expression, ie. culture war bullshit. Am I meant to not notice that there’s one political party is promoting this “culture war” crap and pretend the actions of Amazon aren’t politcal while some underpaid worker wearing a BLM mask isn’t cultural?
I’m bringing it up because the rules are inconsistent.
Not at all… It’s not breaking the rule because the rule isn’t “no cultural adornment” … It’s no brands or logos.
Why do I have to keep fucking repeating this on every damn thread?
BLM is not trademarked (people have tried and failed though!) so it’s not a brand. It’s three letters so it doesn’t qualify as a logo. If it were consistently stylized then maybe it could be considered a logo. But there’s not consistency in the stylization, only thing that’s consistent is it’s the same three letters from the alphabet in the same order.
LOL <- do you think that’s a logo too? If so then, LOL at your silly rationalization. Oh noes, someone might sue me for infringing on the “LOL” brand/logo!
Now you’re assuming what the actual design of the pin and mask were… Do you know it was just “BLM”… and why wouldn’t that count as a brand/logo? Just because it’s not trademarked it’s not a logo? That’s silly and certainly not a consideration for what is and isn’t a logo. There are many masks and pins that are absolutely stylized. But I have no idea which these people were wearing so I won’t speak to that.
LOL <- do you think that’s a logo too?
LOL can be a logo. But I find myself again pointing to the rules that Whole Foods have in place…
You must wear plain tshirts (no pattern or multiple colors, only plaid) pants must be one color and in good shape (no holes) you can wear shorts in grocery and front end and produce but must wear pants in prep foods. Close toed shoes. Hats must only be whole foods logo and if u wear leggings you have to wear a shirt that is long to cover the butt. No pins on your apron and no logos or sports teams or bands.
“plain”, “one color”, and NO pins… These things are obvious and clear words that don’t leave imagination to the intention of management. Even if it was just the letters BLM put together in a neutral font… it’s still a violation of the contract you would have agreed to in order to work there. If you have no intention of following the rules, then don’t work there… and certainly don’t “surprise pikachu” when you get fired.
But even to just the point of what a logo is…
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logo
2: an identifying symbol (as for use in advertising) 3: an identifying statement : motto
We could argue that BLM meets or doesn’t meet requirement for definition 2… But it DEFINITELY meets definition 3. BLM just on it’s own is 1 of 2 things… Bureau of Land Management, or “Black Lives Matter” (whether the non-profit or the movement). It’s definitely identifying because nobody is wearing a Bureau of Land Management mask or pin.
You’ve got some is/ought fallacy going on here. And it’s unfortunate. But I’m not sure if comparing something as culturally ubiquitous as a wedding ring compares to something as divisive as BLM. Yes, it’s unfortunate that BLM is divisive. It ought not be. Yes, you could even say wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression, and ought be considered in the same way as BLM. But that is not the case.
Wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression.
I just said that. If you disagree then that means wedding rings are a divisive issue. Since it’s a divisive issue it should be banned.
You’re using tautological logic here. Anything that’s divisive is political, anyone declaring they disagree with anything makes something divisive, therefore anything people disagree over is political. Anything political should be banned. All power is given to those who decide what is political and what isn’t because anything can be declared political.
Given we’re in a culture where people will feign disagreement and argue in bad faith, the logical result is employers have absolute control over employees. Starting to feel really dystopian if we follow this kind of logic.
Honestly do you really think there is no intent behind the culture war strategy of declaring anything associated with minority groups to be “divisive” in an effort to have it banned? Who actually believes black lives don’t matter? Should anyone try to appease that sort of person?
There’s a joke in an episode of the new Reno 911 where they go out on a call about BLM setting fires.
This mix up is also included on The White Lotus
I’m with Amazon on this, seems a reasonable ask for employees to not wear any political/cultural/social things at work with their official uniform.
Guys is it Political to not want to get killed by the police or just get seen at the hospital when you’re having chest pains?
