National BLM organization denounces Wichita BBQ, "Not in line with our principles"
92 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50763672]But I still can't believe there's no one, not a *single* person who echoes his ideals today. It's absolutely devastating to know that every achievement he's done, is being undone by BLM. And it pisses me off to no end - and I'm not even American, FFS.[/QUOTE]
A lot of them see themselves as the next MLK
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50763946]A lot of them see themselves as the next MLK[/QUOTE]
More like Malcolm X
I can see no harm from a cookout but I can't say I'm surprised that some parts of BLM don't want to support being civil.
BLM is the perfect example of why any serious movement needs an organisation, a formal hierachy and a leadership tbh
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50764057]BLM is the perfect example of why any serious movement needs an organisation, a formal hierachy and a leadership tbh[/QUOTE]
People should have learned from Occupy Wallstreet
A leaderless movement doesn't work
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50763912]You're not going to help the problem by being completely hyperbolic and making ridiculous statements like that. I mean, hell, we're talking about a moderate BLM event in this thread in the first place![/QUOTE]
That statement is not hyperbolic, or are we going the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman"]"no true BLM supporter"[/URL] route?
[editline]23rd July 2016[/editline]
Because that's basically what they've stated. "No true BLM supporter is behind this cookout".
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50764137]That statement is not hyperbolic, or are we going the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman"]"no true BLM supporter"[/URL] route?[/QUOTE]
You can't really say what I've said is the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. I'm pointing out that these are moderate BLM supporters, and you're comparing them to extremists. It's an hyperbolic comparison at best. Perhaps if I was saying that only moderate BLM supporters are real BLM supporters, you'd have a point.
[QUOTE=Conscript;50762925]The civil war was about the system disposing of old shit like slavery that got in the way of modernity (capitalism) and liberal values we were supposed to be based on. It was fought by a high level of the state which controlled the areas with the most historical progress (like industry and education) against a lower level of the state which was representing reactionary land-owning elites who weren't actually being erased by industrialization, but actually getting stronger.
The whole thing was about resolving a contradiction the founding fathers saw since day one. America doesn't truly change, that's why it's America and in the 21st century we're one of the most right wing liberal democracies and are plagued with class and racial problems. You need to recognize this before you can really appraise either the panthers or BLM, imo[/QUOTE]
I'll not deny that America is stuck in its ways in many aspects, but sitting there saying that we don't change just makes you seem like an idiot. The sweeping changes we've made in just the areas of civil rights and gender equality, as well as within the LGBT community, speak leaps and bounds for themselves, despite how much we've had to fight for them. You go back to early America, or even just 1900-1950s America and tell me we haven't changed. Don't be so narrow-minded or ridiculous.
Also a "disposing of old shit that got in the way of progress" is exactly what a revolution is.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50762429][QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;50762424]So is BLM slowing transforming into the Black Panthers 2.0? Or am i overreacting?[/QUOTE]In my view they will do in the end because they have done so little to moderate their rhetoric or marginalise their violent extremes, but currently people are massively overreacting to them, and they remain mostly a peaceful protest group for now.[/QUOTE]
The black panthers were in many ways an outright domestic terrorist organization, but you know what?
I would actually support them before I would support BLM. The black panthers were at least honest about things. "We will take our rights by force if necessary." They claimed to be fighting perceived injustices, but they weren't going to pretend that they were something other than what they were. They revered their violence and did not try to hide it. BLM just want's to scream about injustice without actually doing anything. They want to be needlessly destructive and pretend that they are not. It's become the signature example of modern slactivism.
The black panthers were racist shitheads, but they weren't hypocritical racist shitheads. Hypocrisy is the highest crime. If you cannot discuss things rationally and fairly, you allow for all sorts of skewed versions of reality. Right now BLM is effectively complaining that they are losing things to complain about. Way to be self destructive. :downs:
But BLM is just a hashtag with no founders or central people dictating its motives!!! Right guys?
Right??
Right??? :smug:
[QUOTE=hippowombat;50765277]But BLM is just a hashtag with no founders or central people dictating its motives!!! Right guys?
Right??
Right??? :smug:[/QUOTE]
Um, yes? The fact that this thread exists kind of proves that, doesn't it?
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;50765290]Um, yes? The fact that this thread exists kind of proves that, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The national co-founder of the BlackLivesMatter organization[/QUOTE]
I'm confused
[QUOTE=hippowombat;50765552]I'm confused[/QUOTE]
There are several people who consider themselves the "co-founders" of the movement (I believe their website lists three people, I can't remember the exact number), but it's an entirely decentralized hashtag movement. They have no control over it. Literally anyone can decide to join it and the fact that so many different groups are after different things and have different methods of achieving those things -- despite all claiming to represent BLM -- should make this obvious.
[QUOTE=hippowombat;50765552]I'm confused[/QUOTE]
Translation: she wrote a fucking hashtag and now thinks she controls all the people who are annoyed with the way race relations are going.
i feel that #occupywallstreet, #gamergate, and #blacklivesmatter all prove that hashtag movements aren't really all that good at being movements. i will say they (or at least some) get the word out of their respective causes moreso than silence does but that's about it
Surely police getting involved in minority communities in a positive way is a good thing.
