Black Lives Matter Shuts Down ACLU Event: ‘Liberalism Is White Supremacy’ - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52767201]They're quite obviously speaking on far more generalized terms than the specific instance of them at this event. Their representation at this event (and the perception of BLM as a whole for that matter) and the representation of black Americans as a whole are two entirely separate matters.[/QUOTE] I'm aware they weren't talking specifically about their representation at the event, and my post reflects that. I'm also aware that BLM is not a PR campaign approved by black persons as a whole, but BLM acts in that regard.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52767228]I'm aware they weren't talking specifically about their representation at the event, and my post reflects that. I'm also aware that BLM is not a PR campaign approved by black persons as a whole, but BLM acts in that regard.[/QUOTE] Your post seemed to operate more on a distinction between the past and the present than on a segmentation of the Black community. The topic of whether or not "minority voices have been marginalized and suppressed" in modern society is a highly contested topic that I don't feel like you can offer much certainty on one way or the other. And I haven't seen much to indicate the latter. Seems more like your own personal perception than anything, but I'm open to more concrete support to that claim.

[QUOTE=c:;52766587]thought process: Many liberals are white. That means liberalism is white supremacy. It must be destroyed.[/QUOTE] This is spot-on. There's actually a disturbing number of people in BLM who are believers in black nationalism/supremacy, Afrocentrism, etc.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52767068]liberals arent a uniform blob. A lot are leftists anyways who use "liberal" as a word for moderate/centrist.[/QUOTE] There's also the distinction between 'liberal', "liberal" and "Liberal", I think. Not only are there large difference between continents on how it's used, but especially in the US the term can apply to more authoritarian people if capitalised (in my experience). I suspect the protesters here are talking about "liberal" though. From what I've seen, the majority of BLM appears to be liberal but the most vocal participants/the ones who appear in media most often don't seem to be.

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;52766626]I honestly have no idea what's real and whats a joke anymore. 2017 is getting weirder and weirder as time goes on.[/QUOTE] Social Media has provided a platform for ideas that would be laughed off the street in the past when you had to print a newsletter and hand it out to random passerbys. It centralizes those ideas so it's easy for like-minded people to find them, and legitimizes those ideas in such a way that impressionable outsiders may hop aboard as well. In the past you were limited by word of mouth, flyers, and newsletters; now you can just google communism or fascism or [race] supremacy and find a group or forum for it where everyone involved is constantly reinforcing the idea and painting targets on perceived enemies.

[QUOTE=Penultimate;52766934]I agree with you, but I also think they should've actually said that second thing, not the first thing.[/QUOTE] They said it like this later on according to the article, but they really could have used a bit more nuance to start with. Imo they very much have a point, but as usual it's conveyed in one of the worst ways possible here.

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;52766726]I'm so confused, BLM came from liberalism didn't it? And now they are distancing themselves from it? Is socialism their final choice of doctrine?[/QUOTE] Liberalism in America and most of the Western world is an ideology mostly promoted by establishment figures and dominant social groups. Issues such as free speech, free trade and freedom of movement are central parts of it. Liberals have a lot of overlap with left and right centrists, its based around compromise and maintaining the status quo or some minor variation of it. Supporters of BLM generally run the complete spectrum of left-centrist politics. Considering the roots of Black oppression are in slavery, economic and political disenfranchisement and violence it is very much logical that Black Nationalist and Black Liberation movements draw largely from socialist and anti-imperialist doctrines. Republican/Conservative and Democrat/Liberal are both generally establishment positions that dilute the wider spectrum in left and right politics into a tiny centrist wedge. That's starting to be undone as the Republicans swing farther right, but up until recently neither has seriously been a challenge to the status quo barring some rare exceptions.