Interesting take you have there.
BLM is a brand though. The lady who founded it just bought a £1.25M house in LA’s exclusive Topanga neighbourhood for all cash.
That doesn’t sound like some sort of grass roots, help lift people up, Mother Teresa sort of organisation to me.
Hence yeah, people don’t like BLM. Some don’t like what it stands for, while others, like me, don’t like it because the founders used it as a massive vehicle for grifting and lining their own pockets.
The idea behind Black Lives Matter is not a brand, though. People who support the cause are simply supporting equity and progress. These fundamentals don’t change just because one person affiliated with the marketing of the idea may be questionable.
There are multiple segments to BLM, since the fight for progress takes multiple fronts. And indeed, the head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City, which is not affiliated with Khan-Cullors’ Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, called for “an independent investigation” to find out how the global network spends its money.
And it turns out that the reason Patrice, the woman buying homes you’re referencing in bad faith, acquired some personal wealth from having a best selling book from back in 2018, and a television deal to produce content with Warner Bros.
I’m sure her earning wealth through program advocacy and people reading stuff won’t change anything about how you feel about them, though.
I agree the larger philosophy behind BLM isn’t a brand, but the slogan “BLM” is a brand.
To me personally, BLM is kind of stupid, the correct slogan we should all be wearing is ACAB, because from everything I have seen, US police are just as happy assaulting and killing anyone who gets in their way, regardless of colour. Cops in the US just want to kill people, it’s an us versus them mentality, and I’d say it’s pretty colour blind, like those 5 Nashville black cops who tortured and killed that black motorist. And I remember seeing the Atlanta BLM protests in 2020, and there were loads of black cops horrifically beating protestors too. It’s honestly not a black problem, it’s a blue vs everyone else problem.
And then some of the absolute worst police killings I’ve seen have been white cops killing white people, such as Daniel Shaver, Ryan Whitaker, and Officer Longman of Utah.
Some cops are definitely racially biased, but it’s hardly Mississippi Burning anymore, even in the South. What is a problem is a general militarisation of police and complete lack of oversight or consequences for their actions.
But make no mistake, any cop would just love to kill you to make his or her day, whether you’re white or black.
The idea behind Black Lives Matter is not a brand, though
It’s completely a brand. It’s founded on the false assertion that most people think that black people don’t matter and they should die. Telling black people they need to be upset and feel bad that everyone everywhere is out to get them, and tells white people they need to make amends for things they’re never done.
There’s a bunch of different autonomous groups, with no one “founder.” This has always been the single talking point that the fox news crowd loves to parrot to sound like a “gotcha” when they want to be racist but are too cowardly to show who they really are. If that’s not obvious by now, then idk what to tell you, except that arguing against human rights and for police brutality is not going to endear you to people.
There’s a bunch of different autonomous groups, with no one “founder.”
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/474143254
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/474143254
No… There’s a proper 501-C that exists. So yes, there is a founder. While a lot of the marches are not necessarily associated directly with the organization, a lot of the donations get pooled into the organization. They make plenty of money doing it too.
Edit: There’s also orgs like…
Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation
As well associated with people like Khan-Cullors (https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/)
removed by mod
Oh cool dig!
It’s political to insist that getting shot in response for attacking the police is just “because you’re black”.
deleted by creator
So if they’re banning BLM as political, do they have to be even handed and ban all political iconography?
Is a rainbow political? Obviously anything with an American flag is political, so those need to be banned. Anything like a cross obviously would be forbidden - necklaces would have to be tucked in and invisible. Christianity is far more of a political thing in the US than BLM, as it’s being used to specifically and actively drive legislation. Would they then have to ban employees from other religious dress, like wearing a hijab or yarmulke? I don’t recall Muslims or Jews passing legislation in the name of their religion at the national level, but do activities in Dearborn or Williamsburg count?
