-
I think @hoefla and @dandruff (left in for typo comedy) @danstuff are both right.
Of course it's the right thing to do to use your platform to spread awareness of a major issue. I cant argue with that.
But, is that at the cost of diluting other messages while your audience is engaging with them? I guess I'm just overthinking it. Have been doing a lot of comms strategy stuff recently and maybe it has crept into the back of my mind.
Stonehedge-
@dandruff
Sadly I no longer have enough hair to make that an issue, except maybe in my ears.
I can see there's a temptation when you represent a movement with considerable momentum (with a small 'm') to try and bring in within the umbrella of that movement other causes you consider worthy and analogous to the cause you're fighting for. The trouble is that I fear it dilutes the message and ultimately leads to arguments about scope which distract from the cause.
I appreciate that what BLM stands for will vary from place to place. The 'defund the police' argument may have less validity in the UK than the US, as the funding, militarization and ethos may be different. But that doesn't IMVHO mean that the core message shouldn't be the same.
Brommers
I'm not on twitter, but if it is to do with drawing wider attention to an urgent situation for an already oppressed people, what's strange about it?
What you already know about, a lot of people who follow UK BLM might not - they are using their position to highlight and increase awareness. Which is the same thing others with bigger platforms did for them. It doesn't seem so strange?