Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
To the second point, it's likely because they're evolving. They've only been around a handful of years, and are still maturing and growing and becoming increasingly decentralized, and BoLevi is hung up on some things.
To the first, the video isn't anything scandalous. TRNN isn't a crazy right wing media group or anything. But if Bo actually watched the video, he'd see the founder (while saying she's a trained Marxist, but never suggesting BLM was a Marxist movement) say that "It's important that we... in the Black Lives Matter movement allow for necessary debate to come up around how we use the term (black lives matter), and who's using the term, and when it's used." She also gives examples of black lives being devalued that gave reason for the movement.
So, you'd think if Bo was going to post the video and take her for her word (which he did in some aspects, but purposely ignored others), we wouldn't even be having this discussion, as it makes fairly clear that "Black Lives Matter" is not designed as a clever 'gotchya' to shut down dissent, but is instead welcoming debate. And yet...
|
I didn't say BLM was Marxist, I said it was founded by Marxists.
I find it intriguing that people here are now making the argument that BLM is right, except where their past views that have evolved or matured, or except where parts of the movement seems to be...controversial?
Maybe we agree on more than I thought.
If BLM is becoming more decentralized and fractured, then it seems pretty irresponsible to align oneself with the "big tent" BLM without some pretty clearly stated reservations.