Are wedding rings heteronormative? They’re certainly both a cultural and a social thing. Makeup is also both cultural and social, and additionally potentially has gendered implications. If we ban rainbows, do we ban anyone wearing makeup or require everyone to do so, since they’re potentially signaling gender identity?
I’m going to start using GOP rhetoric and replace rainbow flag with wedding rings.
Wedding rings is woke propaganda.
Makes sense to me. If it’s political for me to be able to get married because I’m gay, I don’t see why straight couples shouldn’t be up on the chopping block. So no employee better be wearing a ring.
So if they’re banning BLM as political, do they have to be even handed and ban all political iconography?
Yes… because the policy is
no slogans, logos, or advertising except for Whole Foods branding
I think you’re way into the weeds here and forget the most important thing to remember about “freedom”: things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are a compact between you and the government, not you and private companies. Private companies don’t owe you anything besides whatever the government has expressly legislated, such as explicit protection for religious clothing and icons like crosses, Sikh turbans, etc.
However, beyond that, individual companies have the right to request their employees look and dress in certain ways. The flip side there is, if you don’t like those rules, you are free to not work there anymore.
Of course, legislators can always choose to pass laws forcing companies to allow more exemptions, but that hasn’t happened yet for displays of a political organisation.
I get that. It makes logical sense. It’s just that corporations have so much power to impose their will and it feels weird to me that we let them do that even when it comes to how a human presents themself.
I agree with you about that, but these employees have chosen to do a job where they come face to face with customers daily, and some of those customers may get offended by seeing an employee wearing a BLM badge, in red states for example. The company doesn’t want to antagonise a potential customer and lose a sale, so they’re asking that no employees wear any political markings. And honestly, I think that’s a fair request if you work in a customer-facing role.
Notice that this ruling only applies to Whole Foods workers, not Amazon warehouse workers, who can probably wear whatever they want since they don’t deal with customers.
Because it is weird. It’s even weirder for any average person to defend it.
No, I am very well aware of that. But they’re not saying “You can’t wear a BLM button because we do not think black lives matter, but you can wear a proud boys one if you want.”
They may or may not have that right - that’s going to depend on both the currently existing corporate rules and any state/local legislation.
I was thinking in particular about a case in the past 5 or so years where a company was sued for forbidding one employee from wearing a hijab while allowing others to wear crosses. It was a case of religious discrimination.
My point is that for this to be non-discriminatory it has to be a policy that’s handled in an even handed fashion. Of course it has nothing to do with the constitution - I’m not even sure why you’d introduce that unless you’re staying to strawman. But I know that I can’t fire someone for saying in the workplace that they agree with Trump unless I have a wholesale policy banning talking about politics. I’d be in trouble if I said people could talk about politics, but they could only say nice things about Biden and bad things about Trump. You might be able to get away with that at a locally owned auto body shop, but not at a major corporation.
My further point is that saying that black lives matter isn’t political, unless there’s a major political party that thinks black lives don’t matter. Rainbows aren’t political, unless there’s a major political party that thinks the LGBT community shouldn’t be visible. Books on gay parents aren’t political unless there’s a political party that thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to be parents. But that same party would allow a flag pin, or a yellow ribbon, or a book about a hetero couple with a kid. It’s only political when they disagree with it. Otherwise it’s just “normal.”
You actually can fire people based on their political beliefs, because believe it or not, political affiliation is not a protected class under current US federal law (maybe some state law though). There are only 7 current federally protected classes: age, race, sex, religion, marital status, disability, and sexual orientation. That’s why Republicans have been announcing they want to make political affiliation a protected class soon, because I guess that’s the next big battleground, is employers start to hire/fire based on politics.
I take your points, but I guarantee you this isn’t a decision about politics by Amazon, but purely a maximisation of revenue decision. Whole Foods employees interact with customers face to face, every day, all across the US, from blue states to red states. They know that their customers in some places consider BLM to be a political organisation, one that they don’t support, and that goes for proud boys, KKK, whatever. The point is, you don’t want to antagonise any customers coming in through the door, and corporate is aware that people are awfully sensitive these days and ready to kick off over any tiny thing, so to ensure no customer gets offended and takes their business elsewhere, and to ensure a policy which can be applied nationally for all states where Whole Foods exists, it’s just easier to say they won’t allow anything which their customers could potentially consider political.
