BLM exists because three black lesbians weren't happy that George Zimmerman was not arrested when he shot Trayvon Martin in self defense. It gained popularity when initial reports were that a police officer killed gentle giant Michael Brown when he was trying to surrender with his hand up.
Yes, because there's not like this entire history of police brutality. What do you think about the story I posted earlier in this thread? https://www.theguardian.com/global/...ucky-acting-police-chief-instructed-a-recruit
This is just incorrect. Well yes, I'm sympathetic, without identity movements women likely would still not have the rights that they do. Unless you think that men were going to rather randomly start marching for women rights or something, but I guess you were against those too and Susan Anthony may as well be David Duke, right? I guess I'm able to look at the context and history of a movement and not paint them all with one brush and you simply can't.
Well, it's not, but I can understand how someone like you who is sympathetic to certain supremacist groups wouldn't want them ideologically tied to other supremacist groups that you don't support. I think the main problem here is that you don't seem to understand what is being discussed. You seem to want to ignore the fact that the civil rights movement was taken over by separatist radicals bathed in principles from Marxist ideology. While you can point to nonviolent leaders like MLK who actually were after equality during the time when there were legitimate civil rights battles to be fought, you have to realize that after the mid 60's the movement devolved into racist hate groups groups like the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam. The BLM movement is a rebirth of those black supremacy groups....I mean, the people who founded BLM admitted to as much themselves. Now that doesn't mean every random ******* who is stupid enough to show up to one of their rallies and riot over a criminal being shot by police has that ideology, but the activists and leaders within the movement are absolutely ideologically linked to the other modern identitarian groups. The same goes for feminist groups or any other modern identitarian group you want to talk about. They all view the world through the conflict theory paradigm and as such they are inherently bigoted and ultimately dangerous if allowed to grow.
I think the difference here is that you don't know what a supremacist group is. To you, GLAAD and BLM are supremacist groups. I wonder if @cml750 and @Astrodome also think that GLAAD and the KKK are basically the same. At least you could answer that question with your opinion I guess. Lol, oh really? I don't know what I'm talking about but you are honestly saying that MLKs movement became the black panthers? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? You do know they were entirely different things, right? Those groups didn't pop up AFTER MLK, they were around WHILE he was around. Amazing. Yes, they viewed the world through conflict...the conflict that affected their lives...like MLK Jr did. When your world is conflict you view the world through that conflict. Seems a simple concept to me. I mean really, I could go on and on with these quotes. Using MLK Jr as an example, I think quite frankly it proves your opinion on this matter wrong. Using your logic, Dr.King was an identitarian, saw the world through conflict, and according to your own beliefs, this was a bad thing. MLK Jr, just like David Duke, mirite? I think you are rather naive, of course there were more violent movements, OF COURSE there were. When people revolt, there is always a more peaceful side and a more violent side, you, for whatever reason, can't simply separate the peaceful from the violent. You are actually arguing that the Civil Rights movement is similar to the alt-right, step back and think about the position you are taking, it's pretty silly.
No, I spelled it all out for you, but I can't force you to comprehend it. By all means, continue in ignorance if that's what you are all about.
All you did was show that you had no idea what you were talking about really. Look up the word first.... I mean, you revealed that when you brought up MLK, the great black identitarian, I'm surprised to learn that you despise MLK so much Bobby, I thought you better than that.
I'm sure you think that....and it's pretty clear that you didn't actually comprehend what I wrote when you attempted to read it. Like I said, I can spell things out for you as simply as possible, but I can't force you to comprehend it. Anyway, this is going nowhere, you still refuse to understand that the civil rights movement was taken over by radicals that embrace Marxist principles and that's been the blueprint for identitarian movements ever since.There's really nothing you can say that will change that kiddo, either you'll acknowledge reality or you'll continue to spin so that you don't have to admit what is behind groups you support.
I understood you completely, that's why I'm rather disappointed in your views. Which were, all identitarians are equally bad and therefore MLK Jr, as one, was also bad. It would be easy to just realize how silly this line of thinking is and that the world is never black and white. Lol, which groups did I support? You made that decision for me in your strawman's because you knew your argument was logically beaten, as you do now, which is why you ignored the meat of my last post about how MLK was an identarian and you won't address that point because you know it makes your argument look stupid. I love how you do this thing where you completely make up something about your opponent and then roll with it. It takes a certain amount of delusional to do that... I was just arguing your silly logic, you can quote me back on which groups I said I supported though. The world isn't black and white, I think most rational adults realize that. There's really nothing you can say that will change that kid, either you'll acknowledge reality our you'll continue to spin so that you don't have to admit how naive your worldview is, there's really nothing else I can do for you until you start logically thinking about the position you've taken.
Yeah...you clearly didn't. I tried to spell out to you that not all members of the civil rights movement were identitarians, some were actually only interested in equality. I listed MLK as one of those leaders. I then explained to you how despite that, after the mid 60's when the legitimate civil rights goals had been accomplished, what was the civil rights movement was taken over completely by the radicals who were racist supremacists with the basis of their ideology being Marxist principles and that's essentially what the modern day identitarians are based on. Now despite me spelling this out for you in just about the most simple manner possible, you still managed to misunderstand so that you could ignore what I was saying. Now If I was prone to believing that you were merely stupid, that would be one thing, but I'm pretty sure you pretending to not follow what I'm saying is more cynical than that. You know that if you acknowledge what I am saying, you'll have to admit the truth about modern identitarian movements....even those you support like BLM.