Right?
Guys?
[QUOTE=hippowombat;50765552]I'm confused[/QUOTE]
If I post something on Twitter under an account called @PepsiTwitter and say "#Pepsi is the best soft drink for a good night out lynching all the gays," am I a representative of the Pepsi Company? Obviously not. Literally anyone can say anything they want with "#Pepsi" in the tweet, and a lot of people will think it's somehow indicative of the views of the Pepsi Company. It isn't.
Goes both ways, too. The BLM organization (and local chapters, like DC in this case) can say monumentally dumb shit [i]which doesn't represent the average BLM supporter[/i]. Are they part of BLM? Yes. Does that mean what they say represents BLM as a whole? No.
Decentralized social media movements like BLM are problematic from the start because [i]there is no official message[/i]. The BLM organization can say one thing, but if #BLM says something different, who's the real BLM now? Is it @BLMRocks, @BlackLivesMatter, or @BLMSupporter? They're all saying different contradictory shit. One is saying this cookout is [i]awful[/i], one is saying that it's such a great example of improving community relations with police, and the other is complaining that disabled genderqueer blacks aren't represented enough. Which one is part of BLM?
All of them. There's no restrictions to entrance. I could go make @BLMFacepunch and say whatever the fuck I wanted. There's no chain of command, there's no leader saying "this will be our press release," there's nothing like that at all - Breitbart will pick bad examples and say "this is BLM," HuffPost will pick good examples and say "this is BLM." But they all are.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;50766124]Why are people still supporting BLM then? I'm sure there are other movements which do a lot better and actually have a functioning hierarchy instead of anybody being able to #BLM and say dumb shit[/QUOTE]
Because your opinion of the movement is based on what parts of it you see. Most people on Facepunch only see the real negative shit, and don't see a lot of the positive parts of it. I haven't seen a single negative thing about BLM on my Facebook feed [i]ever[/i]. Because social media self-isolates into bubbles based on who you're friends with and what news sites you frequent and so on.
There are over 30 different BLM chapters (including one in Ghana ???), all of which have their own leadership and their own hierarchies and are entirely separate from the main BLM "organization." The BLM website defines itself as a "network" rather than an organization, and emphasized local leadership (through chapters and community activism) over a leader-focused hierarchy. Even the organization is technically 30 different local organizations with their own unique setups and goals.
It's a very new system and it's pretty fucking broken since the internet self-isolates and creates echo chambers and bubbles that cause feedback loops that push to dumb cliquey ideologies and lingo that nobody else understands. See tumblr, the_donald, TumblrInAction, pretty much any group like that. Doesn't work well.
I support BLM because I strongly support the ideals behind it, even though I'm very critical of the movement's disorganized nature and poor targeting. In the same vein, I support the police because I understand they're necessary and respect their work, even though I'm very critical of their policies and training.
That's awfully misguided. Community events with law enforcement are an excellent way to break down some of the walls that exist between minorities and law enforcement. Officers need to play a more active role in the communities they police, and the communities need to foster more positive relationships with officers, if we're to see real progress.
It's extremely important to hold officers who use excessive force accountable yes, but it's also important to realize the role that fear and distrust play in catalyzing v these situations. Fighting ONLY to punish officers who use excessive force does nothing to PREVENT excessive force scenarios.
[editline]24th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50766158]Because your opinion of the movement is based on what parts of it you see. Most people on Facepunch only see the real negative shit, and don't see a lot of the positive parts of it. I haven't seen a single negative thing about BLM on my Facebook feed [i]ever[/i]. Because social media self-isolates into bubbles based on who you're friends with and what news sites you frequent and so on.
There are over 30 different BLM chapters (including one in Ghana ???), all of which have their own leadership and their own hierarchies and are entirely separate from the main BLM "organization." The BLM website defines itself as a "network" rather than an organization, and emphasized local leadership (through chapters and community activism) over a leader-focused hierarchy. Even the organization is technically 30 different local organizations with their own unique setups and goals.
It's a very new system and it's pretty fucking broken since the internet self-isolates and creates echo chambers and bubbles that cause feedback loops that push to dumb cliquey ideologies and lingo that nobody else understands. See tumblr, the_donald, TumblrInAction, pretty much any group like that. Doesn't work well.
I support BLM because I strongly support the ideals behind it, even though I'm very critical of the movement's disorganized nature and poor targeting. In the same vein, I support the police because I understand they're necessary and respect their work, even though I'm very critical of their policies and training.[/QUOTE]
Well said.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50766112]If I post something on Twitter under an account called @PepsiTwitter and say "#Pepsi is the best soft drink for a good night out lynching all the gays," am I a representative of the Pepsi Company? Obviously not. Literally anyone can say anything they want with "#Pepsi" in the tweet, and a lot of people will think it's somehow indicative of the views of the Pepsi Company. It isn't.[/QUOTE]
The problem with this comparison is that Pepsi has an official Twitter and people know who Pepsi are. BLM have no organization. Who's Twitter represents them? Since no one does, anyone can. So you get instances like this where people claim to be BLM and there's no way to verify or deny it.
