What is "Black Lives Matter"?

[Kutnupe14]

Question for the masses. Is “BLM” an organization, slogan, both related, or can both be separated? Better said, do you think anyone saying “BLM” understand what the BLM organization is?

 

[Dulla]

I think it's more of a slogan despite the fact a few people claim to be leaders.

 

[BugI02]

What is "Black Lives Matter"?

A Trojan Horse

 

[Kutnupe14]

What is "Black Lives Matter"?

A Trojan Horse

You're talking about the organization correct? Or just ever instance where it is invoked? Can you expound on what you mean when you say it's a "Trojan horse?"

 

[KLB]

Question for the masses. Is “BLM” an organization, slogan, both related, or can both be separated? Better said, do you think anyone saying “BLM” understand what the BLM organization is?

I don't see how you can separate them at this point. While there are probably a lot of people that would not agree in total with the organization if they knew what it actually stood for, it is made to look like they do agree with it.

 

[churchmouse]

I think it's more of a slogan despite the fact a few people claim to be leaders.

They seem to have massive funding so there has to be some organizing center core.

 

[Dulla]

They seem to have massive funding so there has to be some organizing center core.

Good point. Antifa seems to have hijacked the protests and now they're using them as cover to try and start a revolution.

 

[Twangbanger]

Question for the masses. Is “BLM” an organization, slogan, both related, or can both be separated? Better said, do you think anyone saying “BLM” understand what the BLM organization is?

I like the sentiment, as I think most do, but if there is an organization attempting to appropriate the moral legitimacy of anti-racism and place it behind an agenda of "fight for fifteen, paid xxxxx leave, union organizing, etc., etc." then I am out.

If people want socialism, so be it, just straight up say that. But don't take the moral legitimacy of the "George Floyd" movement and mess it up with that. They should be totally separate issues, in my opinion. I personally don't know a black person who supports socialism. Not saying they don't exist, but it's like gun control; never met one in the wild. I've never met a single black person who supported gun control.

A less-charitable interpretation, is that the architects know what they're doing. They realize the appeal of "BLM" will take off virally as a sort of black peoples' Tea Party, and people will just repeat the phrase and buy the T-shirts without realizing what it's becoming associated with, or why (mostly white) people are turned off by it.

If I may be so presumptuous as to assume, I would figure that's what people mean by trojan horse. Nobody reasonable is in favor of what happened to George Floyd. But plenty of reasonable people are against "Fight for fifteen, paid xxxxx leave, no-secret-ballot union organizing," etc. So therefore, the architects of those issues are trying to insert their viral DNA into the George Floyd movement, in hopes black (and some white) people will carry it forward without realizing they're carrying that virus and transmitting it. And yes, in our media culture, where popularity and momentum is everything, I believe it can be transmitted without the person doing it, knowing that they're doing it.

In short, I think the socialists are using the moral weight of the "George Floyd Moment" to gain a legitimacy, advancement, and platform for their ideas which couldn't be obtained other ways. They're trojan-horsing socialism inside an exterior that just looks like being against police brutality. You take something nobody can be against, associated it with socialism, et voila! Anybody who's against socialism, is a racist ("If she weighs less than a duck...she's a witch!").

I cannot wait to see what kind of ACORN-like groups those redirected police funds will go towards.

 

[Tombs]

Question for the masses. Is “BLM” an organization, slogan, both related, or can both be separated? Better said, do you think anyone saying “BLM” understand what the BLM organization is?

Can national socialism be separated from nazis?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't see how you can separate them at this point. While there are probably a lot of people that would not agree in total with the organization if they knew what it actually stood for, it is made to look like they do agree with it.

Kinda like the “Confederate Flag?” (Battle flag of N. Virginia). I was raised in the South and have a good many dear friends that wave the flag proudly. And yet, it seems that anyone associated with the flag is vilified. I may have my own notions concerning it, but I understand it means something entirely depending on who you talk to. Explain the difference if you see one.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can national socialism be separated from nazis?

No. There’s no difference of opinions as to what National Socialism is. People who identify with it, you clearly know their intentions. You think it’s the same for anyone invokes “BLM?”

