BLM gets Divisive Again

[zelosravioli]

".. The whole "defund the police" thing backfired as expected too"
Yes, the amount of out of control and unashamed crime and violence, is primarily why we dont hear much about BLM from most people.

As with most navel gazing ideologies on the Left, they go off on what may be an original honest injustice, and sometimes a nobel worthy cause, but if the cause or solution theyre proposing is worse, irrational, or even more dangerous that the original problem - that ideology should be critically debated, and opposed if necessary.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The name BLM by its very nature is divisive.

False.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Goonie]

The name BLM by its very nature is divisive.

No it is not. If the name was Black lives only matter, you would be correct, but BLM should not be controversial as an idea, at least to no one who is not wearing a white conical hood(except some Catholic sect).

 

[Landon Caeli]

No it is not. If the name was Black lives only matter, you would be correct, but BLM should not be controversial as an idea, at least to no one who is not wearing a white conical hood(except some Catholic sect).

I agree with your first sentence. But do you think the following hashtag is divisive? I do... It says: "divest from white corporations".

#DIVEST FROM WHITE CORPORATIONS. #INVEST IN BLACK COMMUNITIES. IF YOU MUST BUY #BUYBLACK. GET INVOLVED IN 3 EASY STEPS

BLM BlackXmas Official Site

 

[Landon Caeli]

di·vest
/dəˈvest,dīˈvest/

verb

1. deprive (someone) of power, rights, or possessions.
   "men are unlikely to be divested of power without a struggle"

 

[rjs330]

False.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes it is because it singles out a single race and says it matters instead of being inclusive. The insinuation is that black lives dont matter. Otherwise why point it out?

And the OP points out exactly how divisive it is and means to be.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes it is because it singles out a single race and says it matters instead of being inclusive.

Kind of like how we single out the importance of Jewish lives during the Holocaust, or Christian lives during the Roman persecutions.

Because when a particular demographic of human lives is at risk it is good to address that.

The implication isn't that only these lives matter, they're the only ones that ever have mattered, and the only ones that ever will matter.

That's like suggesting that if my house is on fire I am saying all other houses don't matter just because I'm pointing out that my house, right now, is the house that happens to be on fire.

Do all lives matter? Yeah. No duh.

All lives matter, ergo, black lives also matter. So, see, black lives matter.

Can you agree that, since all lives matter then black lives matter--because black lives are included in that "all lives" category?

In which case, why do you have a problem with me, or anyone else, pointing out that black lives matter?

The insinuation is that black lives dont matter. Otherwise why point it out?

Are you being serious? You can't be. You can't be trying to be serious.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ana the Ist]

No it is not. If the name was Black lives only matter, you would be correct, but BLM should not be controversial as an idea, at least to no one who is not wearing a white conical hood(except some Catholic sect).

You're implying that everyone who disagrees with a vaguely defined organization with no clear direction is racist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Kind of like how we single out the importance of Jewish lives during the Holocaust,

Do we have hard evidence of that oppression and its motives?

Or are we just pointing to the disparity of Jewish people in Europe before and after the holocaust and making assumptions about what created it?

Because one of those is a matter of fact. The other is a matter of faith and dogma.

 

[rjs330]

Kind of like how we single out the importance of Jewish lives during the Holocaust, or Christian lives during the Roman persecutions.

Because when a particular demographic of human lives is at risk it is good to address that.

The implication isn't that only these lives matter, they're the only ones that ever have mattered, and the only ones that ever will matter.

That's like suggesting that if my house is on fire I am saying all other houses don't matter just because I'm pointing out that my house, right now, is the house that happens to be on fire.

Do all lives matter? Yeah. No duh.

All lives matter, ergo, black lives also matter. So, see, black lives matter.

Can you agree that, since all lives matter then black lives matter--because black lives are included in that "all lives" category?

In which case, why do you have a problem with me, or anyone else, pointing out that black lives matter?



Are you being serious? You can't be. You can't be trying to be serious.

-CryptoLutheran

There is no way that you can compare Jewish lives during the Holocaust it Christians in Roman days.