[editline]24th July 2016[/editline]
Like look at Donald Trump's Twitter versus all the fake parody accounts. The parody accounts say stupid stuff, but you know what Trump's real Twitter is and can disprove things he did or did not say.
[QUOTE=Fort83;50767063]BLM won't denounce the groups that rally for violence towards the police, but this group that made an effort to rebuild the relationship with the local police community isn't in line with their principles and can't be associated with them?
That's says everything about what "principles" they have.[/QUOTE]
How many people attended this cookout? A lot.
How many people run the BLM DC Twitter Account? Probably one.
Which is more representative - the words of one local chapter halfway across the country, or the actions of dozens and dozens of people that had a friendly, positive cookout with police?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50768265]How many people attended this cookout? A lot.
How many people run the BLM DC Twitter Account? Probably one.
Which is more representative - the words of one local chapter halfway across the country, or the actions of dozens and dozens of people that had a friendly, positive cookout with police?[/QUOTE]
The one that is more representative is the one that gets their message out to the most people. The number of participants doesn't matter.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50766158]Because your opinion of the movement is based on what parts of it you see. Most people on Facepunch only see the real negative shit, and don't see a lot of the positive parts of it. I haven't seen a single negative thing about BLM on my Facebook feed [i]ever[/i]. Because social media self-isolates into bubbles based on who you're friends with and what news sites you frequent and so on.
There are over 30 different BLM chapters (including one in Ghana ???), all of which have their own leadership and their own hierarchies and are entirely separate from the main BLM "organization." The BLM website defines itself as a "network" rather than an organization, and emphasized local leadership (through chapters and community activism) over a leader-focused hierarchy. Even the organization is technically 30 different local organizations with their own unique setups and goals.
It's a very new system and it's pretty fucking broken since the internet self-isolates and creates echo chambers and bubbles that cause feedback loops that push to dumb cliquey ideologies and lingo that nobody else understands. See tumblr, the_donald, TumblrInAction, pretty much any group like that. Doesn't work well.
I support BLM because I strongly support the ideals behind it, even though I'm very critical of the movement's disorganized nature and poor targeting. In the same vein, I support the police because I understand they're necessary and respect their work, even though I'm very critical of their policies and training.[/QUOTE]
That just means the entire idea of 'BLM' is meaningless. If you aren't able to make generalized conclusions about a person based on knowing their group membership, then the group has no identity or purpose.
[QUOTE=Fort83;50768601]The one that represents the voice of the majority by handling the social media for the group.[/QUOTE]
This was the DC chapter. The cookout didn't take place in DC or anywhere near it. Does that mean it's representative of DC's BLM only? Why is it representative of a BLM event halfway across the country?
Of course they would denounce it. They're protesting the police not trying to get friendly with them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50768609]That just means the entire idea of 'BLM' is meaningless. If you aren't able to make generalized conclusions about a person based on knowing their group membership, then the group has no identity or purpose.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. There's no such thing as membership. It's a bad system - OWS used it first and it collapsed pretty quickly because of widely varied goals in different areas and different leaderships scattered all around. It doesn't work. Doesn't mean it's a terrorist group or a hate group or anything. It's analogous to something like "feminism," which has literal tens of thousands of organizations and groups within it all saying contradictory things and having contradictory opinions. There's no "leader" of feminism. You can't be a "member" of feminism - you can only self-identify as a supporter and people really can't go "well you're not" because that's typical No True Scotsman. The exact same goes for BLM - there is no identity. But there is a core purpose - addressing police brutality and a lack of police accountability. Some groups go way further and say we need black nationalism and shit, but that's a separate group in the umbrella, not representative of "BLM" as a whole. Partly representative, but you can't take that group and extrapolate their views onto everyone else who identifies as a supporter.
[QUOTE=Fort83;50768693]My point still stands, the one that is supposed to represent the voice of majority. Did you miss that Patrisse Cullors, BlackLivesMatters national co-founder, denounced it as well?[/QUOTE]
Did you miss my post on the previous page where I explained that the organization isn't representative of the views of the majority, and the majority aren't representative of the views of the organization?
If Obama said "all black people are stupid thugs," should I take him for his word because he's representing the voice of the majority?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50768643] But there is a core purpose - addressing police brutality and a lack of police accountability. Some groups go way further and say we need black nationalism and shit, but that's a separate group in the umbrella, not representative of "BLM" as a whole. Partly representative, but you can't take that group and extrapolate their views onto everyone else who identifies as a supporter.[/QUOTE]
How can you claim a "core purpose" when no group is "representative of BLM as a whole", and the majority isn't representative of the views of the organization?
The same arguments you use to deflect criticism from BLM are the same arguments that make it impossible for you to assign ANY meaning to BLM. It's just a label.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.