 

[Tombs]

No. There’s no difference of opinions as to what National Socialism is. People who identify with it, you clearly know their intentions. You think it’s the same for anyone invokes “BLM?”

Going from what I plainly hear them say live on camera at the protests, and what I see on social media, I believe the comparison is apt. It's a belief system that spawned an organization. It's difficult, if not impossible, to separate them with any degree of intellectual honesty, except for the charter on the BLM website which seems to have evolved along the way into some bizarro world list of demands.

Your question sparks a stab at a gotcha, I can simply ask you the same of anyone who invokes national socialism but theoretically lacks any knowledge of the nazis.

 

[rob63]

Question for the masses. Is “BLM” an organization, slogan, both related, or can both be separated? Better said, do you think anyone saying “BLM” understand what the BLM organization is?

I think the organization can be separated from the slogan, and I have no doubt that the vast majority of people that support it are supporting the sentiment behind the slogan rather than the political beliefs of the organizers. However, it still leaves me with a lot of reservations about the wisdom of giving any level of support to an organization with leaders such as it has. I certainly support the sentiment behind the slogan, and I agree with a number of the reforms that the organization supports, but I remain troubled by where it could all end up.

I think the root of your question is the problem we face when discussing any issue, people want everything to boil down to simple terms of good guys and bad guys when reality is far more nuanced than that. It makes reaching any kind of compromise solution to any issue nearly impossible when everything is always presented in the most extreme terms without any connection to reality.

I find myself watching my country in upheaval and I am sitting on the sidelines because it seems like only the demagogues are allowed on stage.

I did post things on social media and wrote my representatives in the House and Senate supporting the police reforms championed by Campaign Zero. I was delighted when Senator Tim Scott wrote a bill that encompassed nearly all of their proposals, only to see the Democrats succeed in killing it so that they could have an election issue. It left me pretty disillusioned at the prospect of any meaningful change, too many people at the top that want to fan the flames in order to get votes.

 

[jamil]

Question for the masses. Is “BLM” an organization, slogan, both related, or can both be separated? Better said, do you think anyone saying “BLM” understand what the BLM organization is?

Black Lives Matter is a tautology.

Black Lives Matter is a slogan.

Black Lives Matter is an organization.

Black Lives Matter is a Trojan horse for far left Marxist activism.



To which are you referring?

 

[KLB]

Kinda like the “Confederate Flag?” (Battle flag of N. Virginia). I was raised in the South and have a good many dear friends that wave the flag proudly. And yet, it seems that anyone associated with the flag is vilified. I may have my own notions concerning it, but I understand it means something entirely depending on who you talk to. Explain the difference if you see one.

That is actually a good comparison in my mind. It does mean different things to different people. The media though has given each a meaning, and that meaning is what people are led to believe is the one true meaning irrespective of individuals' ideas. This has the effect of making it look like there are large numbers of people that support the BLM organization and their demands, when in reality there are probably only a small fraction of those people that actually do.

 

[jamil]

What is "Black Lives Matter"?

A Trojan Horse

Yep. I forgot about that. Updated.

 

[jamil]

I don't see how you can separate them at this point. While there are probably a lot of people that would not agree in total with the organization if they knew what it actually stood for, it is made to look like they do agree with it.

No, you can separate them because it means different things to different people and in different contexts. That's what makes it such an effective Trojan horse to get people to accept ideas baked in critical race theory that they wouldn't have otherwise. It's a nifty idea if you're a well trained Marxist and community organizer pushing that stuff. It's pretty brilliant actually.

That black lives matter is not something that's hard for people to accept. Nearly everyone reacted in shock to George Floyd's death, and nearly everyone thought that he was unjustly killed by that cop. The support for initial protests before they turned violent was nearly universal. That black lives matter is self-evident to nearly everyone. So much so that the phrase itself seems odd to say, as if it implies that other lives didn't, or that there's a significant faction of this country that doesn't believe they do matter. The natural response for most people is "yes, of course, all lives matter" because most people believe that. Saying "black lives matter" is a tautology of "all lives matter". It's self defined. Self evident. A truism. It's merely saying the same thing as "all lives matter" with an odd and unnecessary specificity.