I'm not seeing blacks rounded up, put in concentration camps, placed in gas chambers, experimented on, used as street torches, eaten by lions or crucified. Patently ridiculous comparison.

We don't have a particular demographic group of humans at risk in this country. No one is hunting down and killing blacks, unless it their own race.

The implication of Black live matter is that others do not believe so. And it's saying whites don't believe black lives matter. Its divisive and perverse.

Yes I have a problem with pointing out one race that matters. Especially when a lie is being used to legitimize the argument.

And you using Jews and Christians as a comparison further delegitimizes the blm.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

CRT is not the biggest threat to democracy in America.

I wouldn't call it a threat to Democracy at all...perhaps a threat to a quality education? (specifically in the history department...depending on how it's implemented), but not a threat to democracy in general.

That's not to say that some of those mindsets couldn't be elevated to that level of "threatening democracy" at some point, but it has a long way to go before anyone has to worry about that.

Things like gerrymandering & voter suppression, or just the two party system in general, I view as bigger threats to democracy than any controversial ideology (left or right)

 

[Oompa Loompa]

".. The whole "defund the police" thing backfired as expected too"
Yes, the amount of out of control and unashamed crime and violence, is primarily why we dont hear much about BLM from most people.

As with most navel gazing ideologies on the Left, they go off on what may be an original honest injustice, and sometimes a nobel worthy cause, but if the cause or solution theyre proposing is worse, irrational, or even more dangerous that the original problem - that ideology should be critically debated, and opposed if necessary.

May I also point out the fact that even the BLM founder bailed out after raking in the cash?

 

[Pommer]

May I also point out the fact that even the BLM founder bailed out after raking in the cash?

Pony up the “fact”, please.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Pony up the “fact”, please.

I already did. Go ahead and fact check me if you would like. To help you out you can google "Alicia Garza".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wouldn't call it a threat to Democracy at all...perhaps a threat to a quality education? (specifically in the history department...depending on how it's implemented), but not a threat to democracy in general.

That's not to say that some of those mindsets couldn't be elevated to that level of "threatening democracy" at some point, but it has a long way to go before anyone has to worry about that.

Things like gerrymandering & voter suppression, or just the two party system in general, I view as bigger threats to democracy than any controversial ideology (left or right)

Are you familiar with how many of what were called "eastern bloc" European nations became communist nations?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I just learned a new word today; "populist".

I think BLM is a populist movement, because it accuses (white) elitists of holding down the (black) people.

...And populist movements are always divisive...disruptive...oftentimes even destructive.

Any truth in this? I'd like to get another opinion on this.

 

[RDKirk]

I just learned a new word today; "populist".

I think BLM is a populist movement, because it accuses (white) elitists of holding down the (black) people.

...And populist movements are always divisive...disruptive...oftentimes even destructive.

Any truth in this? I'd like to get another opinion on this.

Populism tends to be divisive, but everybody tends to do it because it wins elections. Trump's campaign was a textbook course in populism.

BLM is both a popular (not populist) movement and an organization...but the two are not identical. However, inasmuch as BLM is not a political party, it is not "populist." Just "popular."

 

[Landon Caeli]

Populism tends to be divisive, but everybody tends to do it because it wins elections. Trump's campaign was a textbook course in populism.

BLM is both a popular (not populist) movement and an organization...but the two are not identical. However, inasmuch as BLM is not a political party, it is not "populist." Just "popular."

I don't believe populism is restricted to political parties. Even Occupy Wallstreet was considered populist, because it considered the 1% to be elitist, and the 99% to be "the people".

 

[RDKirk]

I don't believe populism is restricted to political parties. Even Occupy Wallstreet was considered populist, because it considered the 1% to be elitist, and the 99% to be "the people".

The scope of BLM either as a movement or as an organization is too narrow to be populist.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The scope of BLM either as a movement or as an organization is too narrow to be populist.

But the scope of populism is to disrupt the way governance is conducted, by taking power away from an elite, and placing it in the hands of the people... Just like populist American revolutionaries stripped power away from the British elites, and placing it in the hands of "we the people". A textbook example of populism, and the foundation of our country.

...Not sure it matters how it's done but rather, it's the objective that makes it populist or not. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.