Is out-of-hand rejection of BLM conclusive evidence of unapologetic racism?

[k9bfriender]

@Ludovic

Genuinely asking for information is a gotcha ya?

Where did you “genuinely ask for more information?”

You asserted, “it must mean something else than simply thinking we should do as much as possible to protect Black lives.” There were no questions in your post, only assertions as to what BLM must really mean.

@Ludovic

That shows that there wasn’t some huge wave of demonstrations as larger or larger than BLM that I had been missing, commensurate with health care’s disproportionate affect on American lives.

You were making it sound as though no one was interested in UHC, which not only is completely unrelated to the subject, was also wrong.

Sure, the killing, terrorism and oppression of people is something that is going to get more people up and in the streets than healthcare. That’s just basic human psychology.

But your claim was that they don’t really care about black lives because they aren’t doing this other thing that you think that they should so instead is completely fallacious.

@Ludovic

I was responding to the claim that BLM means nothing more than recognizing that Black Lives Matter.

By putting words in their mouth, and saying that if they don’t do things they way that you think they should do things, then they are lying.

@Ludovic

Attention to certain causes because they’re more anger-inducing belies that claim.

Not really, no.

@Ludovic

NPR is trying to frighten me?

NPR is giving you the stories that are of high interest. But they also give stories about the fight for UHC, and even stories about someone studying butterflies.

If the only new source you had for BLM was NPR, then you wouldn’t be so misinformed. You are getting your news from other sources, sources you have chosen because they give you the picture of the world that you want to see.

@Ludovic

They weren’t sensationalist about either the suppression of the protests nor the opportunistic looting and destruction that went along with them.

See, that you think that looting and destruction were an inherent part of the protests simply means that you have chosen to see only protests that had some of that happen. The overwhelming vast majority did not, but they did not make the news.

You get a bunch of people together, and sometimes nefarious actors will take advantage of the situation. To tie that and blame that on BLM is simply ignorant and looking for an excuse to dismiss the movement.

[k9bfriender]

@mikecurtis

My bona fides in the matter of civil justice are impeccable, so step back.

@mikecurtis

It’s about what Ponderoid’s friend and those like them know. And, like it or not, there are a lot of people out there who believe that the movement and the organization share the same goals/beliefs. That it’s a:
Marxist (whatever the hell they think that means)
Anti police
Anti family
Racist
movement.

These beliefs are based on ignorance.

@mikecurtis

It’s not spreading ignorance to point out that a large portion of our country doesn’t understand completely what is meant.

It is accepting ignorance to humor those people, and it is spreading ignorance to give their ignorance merit.

@mikecurtis

By knowing where their ignorance comes from we can better devise a strategy to combat that ignorance.

Oh, that’s easy, Fox and other right wing news sources, as well as social media that has algorithms that reinforce the views that someone already has.

@mikecurtis

Is out of hand rejection of BLM conclusive evidence of unapologetic racism?
Maybe, or maybe they don’t get or don’t want to get the distinction.

So, yes, or they are willfully ignorant. Why are they willfully ignorant?Because they don’t want to educated themselves. You said it yourself, they don’t want to get the distinction. If someone doesn’t want to educated themselves, then there’s not much that can be done to do so.

They are either ignorant of the terrorism and oppression that is inflicted on communities in the US by paid actors of the state, or they are supportive of those actions.

They have proven time and time again that they will cling to their ignorance, that any attempts to educate, they will refuse, and make fallacious claims, or false equivalencies. Their motivations in clinging to their ignorance may be varied, but one thing is for certain, they do not believe that anything is wrong, that anything needs to be done to stop the terrorism and oppression of our fellow citizens in their own homes and neighborhoods.

[k9bfriender]

@Novelty_Bobble

Anyone doing research on the organisation “BLM” would find a page that reads as a political manifesto and an organisation that appears to be making political demands. Including “defund the police”.

No, anyone doing research would come to the conclusion that BLM is made up of many different groups and individuals. Someone doing a google search and clicking on the first link would find the Bureau of Land Management.