The problem is though that he was. His actions and words speak for themselves, did you read any of the quotes I just gave you? An Identitarian is someone that advocates for policies based on their race or group, this was MLK Jr, by all measures. I think you just don't understand the difference between Identarian and Supremacist, King was the former, not the latter. These were different movements with different goals. You should do some research on the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers, the only thing they have in common with the Civil Rights movement is their significance during that period and that most advocating for those movements were black. It is irrelevant either way, unless you are saying that these movements should not have happened in the first place because of the Nation/Islam or the Panthers existence after made it not worth it. I don't believe you are making that argument, but correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying these movements should not have happened in the first place? If you think they served a noble purpose, then that is my entire point. Let's get this out of the way so you can stop saying it and inventing this strawman, you can look at my posting history on the matter as well, I'm pretty sure I've been consistent on this...BLM has a good purpose, but the movement as a whole went about it the wrong way, therefore the movement can die for all I care and be replaced with a better one led by better people.
Fair enough, it's very possible that you are right and that he was every bit as bad as the radicals that came after him and it's just that he's been given a false image as a better person than he really was. He certainly wouldn't be the only historic figure where something like that ended up happening but I'm not sure that really changes anything though. Inherently flawed people who spew poisonous ideology can still end up doing positive things. Marxists in America helped push the country towards outlawing child labor and better working conditions for all.....it doesn't make their ideology any better, and doesn't absolve it for the millions of people that were murdered as a result of that ideology across the world. Imagine if you will a scenario where people were claiming to be pushing for improvements to the world while espousing an ideology derived from Nazism....you'd probably feel some kind of way about that and for good reason. If you can't agree to denounce inherently bigoted ideology derived from Marxist principles then we'll simply never agree on this. You defending it might as well be you saying "But what about the good things Hitler did?".
Well, the bolded is your opinion and not mines. I don't know how Nazism and Hitler even entered the discussion, but, I hope you are not making a comparison to Nazism and the Civil Rights movement or any modern day ones like BLM. The purpose for Nazism was pretty clear, that's what made it different from other movements rooted in identity. Just it's purpose and goals. One movement is about getting equal rights for a group of citizens and another group is about deporting/eliminating certain groups. Obviously these groups are made of different stuff from the start. I think again, there is a bit of distinction between Identity politics AND Racism. Identity politics is basically a group fighting for policy for their group, it can be for the detriment of other groups (like the conservative Alt-right movement) but it doesn't have to be. An LGBT group isn't going after straight people, for example, merely protecting their rights and rightfully so when the vice president of the country they live in is openly against them. This is like saying that an Irish Pride Parade is the same as a KKK rally, people know that one is harmless and the other will preach hate speech. It's fine, you think that organizations like GLAAD are bigoted, I don't, so I can't denounce them for something I don't believe they are. I did ask for examples of an LGBT group committing violence or even openly going after straight people like you claim happened, but I guess there isn't much out there on that
The right used to be defined by the religious right until the left mocked them into irrelevance. Mocking one's political opponents used to be the exclusive domain of the left because they controlled the conversation through tv shows like SNL and movies. Now the right mocks the left all over the internet (pepe memes, "cuck" etc.) and the left can't stand it causing them to experience massive cognitive dissonance. It's pretty easy to do because the people on the left who aren't gigantic hypocrites are communists at heart. They also have no sense of humor and ban everyone on twitter who makes fun of them, which only makes it more fun to mock them. The result is the left is literally hallucinating kkk members and neo nazis everywhere they look and overstating the influence of the extremely small number of actual neo-nazis to convince themselves they actually have any influence. They labeled their hallucination the alt-right (seizing on the words of Richard Spencer, a man with literally no influence over anything) and off they go. Then their totalitarian instincts kicked in and now they want to ban freedom of speech because their feelings got hurt.
There has been police brutality as long as there has been policing. The hashtag BlackLivesMatter was created by three women who describe themselves as queer black women after George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. That is why it was created according to the people who created it. Obviously they and other supporters have expanded the purpose to a more generalized opposition to police brutality, but the question of why it (BLM) was initially created is easily answered, and it is because three queer women of color were not happy that the police didn't arrest George Zimmerman after he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense. I think it was an idiot goofing off and showing off to a recruit. It would be interesting to see if his actions in the field revealed any effect from his apparent racist humor. I'm guessing that he didn't tend to shoot every black teenager he saw smoking mar1juana, so clearly his messages did not accurately describe his behavior. I think he clearly cannot keep his job, because every case he worked on would be open to question, especially if there is a black defendant (which is great for defense attorneys, but untenable for a law enforcement agency). If this is what BLM is fighting against (off color jokes), then it is a stupid movement and it is even more sad that people have died behind it than it would be if supporters just wrongly believed that cops were murdering black people in the streets in any significant number.
Whether you pretend to be a racist or actually are a racist is an irrelevant distinction. The only freedom of speech that wingnuts are interested in defending suddenly is hate speech because that's how they communicate their politics. Hiding behind freedom to espouse racial and ethnic hatred is just the new vehicle of the time honored American tradition of white supremacy. Get over yourself.
