Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Ok.
It's not that intriguing. People aren't arguing that BLM is "right except for," almost no such argument is being made about the rightness or wrongness of ideas like defunding the police or reparations. I think I'm the only one who has, and I suggest defunding the police was right (not wrong).
There also hasn't been any argument about some aspects being controversial, so why would you find it interesting that topics you already believe are controversial are... in fact... controversial... when nobody has argued otherwise? I stated defunding the police was "as controversial" as the concept of black lives matter, and my point was pretty clearly that it is controversial.
Be honest, are you capable of nuance or no? Because things like this look silly.
|
Well, they were certainly founded by marxists, so I certainly would have no qualms if they labelled themselves as such (although to date they haven't). But either way, we're shaving that argument a little thin.
My point all along is that they are clever to call themselves with something uncontroversial, while espousing policies that are controversial. This way you can use the uncontroversial name to cudgel your critics when they want to discuss the controversial bits. This thread has provided ample evidence to this strategy.