Scrolling down a bit, they may find the page you are talking about. But that’s not research. If they read the wiki page that is one lower, that would be closer to research, and they would be disabused of the notions that you say they would have.

@Novelty_Bobble

That would be a rejection of a defined organsiation, with a specific set of demands and making that rejection on the basis of disagreeing with beliefs, demands and tactics.

After doing a fair amount of research, I have found that Komen is a very poor organization for breast cancer research and prevention. If I don’t donate to Komen, or speak out about the way they waste their donations, that would be a “a rejection of a defined organsiation, with a specific set of demands and making that rejection on the basis of disagreeing with beliefs, demands and tactics.”

If I flip the table whenever I see a pink ribbon, then I probably don’t care about breast cancer.

@Novelty_Bobble

If PETA changed their name to “Animal Rights” then an animal lover could legitimately be said to be against “Animal Rights” and yet still be in favour of animal rights.

If someone said that they were against the ethical treatment of animals, would you think that they were just opposed to PETA, or they they are against the ethical treatment of animals? If I type in “ethical treatment of animals” PETA is the first thing that pops up. Would it be fair for me to assume that anyone who is for the ethical treatment of animals supports PETA’s position on everything?

[Ludovic]

@k9bfriender

See, that you think that looting and destruction were an inherent part of the protests simply means that you have chosen to see only protests that had some of that happen. The overwhelming vast majority did not, but they did not make the news.

That’s ridiculous. In what way does “opportunistic” equate to “an inherent part of the protests”? You’re being deliberately obtuse.

[k9bfriender]

@octopus

You, Chronos and several others seem to believe that labels always mean what they literally mean.

No, that’s not the problem.

@octopus

Anyone can claim any label at any time.

Yes, that is true, which means that if someone claims a symbol, that doesn’t give them ownership over it.

@octopus

Furthermore, many on this site want to tell others that the meaning they assign to labels or symbols is intrinsically wrong.

Only when they insist that it means something that it doesn’t.

@octopus

When an organization explicitly states they are Marxist it’s valid to reject that organization.

Sure, if you don’t like Marxism, and an organization explicitly states they are Marxist, then you can refuse to support that organization.

But then, it would behoove on to educate themselves on the subject before making such an assumption.

PolitiFact - Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?

@octopus

Noone has an obligation to support Marxists just because their business card has race related terms.

No one has said that you have to. You don’t have to support Marxism to be against the terrorism and oppression that is inflicted on our fellow citizens because of the color of the skin.

What you are doing here, though, is trying to change the issue, and make the claim that your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge.

[k9bfriender]

It doesn’t. You were the one linking the looting and vandalism to the protests. I was the one pointing out that they are not linked.

[Ludovic]

I was pointing out that if I had been as brainwashed by the fearmongering sensationalism of NPR as you claimed, that I would have thought that they were linked even though they are largely (with exceptions even though they are only partial overlaps) opportunistic. Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been when I pointed out that they are opportunistic and took place in the same time and location.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@k9bfriender

No, anyone doing research would come to the conclusion that BLM is made up of many different groups and individuals. Someone doing a google search and clicking on the first link would find the Bureau of Land Management.

not on my google, “BLM organisation” gives the first page as the one I linked to.

@k9bfriender

If they read the wiki page that is one lower, that would be closer to research, and they would be disabused of the notions that you say they would have.

well, not really. If they wanted to find out what the organisation BLM stood for and what sort of demands they were making then, one way or another, that’s the page they get to.

@k9bfriender

If someone said that they were against the ethical treatment of animals, would you think that they were just opposed to PETA, or they they are against the ethical treatment of animals?

I’d think they were against the ethical treatment of animals. If PETA changed their name to “Ethical Treatment of Animals” and someone said the same then then I could not reasonably make such an assumption could I?

[octopus]

That’s the clever thing about the exploitation and cynical usage of labels such as antifa, BLM, etc. Any criticism of anyone or anything using said label is considered tantamount to blasphemy and sacrilege in a theocracy.