That’s all this is, it’s not the political dog whistle some are making it out to be. This is just corporations wanting to remain neutral and take money from every customer, not just liberal ones. Hence I agree with this policy, it’s not coming from a bad place and it’s not an absurd request either.
And yes, as you said, not allowing someone to wear a religious article of clothing is a lawsuit waiting to happen, which will be a slam dunk, but this isn’t the same.
I agree, but then I started thinking “why the hell do I think it’s so reasonable for a corporation to strip away the humanity of its employees” and I’m not sure where I’ve landed now.
They’re not doing anything if the sort, that’s hyperbolic nonsense. When you’re paid to represent a company, you shouldn’t be displaying items that link them to a course they’re not corporately linked to. Once you leave at the end of the shift you can put all the political regalia you like back on.
If no one is allowed to wear any flair then that’s fair. But everyone is allowed (and possibly encouraged?) to wear pride stuff in June as part of the anyway corporate rainbow-washing. So I have to ask why it’s OK to wear “LGBTQ+ folks deserve life and civil rights” stuff but it’s not OK to wear “Black folks deserve life and civil rights” stuff? Why is stating that Black lives have value so offensive that it’s worth fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to ban it?
It’s not just a corporate thing, police, military, and fire brigade aren’t allowed to wear overt political badging either.
There’s a general rule that if you work for an organisation which asks you to wear a work related uniform of some kind, you don’t get to add anything to it, political or otherwise. You don’t see bobbies with a Pink Floyd sticker on their chest.
“strip away the humanity”
I’m dead. That’s got to be the greatest use of hyperbole I’ve seen in a long time. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Yeah, it just seems like common sense to me that you don’t wear political regalia to work, and that’s coming from the UK where our workers rights are a big stronger.
Like it or not, while you’re on the clock, you’re on the companies time and the only political stuff you should be promoting, if any, if causes they’ve aligned themselves too corporately.
Yeah, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Agree or not (and I agree with what BLM stands for), it is sadly controversial. And I get why a business would not want employees overtly supporting or opposing something some customers could find controversial.
Time to start wearing a mask that says Union
What a wild hill to die on.
In that case, the workers should wear union masks instead.
deleted by creator
Exsqueeze me? What the amazon fuck, WholeFoods.
You can’t seriously be surprised by this. When you work for a company, especially one that interacts with customers, you’re almost guaranteed to have to follow uniform requirements. This isn’t new.
Reason 9,000,975 for not shipping Amazon/Whole Foods.
Honesty, imo, shame on Amazon for not barring anything but solid-colored, patterned, or Bezos-Empire-Branded masks, explicitly, in their dress code.
I’m a (mostly) vegan, liberal AF, solidly middle-class, homeowner married millenial parent (i.e the portrait of a Whole Foods customer), and I agree with BLM, but I would be put off by any political or politicalized messaging in a supplier/customer relationship. I’m here for your general tao seitan and a TTLA…not for your influence.
Saying that black people exist and should remain alive is not a political statement. Do you want to ban hats that say “veteran” too? Or maybe charity and cancer awareness logos?
Being a live black person is not a political act. Think about that when ordering some seitan and being “liberal AF”, whatever that means.
This feels very similar to me to businesses freaking out and trying to prevent their employees from wearing rainbow flag or pronoun pins. Or rainbow masks, for that matter.
I think employee uniform requirements should be just enough to make employees identifiable so they can do their jobs (e.g. answer customer questions about where the lettuce is or whatever). Just a mandatory hat or shirt is enough to do that. Beyond that, they’re humans. Let them be fucking humans.
