American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don't think you're trolling...

Yes, he is.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yes, he is.

Haha well sure, maybe. But I've also interacted with enough true believers to notice a difference. Regardless of whether they're a troll or a true believer, I'm just as entertained.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then you agree with the core of what BLM stands for. It's not some clever play to disguise other issues, it's the basis for those issues. You can agree with the core of what they stand for and disagree with other issues or tactics. Not difficult.



You seem to have trouble grasping the role of actions by looking only for explicit statements. Has Pride and the LGBTQ community been guilty of underrepresenting, excluding, and outright ignoring the struggles of black LGBTQ people? Yes. I would think you'd understand the importance of actions, given that you are the one who argued that physical abuse was much more severe and worthy of focus than racism and mental abuse when talking about Akim Aliu. Surely you aren't suddenly unable to grasp the implications just because someone doesn't explicitly say "black lives don't matter," right? You've at least pretended to be smarter than that once before.



Can you point to those specific claims? I've asked a few times.



Your over-reliance on right wing talking points aside, this is pretty stupid, no? BLM is made up of different chapters and loose memberships with a set of aligning principles. Placing the views or actions of the few onto the many isn't really honest. To the bolded, should we say then that the Republican party explicitly calls for white supremacy, violence against minorities, that Jews are evil, and that the Holocaust was a hoax? Because I mean... depending on who/where is speaking...

I don't think you're trolling, but I do think you're trying to mask a bias which has been overwhelmingly obvious given your posting history. I don't think someone who has shown a consistent inability to comprehend the impact of racism or the existence of white privilege is very likely to have a balanced critical view of BLM (which is likely why you pull some of your talking points from right wing media).

Multi-quotes are so gauche. But I think you actually have some interesting points here, so let's continue...

I have yet to hear anyone declare that black lives do not matter. Have you? I literally haven't heard that. People can have disagreements on the causes of the myriad issues which plague the black community without it meaning or implying that they believe that black lives do not matter. This is the failure of reason that is often accompanied by support of BLM - if you don't support BLM's solutions, then ergo you believe that black lives do not matter, even if you don't explicitly state it. This is simply false.

If a person were to say that they do not support BLM because they don't like the idea of reparations, then a circular argument appears to ensue which goes like this: not supporting reparations = not supporting BLM = not support black lives. "It's right there in the name!" So if you are asking about specific claims, then I refer back to your own posts.

Regarding the tacit acceptance of violence as a tool: I'm perfectly willing to modify my claim to say that some chapters of the coalition of BLM groups support violence more than others. This seems a bizarre solution to the criticism as it makes BLM sound like an ideology rather than an activist group - maybe one ought to be quite clear on the particular BLM chapters they support or don't support. Do people support the website version of BLM or just certain components? Do they support the more violent strategies and if you don't, does that mean you don't think black lives matter?

And you're correct, I'm not trolling. I simply chalk that up to cognitive dissonance. People are so used to their anchored positions that they assume that any disagreement with them must be disingenuous. Any alignment with right wing talking points is more coincidence than not. Many posters here would bristle at the observation that their views are simply left-wing talking points, but that is also plainly the case.

Edit: I also thanked your post because I appreciate your good faith and honest approach to the discussion even though there would be plenty of things on which we disagree. (Although I think you would find that we would agree on more than you expect.)

[PsYcNeT]

I mean if you had actually posted this in a thread about BLM (there are a few, do a search) then I might believe you. The fact that you brought it up here and spurred a multi-page derail apropos of nothing points to you trying to pull some both sides many sides deflection bull####.

The amount of sealioning you're doing about "hurr who actually says black lives don't matter??" is pathetic.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

BLM explicitly calls for:

In order for something to be done "explicitly", they have to actually say it or write it in clear terms. I just posted the BLM website page that sets out what the organization stands for. It's pretty easy to search that page and determine whether there is any explicit mention of any of the things you listed. So, does BLM explicitly call for:

- defunding the police

No, they don't.

- reparations

No, they don't.

- removal or destruction of many of the current institutions/systems

No, they don't.

- at least tacit acceptance of violence as a tool (depending who/where is speaking)

No, they don't.

- at least 2 of the 3 founders are avowed marxists.

I'm not sure how you call for 2 of your 3 founders being avowed marxists, but this isn't there either.

Unless you can point me to the statement from BLM, as an organization, "explicitly" stating that these are among the principles of that organization, what you've said is objectively false.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I have yet to hear anyone declare that black lives do not matter. Have you? I literally haven't heard that. People can have disagreements on the causes of the myriad issues which plague the black community without it meaning or implying that they believe that black lives do not matter.

I've already responded to this, so I'm not sure why you're circling the drain here. Actions matter, your actions can reflect beliefs even if you don't verbalise them. If you're purposely ignoring actions and waiting for the words, you're going to remain ignorant to the issues. This is essentially like looking at someone who purposely doesn't associate with Black people, refuses to serve them, and says "ending slavery was a mistake" and thinking "well they're only racist if they say they're a racist." You're smarter than that, aren't you?

