Friedersdorf: Isn’t “proof” a strong word given that we’re talking about the internal thoughts of others? I worry that you’re writing off potential allies prematurely. Imagine attending a Black Lives Matter event where everyone is eager to hear from DeRay McKesson. On the cusp of his speech, the stage is rushed by a group of Muslim Americans who seize the mic and demand four minutes of silence for Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the 16-year-old killed in America’s drone war (a life-or-death issue). Some BLM audience members begin to boo the interruption.



A Muslim activists says, “This proves your bigotry.” DeRay McKesson never does speak. I'd expect some Black Lives Matter activists to be annoyed by that exchange.

Would that prove that they care more about being inconvenienced than dead Pakistani children? I don’t think that follows. Nor would I characterize them as “attempting to silence an oppressed people,” not if strangers arrived at their event unannounced and specifically demanded their silence. When you write that the progressives in Seattle were “attempting to silence an oppressed people,” I want to acknowledge the many places where abusive policing rises to the level of oppressing black people as a class; I’ve written about conditions in Ferguson and Baltimore, and Stop and Frisk in New York City. And yet, when two black women seize a stage at a progressive event, I would find it offensive if the immediate, reflexive reaction of white progressives in the crowd amounted to, “Oh, don’t object! Those are women of color. They must therefore be both oppressed and speaking to us as representatives of oppressed people.” That would strike me as toxic white superiority disguising itself as deference––“good progressives” prejudging black people as inferiors to be pitied rather than equals to engage as singular individuals.



We’re in total agreement about the urgency of efforts to reform policing and avert unjustified killings. The Washington Post just reported that “so far this year, 24 unarmed black men have been shot and killed by police––one every nine days,” and that “black men accounted for 40 percent of the 60 unarmed deaths, even though they make up just 6 percent of the population.” Dramatically reducing those deaths, as well as the other 60 percent of unarmed people killed, is totally possible. Cops here kill more unarmed people in a month than the combined totals of whole European nations for years. As a writer who’s urged policing reform before Black Lives Matter began, I’m grateful for the attention they’ve brought to the issue and awed by the courage some members have shown protesting militarized police empowered to use lethal force. I wish Sanders and his progressive fans, as well as every other candidate in both parties, pushed for sweeping reforms daily.



But I don’t see how to function in a pluralistic democracy––or profitably cooperate with people who believe in policing reform but count it a lesser priority––if people with shared priorities on policing shut down the events of potential allies because the issue we care about isn’t the one they’re discussing. What if everyone with a life-or-death cause did that? All public events would begin only to be interrupted by a series of earnest people who very reasonably want the nation to grapple more fully with innocents being slaughtered in Syria; highway deaths; catastrophic climate change; drug-resistant bacteria; lead poisoning in poor neighborhoods; earthquake preparedness in the Pacific Northwest, where an imminent temblor is expected to kill thousands. Who is to say how best to prioritize these life-or-death issues, or what degree of attention where would save the most lives?



I’m not saying direct action is never justified, any more than I’d say that it’s never okay to interrupt someone in a conversation. But isn’t it also important to preserve a norm where political movements get to hold events where they can decide what to talk about? That norm best protects the rights of marginalized groups from being silenced by powerful adversaries. (Black Lives Matter would be ill-served by a norm where the relative ability to seize stages by force determines who speaks.) If an attention-grabbing moment was required, what about an action that didn’t come at the expense of a nascent, fragile political movement waging its own unlikely struggle for attention? At least that’s how I reacted, despite being someone who is on board with much more of the BLM agenda than the average American and doesn’t identify at all with the Sanders movement. I respect that your reaction was different; I’m glad it gave you cause for celebration and gave rise to this conversation; and I'm still prepared to be persuaded that this action had salutary effects in Seattle that I can’t see. But I worry that more of the same from Black Lives Matter will harm, not help, an agenda much of which I want to advance. I know I’m not alone in that concern. Maybe I’m wrong. Part of the idea here is to lay out my logic so that you can go after any holes in it, so have at it!