I think because it's nearly universally accepted that black lives matter, it's easy to sneak in the Marxist **** into most societal institutions.

 

[jamil]

I like the sentiment, as I think most do, but if there is an organization attempting to appropriate the moral legitimacy of anti-racism and place it behind an agenda of "fight for fifteen, paid xxxxx leave, union organizing, etc., etc." then I am out.

If people want socialism, so be it, just straight up say that. But don't take the moral legitimacy of the "George Floyd" movement and mess it up with that. They should be totally separate issues, in my opinion. I personally don't know a black person who supports socialism. Not saying they don't exist, but it's like gun control; never met one in the wild. I've never met a single black person who supported gun control.

A less-charitable interpretation, is that the architects know what they're doing. They realize the appeal of "BLM" will take off virally as a sort of black peoples' Tea Party, and people will just repeat the phrase and buy the T-shirts without realizing what it's becoming associated with, or why (mostly white) people are turned off by it.

If I may be so presumptuous as to assume, I would figure that's what people mean by trojan horse. Nobody reasonable is in favor of what happened to George Floyd. But plenty of reasonable people are against "Fight for fifteen, paid xxxxx leave, no-secret-ballot union organizing," etc. So therefore, the architects of those issues are trying to insert their viral DNA into the George Floyd movement, in hopes black (and some white) people will carry it forward without realizing they're carrying that virus and transmitting it. And yes, in our media culture, where popularity and momentum is everything, I believe it can be transmitted without the person doing it, knowing that they're doing it.

In short, I think the socialists are using the moral weight of the "George Floyd Moment" to gain a legitimacy, advancement, and platform for their ideas which couldn't be obtained other ways. They're trojan-horsing socialism inside an exterior that just looks like being against police brutality. You take something nobody can be against, associated it with socialism, et voila! Anybody who's against socialism, is a racist ("If she weighs less than a duck...she's a witch!").

I cannot wait to see what kind of ACORN-like groups those redirected police funds will go towards.

Keep in mind, the term "anti-racist" is well defined and has a very specific meaning. To be an anti-racist you have to do this list-o-things or you are a fragile white person who doesn't have the balls to do the necessary "anti-racist" prescribed list of actions.

Of course it's designed to be what it is. But like I said there are different ways to understand BLM, and it's fine to agree with it if it means to you that black lives matter as much as anyone. The people organizing themselves with BLM to bring their grievances to America that there are some areas of society where they don't feel like they're treated as if they do matter. That's a good cause. The bad cause is the part that dreamed all this **** up in their think tanks and are now implementing the various critical theories as events can be exploited.

 

[jamil]

No. There’s no difference of opinions as to what National Socialism is. People who identify with it, you clearly know their intentions. You think it’s the same for anyone invokes “BLM?”

I'm not sure you can say that for all the rank and file people. The Nazi Party exploited some human algorithms to get people on board with it. There are some people getting on board with the Marxist part of BLM that don't really understand that's what's happening. Explain the purpose of White Fragility. It's a good way to manipulate human firmware to get them on board. It was much the same with National Socialism.

At the end of this, when we're primarily communist, will you say we all knew what it was we were getting into and that we all willingly welcomed it?

 

[Alpo]

Let's leave police reform out of it and look at the other issues included in the current protests.

It appears to me that there are legitimate arguments for removal of civil war and Jim Crowe memorials. Many here have already argued those points and there probably is no need to re-iterate them.

The remainder appears to be an admission that the black community has an inability to mainstream....and the thread, although unspoken, is obvious to most: the black community needs protection under law because it is unable to compete on merit.

There. I've said it. Blacks are not equal to the task of competing against other races....

Now...let's think about that. I know black people in most professions that are quite capable of holding their own against all comers. Politics. Medicine. Science. Language Arts. Music. etc etc.

So, if that is true, then the premise must be wrong. Blacks ARE equal to the task of competing against other races in any meaningful way you choose to measure it.

So, why these demands for quotas and forced inclusion? They aren't warranted and should be shouted down with rigor.