To the second point, of course people can. Nobody is arguing otherwise. Taking Pride as an example, the issue was never disagreement, it was the fact that Pride and their support systems were always white-centered and sometimes exclusionary of Black LGBTQ people. The point of the BLM sit-in was "we matter too" and that if Pride truly believed that, their actions (not special or extra actions, just the same ones they were already taking) would include Black people. Not Pride disagreeing with the causes and thus thinking black lives don't matter.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

This is the failure of reason that is often accompanied by support of BLM - if you don't support BLM's solutions, then ergo you believe that black lives do not matter, even if you don't explicitly state it. This is simply false.

Again, I've addressed this. You're making those connections on your own and that becomes your issue to figure out. You can be against defunding the police (plenty of people left and right are and plenty on CP) without being accused or assumed that you believe black lives don't matter. It's a nice strawman, but reality says otherwise. And that's simply true.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

If a person were to say that they do not support BLM because they don't like the idea of reparations, then a circular argument appears to ensue which goes like this: not supporting reparations = not supporting BLM = not support black lives. "It's right there in the name!" So if you are asking about specific claims, then I refer back to your own posts.

See above. The situation you're describing might exist, but it's certainly not common, and requires a level of nuance a little greater than what a brick is capable of to solve. This whole "it's right there in the name!" thing is about the same as "who is saying this??" Like really, are you talking to 5 year olds? Maybe, I guess, but stop doing that. Or if you're having trouble being accused of thinking black lives don't matter maybe just... expand whatever point you're making? I think the Pride parade is a joke, but guess how often I get accused of thinking gay pride is a joke? Literally zero, because I spend 3 seconds explaining my position. Wow, tough stuff. I just don't go around leaving people with dumb split-second hot takes.

I don't know, maybe you're receiving the level of nuance you're contributing? You did try to distill them down to "Marxists Against Police Brutality" because of two select notes, so maybe the issue is that you have just as much trouble understanding nuance as you do expressing it? That seems most likely.

Refer to my posts if you want. Happy to explain if you feel I've accused you of thinking black lives don't matter or described anyone who doesn't agree with reparations of the same.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Any alignment with right wing talking points is more coincidence than not. Many posters here would bristle at the observation that their views are simply left-wing talking points, but that is also plainly the case.

The difference is, of course, that I am unashamed in my left bias where it exists, while you chalk right-bias up to "coincidence." For those of us who can understand nuance and do understand that actions reflect belief, and don't need you to explicitly express something to see the root of it, this is not a troublesome thing to grasp. It can be an easy coincidence if it's a random talking point that happens to be the same, as people come to ideas on their own all the time that might run right across the spectrum, but the majority of yours are consistent with views shared heavily on some right wing media sites. That's a big coincidence, I guess.

Anyways, feel free to PM me if you really feel like continuing the conversation. As others have pointed out, this is off topic enough to move it elsewhere.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In order for something to be done "explicitly", they have to actually say it or write it in clear terms. I just posted the BLM website page that sets out what the organization stands for. It's pretty easy to search that page and determine whether there is any explicit mention of any of the things you listed. So, does BLM explicitly call for:

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

I'm not sure how you call for 2 of your 3 founders being avowed marxists, but this isn't there either.

Unless you can point me to the statement from BLM, as an organization, "explicitly" stating that these are among the principles of that organization, what you've said is objectively false.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-cont...pl-Trayvon.pdf




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCgh...ature=youtu.be

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-cont...pl-Trayvon.pdf




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCgh...ature=youtu.be

I wish you would realize that the BLM movement and ANTIFA is not in any way run by anyone, anymore than Greenpeace isnt in charge of everyone who recycles

[Scroopy Noopers]

A “Real News Network” link! There it is! Almost had me.

I don’t find that list of demands outlined elsewhere anywhere on the BLM website.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I wish you would realize that the BLM movement and ANTIFA is not in any way run by anyone, anymore than 'Greenpeace' isnt in charge of everyone who recycles

I’m stealing this, thanks for the great way of explaining this to people.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

A “Real News Network” link! There it is! Almost had me.

I don’t find that list of demands outlined elsewhere anywhere on the BLM website.

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...

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

A “Real News Network” link! There it is! Almost had me.

I don’t find that list of demands outlined elsewhere anywhere on the BLM website.

It was an interview with the founder of BLM. I have no idea about the rest of the content on that channel, but it's a fairly well known interview.

[BoLevi]

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.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I didn't say BLM was Marxist, I said it was founded by Marxists.

Ok.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

If they were more honest, they probably should have called themselves: Marxists-Against-Police-Brutality-Involving-Black-People. It would have been more accurate....

Originally Posted by BoLevi

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?

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.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The concept that black lives matter seems to be universally accepted.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

it seems pretty irresponsible to align oneself with the "big tent" Black Lives Matter without some pretty clearly stated reservations.

[ResAlien]

Slow news day then huh?

[activeStick]

I just turned to CNN and apparently the WH is on lockdown and Trump abruptly ended his coronavirus briefing. The live shots right now show all the reporters still stuck in the briefing room, I assume, waiting for instructions.

[nik-]

Someone shot outside the White House, apparently by the Secret Service

[nik-]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1292943295153405952

Not sure if "whisked" is the term I'd have used there. Chip chop, Bone Spurs.

[White Out 403]

God. He must have been a terrible lay. He moves like tin man from Wizard of Oz.