Saying that black people exist and should remain alive is not a political statement
It’s absolutely political because it sits on the false premise that others argue otherwise. Nobody does, it’s a false premise used to create racial divide and lower the moral of the black community
Political - adj - Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
I don’t know if you really don’t know the difference between being black and supporting the BLM movement, but there is a definite difference. A good quick measure is would a politician hold an opinion on it? For a specific example do you think Tim Scott (one of the black Republican Presidential Candidates) would wear a BLM face mask?
I will assume that you are arguing and good faith and genuinely don’t see the difference, so here are a few contrasting examples:
Wearing a hat that says Veteran is a statement of fact, like wearing a hat with your college’s logo. It is not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.
Wearing a VFW hat on the other hand, would be political. The VFW seeks to educated and change the opinions of legislators regarding veterans.
If a black person was wearing a hat that said I am Black. That would be a statement of fact and not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.
Wearing a BLM hat on the other hand would be political. The BLM organization and supporters of the BLM ideals seek to educate and change the opinions of legislators and the public regarding black people.
Without typing out the same comparisons again, cancer awareness and most charities would fall under political ideals also. They almost always seek to influence government legislation or funding.
So you don’t agree with BLM then
Believe it or not it is possible to fully support a political ideal while still thinking corporations should stay out of politics.
For example, I think that cops taking money from people (Civil Asset Forfeiture) without charging them with a crime is amoral, unconstitutional (4th amendment), and un-American.
If, however, I saw a sign about it in my local McDonald’s I would definitely be like WTF?!?
It’s not “Black Lives Matter After Business Hours”
If you don’t believe black lives matter all the time, then you don’t believe black lives matter at all
Yeah, I tried that line on my youth pastor when I young zealous member of a church. His response didn’t make me happy, but did give me the opportunity to look at how others saw my actions.
If you have to wear a BLM patch for people to realize that you believe black lives matter, then are you showing it with your actions?
Of course his version was about my cross necklace that wasn’t allowed at work (no jewelry at all) and Christ’s love.
The simple fact is that more often than not, you will have a bigger impact on those around you when you show them that black lives matter with your actions, rather than by wearing a BLM patch. The people around you have seen a BLM patch and already formed an opinion about what it means. Many people that need to see and hear the message the most will turn their brains off as soon as they see the logo.
- Politicize the idea the that an ethnicity shouldn’t be arbitrarily beaten by police.
- Ban that idea because it’s “politicized”
- Everyone is ok with it because despite politicize is a verb we’re supposed to pretend this isn’t being done by someone that thinks it’s ok for police arbitrarily beat the shit out of minorities.
It’s almost like this a system of some kind. And maybe racist? A racist system? So not only aren’t we doing enough to take on systemic racism, corporations like Amazon are creating new forms of systemic racism.
That idea has no bearing on reality, you likely support many businesses owned by right wing assholes indirectly just by living somewhere that doesn’t use 100% renewable energy for all of its power needs, for example, and so do I, you can’t really help it. Corporations are people under US law and they have been doing political speech under that regime in the form of unlimited spending for over a decade. If Amazon actually believes that black lives matter they should indeed say it. False neutrality and saying that black lives matter is too political a stance for them to want to take is a stance in itself.
How Cool And Liberal and definitely not two faced. So while black people begin to avoid Whole Foods, you’ll still be shopping there because its not a problem for you. And as a good liberal of course, you agree there’s no reason people can state “black lives matter to me” on their clothes. Sure, in the privacy of your own property but not in Massa’s house. Bezo’s free speech quashes the protections of the speech of his lessers and… that is simply the law. You’re relieved of guilt.
You know, I’m not a tankie, but the self deluding, boot licking, and casual racist assumptions about whose lives are “political statements” based on their lamenting of being constantly murdered and stepped on by society, do give me a sympathetic window into their specific disgust of neoliberals. People like you go along to get along and nothing more.
You’re quite fine with racism because Whole Foods is cheap.
But this is specifically about workers wearing a BLM mask. Not the general public.
Amazon/Wholefoods are totally within their rights as employers to enforce a dress code. That’s it. That’s the end of the line.
Now, if they had previously let workers wear “FJB” masks without enforcing the dress code, that’s obviously a bias and something that should be dealt with.
This is, quite obviously, a worker violating a dress code and seeking publicity by riding the coattails of a heated issue with their own persecution complex.
If Amazon has a dress code, either it allows for a degree of self expression or it does not. The move to ban political messaging in the workplace doesn’t apply to the mere statement “black lives matter”. Black Lives Matter was a social movement and its name was informal and de-facto. There is an activist organization Black Lives Matter that claims (to my knowledge) a limited ownership of white-on-black “#Black Lives Matter” but the phrase itself doesn’t have a PO box, it doesn’t make political contributions. It is a value statement that one believes black human beings have inherent value. So to cede that the English phrase “black lives matter” is political assumes that the default LEGAL and POLITICAL viewpoint is that they do not, which is the terrifying, unspoken, yet not codified by law, truth underlying half of the America justice system. When you make the argument that Amazon has the right to ban such a phrase from clothing on political grounds you and Amazon are both admitting that you believe black lives in a general sense have no value and you’re willing to take it to court, because that is where this is probably going.
Are we really thinking that anyone at Amazon who matters actually believes that? Believes that this fundamental values conflict of American access to protected speech would actually resolve in a way that decidedly points to black lives having no worth as a legally upheld opinion in America? Really that is neither here nor there, we’re watching a version of this fascist semantics argument about free speech play out with minor or medium consequences all over the internet. This sort of move will curry some favor with racist culture warrior consumers and businesses, but it is about clamping down on employee rights to communicate symbolically at all. If the color chartreuse was a meme amongst unionists and union proponents, Amazon would do the same thing. On one side of the coin they are making a concession toward a racist status quo and on the other they are saying that the SCOTUS ruling they cite allows them to ban symbols in the workplace.
It isn’t good to shop at Whole Foods with this knowledge in the back of your brain. We will now, if you want, employ the thought terminating cliche that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and this is almost always true. However Amazon should not be allowed to target symbolic expression like this without a dress code saying “our employees wear an apron with the Amazon smile on it and a grey, breathable jumpsuit underneath”. There are workplaces like this with dress codes where this isn’t an issue. You are seeing Amazon casually admit it controls the symbolic language of the workplace entirely if it suits their agendas. Legality is not universal truth, especially when the Supreme Court has been arranged to flagrantly serve the interests of the business class. So there’s one argument for why people should get to wear chartreuse colored shirts that say whatever the fuck they want but hate speech.
I lost this typing it the first time and my second try wasn’t as good. I don’t care if you have a bunch of holes and flaws in my arguments to point out, I will quietly read them and appreciate them, but I will maintain you’re arguing for something racist and unethical either way unless it’s a really good argument. IE you’re not going to get me to say “gee you are right” by drawing similarities to Twitter cancellations over bad words and deplatforming of conservatives for speech that would get them punched in the nose in a public venue. In life, it is impossible to avoid political ideas, and even more impossible to avoid the techniques for propagating memetic formatted ideas like ads for conflict diamonds or unwell street preachers screaming the good word. You should buy your seitan somewhere that isn’t trafficking with fascist pseudolegal interpretations of free speech so they can control their employees by betting that a spineless lower court will uphold a directly evil SCOTUS ruling.
Obviously, no business wants to be associated with BLM any more than they want to be associated with the KKK. Every company I’ve ever worked for has had dress codes that prohibited divisive political slogans and offensive language.
That’s quite the false equivalence you’ve made there
They’re both reprehensible political extremist movements. BLM has the added stank of being a fraudulent money-laundering scam on top of it, too.
I guess the Summer of Love didn’t happen.Ahhh yes the BLM movement, famously known for lynching thousands of people just like the KKK!
Also, the KKK were only fighting to uphold their racist ideals. This is exactly the same as the BLM movement trying to fight against racism.
No false equivalence here!
Yes, both are extremist movements. One (BLM) doesn’t want black people to be murdered in the streets, while the other (KKK) want to murder black people in the streets. What is wrong with you?
No, BLM wants to spread lies about society, burn down cities, murder people, and loot, and swindle your own movement out of millions of dollars.
Chauvin’s prosecution was political.Get out of here, racist.
Shut up, liar. Quit slandering people.
Still waiting for you to tell me how stating black lives matter is a divisive political statement…
removed by mod
There’s no doubt in my mind that Chauvin is a grade-A cunt, even as cops go. But Floyd was a thug and he died of a fentanyl overdose.
removed by mod
BLM’s purpose is to create racial hatred and divide.
it seems you do that on your own. go on, tell us how many black friends you have now
Seems like you’re the one doing it right now…
I believe black people’s lives matter. I hold that view so strongly that I’m willing to shout it in the streets. Does that make part of a political extremist movement?
It makes you disingenuous. Everybody knows and believes black lives matter. Shouting it in the street amounts to a society-wide false accusation of racism.
If you then go on to set property on fire or use the message to swindle people out of their money, then you are a political extremist and a criminal.If by “shout it in the streets” you really mean “shut down the streets” as BLM tends to do, then absolutely yes you’re an extremist
Nah, it’s spot on
Really stupid. I mean REALLY stupid.
Yeah, thinking it’s a false equivalence is really stupid
Uniform is uniform, no politics in work is how every job I’ve had was. Can I wear a Spanish flag pin cuz it’s my heritage? No it violates dress code
How is the statement Black Lives Matter a divisive political slogan? Take all the time you need.
Sorry you live in a shitty town where a BLM sticker triggers snowflakes.
Go to any city in America and you’ll see all sorts of BLM, rainbow flags, signage on storefronts. This isn’t just mom & pop shops, but major companies too.
The left has no leg to stand on when bitching about ideological symbols when kids are getting kicked out of school for having a Gadsden flag patch on their backpack.
Yeah this one in particular pisses me off… A kid lost out on school time because of a flag that had nothing to do with “the south”… and was never co-opted by “racists”… yet the only people I saw freaking out about that was conservatives… And yet here we are…
Great, and each company is entitled to its own rules on those things. Whole foods have decided on theirs and their employees can lump it or go and get a job with the more progressive companies that do allow it.
False equivalence fallacy.
The BLM/KKK thing is a false equivilance, but his right to say that companies have the right to decide if employees can display political iconography on their uniform and most of them won’t want it due to the hassle it will bring and also that it may indicate a corporate connection that isn’t there.
I agree with you, but at most places, one will probably get you fired, where the other would be a conversation.
6 day old account with -900 karma… I think it’s a troll, guys!
Are you seriously equating BLM to the KKK?
BLM’s message is “Please stop murdering us”
How the fuck is that divisive, political, or offensive?
What’s divisive is morons like you saying “No, ALL LIVES MATTER”.
You’re either completely missing the point, in which case you’re dumber than I thought possible, or you’re willfully ignoring it, in which case you’re just a racist.
Which is it?
I never said, and I never say, “All Lives Matter.” That’s what stupid conservatives say because they don’t understand that’s exactly the rhetorical trap BLM has set for them in order to call them racists. Please notice I didn’t step in that trap, so don’t shove me into it.
When it comes to “What belongs on people’s clothes while representing their employer,” BLM and KKK are the same.
BLM’s message isn’t really “Please stop murduring us.” It’s “You white people are all a bunch of racists.”
It’s slanderous (which is why it’s offensive), it’s obviously political at a glance, so inherently so that I don’t know how to explain it, and a lot of people don’t go for that shit and a lot of other people do (which makes it divisive).All lives matter is an anti racist way to say that black lives matter.