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52766739]BLM still isn't an organization and holds no actual political stance besides the furthering of African American rights.[/QUOTE] Like demanding segregated dorms at universities.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52767071]I mean, they were offered a microphone to voice their concerns at an ACLU event. Sure minority voices have been marginalized and suppressed in the past but to say that happens today? Highly doubtful. BLM's reception has been marginalized because of it's ineptitude, blind fanaticism, wanting cops dead, and their methods of protest. Nobody will sympathize with a group that blocks highways with their protesting.[/QUOTE] BLM's reception has been marginalized because it's a group that dares to say "social inequality exists." This has been the case with every single social movement in history.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;52767466]There's also the distinction between 'liberal', "liberal" and "Liberal", I think. Not only are there large difference between continents on how it's used, but especially in the US the term can apply to more authoritarian people if capitalised (in my experience). I suspect the protesters here are talking about "liberal" though. From what I've seen, the majority of BLM appears to be liberal but the most vocal participants/the ones who appear in media most often don't seem to be.[/QUOTE] I know a lot of these kinds of people, and they're referring to liberalism in the economic sense, not the colloquial political sense. They're far-left groups who see everyone from Ron Paul to Obama as economic liberals perpetuating a capitalist system of oppression. Technically, in political theory, they're right. Basically every mainstream politician on the planet is a liberal and a capitalist. The discussion of "left" and "right," especially in the US, is largely between classical liberalism and social liberalism. Communists and socialists, despite being "left wing," are against capitalism, and by extension they oppose economic liberalism. Saying "liberalism is white supremacy" isn't much different from saying "capitalism is oppression of the proletariat" from that perspective - all you're doing is swapping class for race. Personally, I really can't stand these types of ideological purity checks. I'm a social democrat, about as far left as a liberal capitalist can reasonably go, and I'll get disparaged by communists and socialists who view capitalism and the state itself as oppressive institutions. Even though we agree on central policy issues, like redistribution of wealth to prevent economic inequality, and the protection of rights for minorities, and so on, they refuse to accept any compromise. It's an issue of identifying with the desired reality of a political ideology at the expense of practical progress towards that reality. [editline]10th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;52767029]I wonder if libretarianism is white supremacy too am I white supremacy? BLM is very much a not smart group so I wouldn't skip out on your doubts[/QUOTE] Libertarianism is still liberal. It's just a vision of classical liberalism, when the term "liberal" in America mostly refers to social liberalism, socialism, communism, and some forms of anarchism. I honestly think that the conflation of "liberal" with "left-wing" in the public American conscience has been incredibly detrimental to public political knowledge. [I]Almost every single elected politician in the United States is a liberal.[/I] America is founded on liberal values. Almost the entire history of American political thought is grounded in liberalism, while in Europe you have Marx and others arguing for socialism and other left-wing alternatives to liberalism. The same thing happens to the American right, too. The binary left-right bullshit doesn't explain anything about the complexities of politics. The idea of a "liberal communist" is nonsense, but you hear terms like "commie liberals" all the time in public discourse. Liberalism and communism oppose each other on a fundamental level.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52767787]I know a lot of these kinds of people, and they're referring to liberalism in the economic sense, not the colloquial political sense. They're far-left groups who see everyone from Ron Paul to Obama as economic liberals perpetuating a capitalist system of oppression. Technically, in political theory, they're right. Basically every mainstream politician on the planet is a liberal and a capitalist. The discussion of "left" and "right," especially in the US, is largely between classical liberalism and social liberalism. Communists and socialists, despite being "left wing," are against capitalism, and by extension they oppose economic liberalism. Saying "liberalism is white supremacy" isn't much different from saying "capitalism is oppression of the proletariat" from that perspective - all you're doing is swapping class for race. Personally, I really can't stand these types of ideological purity checks. I'm a social democrat, about as far left as a liberal capitalist can reasonably go, and I'll get disparaged by communists and socialists who view capitalism and the state itself as oppressive institutions. Even though we agree on central policy issues, like redistribution of wealth to prevent economic inequality, and the protection of rights for minorities, and so on, they refuse to accept any compromise. It's an issue of identifying with the desired reality of a political ideology at the expense of practical progress towards that reality. [editline]10th October 2017[/editline] Libertarianism is still liberal. It's just a vision of classical liberalism, when the term "liberal" in America mostly refers to social liberalism, socialism, communism, and some forms of anarchism. I honestly think that the conflation of "liberal" with "left-wing" in the public American conscience has been incredibly detrimental to public political knowledge. [I]Almost every single elected politician in the United States is a liberal.[/I] America is founded on liberal values. Almost the entire history of American political thought is grounded in liberalism, while in Europe you have Marx and others arguing for socialism and other left-wing alternatives to liberalism. The same thing happens to the American right, too. The binary left-right bullshit doesn't explain anything about the complexities of politics. The idea of a "liberal communist" is nonsense, but you hear terms like "commie liberals" all the time in public discourse. Liberalism and communism oppose each other on a fundamental level.[/QUOTE] Thanks for explaining this more in-depth! I keep getting this wrong because here our liberal party is liberal in both the cultural and economic sense, I think. Another thing that keeps throwing me off is that the US appears to be less culturally liberal in the 'live and let live' sense than this place (which is the axis we normally use for 'liberal vs. authoritarian' here).

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52767873]No, they've been marginalized for saying "social inequality exists" while burning their own cities and blocking highways. They've been marginalized for saying "you're either with us or against us, and if your anything but black you're against us". They've been marginalized for giving perfect ammunition to those who would oppose them. If anything, they're marginalized because they marginalized themselves. Because they decided to go extreme, and then wonder why no one wants to listen.[/QUOTE] I feel like media coverage has focused on violence at various black lives matters events which causes a selectively biased viewpoint. Violence is general in the margins at any given protest but if the media focuses on it to the detriment of everything else, it creates the image that BLM is a violent organization. This is a roundabout way of saying Black Lives Matters is not a violent organization, no more so than any other activist organization.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52768195]I feel like media coverage has focused on violence at various black lives matters events which causes a selectively biased viewpoint. Violence is general in the margins at any given protest but if the media focuses on it to the detriment of everything else, it creates the image that BLM is a violent organization. This is a roundabout way of saying Black Lives Matters is not a violent organization, no more so than any other activist organization.[/QUOTE] Where in his post did he even mention violence at BLM rallies? BLM has no respect because they do shit like this, and shit like hijack pride parades, and because a number of the executives at several chapters have been caught espousing views of black superiority and white inferiority. BLM has rather quickly become a black supremacist organization, and that's why I and many others don't support them.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52767783]BLM's reception has been marginalized because it's a group that dares to say "social inequality exists." This has been the case with every single social movement in history.[/QUOTE] I think it's more to do with absurdity of the movement itself and the fact that it formed off the back of a justified shooting after a robbery and during an attack/attempted murder on a police officer as if the guy did nothing wrong and was just an innocent young boy Black Lives don't seem to matter when it's gratuitous gang violence in Chicago, only when it can be sensationalized or is white on black

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52768227]Where in his post did he even mention violence at BLM rallies? BLM has no respect because they do shit like this, and shit like hijack pride parades, and because a number of the executives at several chapters have been caught espousing views of black superiority and white inferiority. BLM has rather quickly become a black supremacist organization, and that's why I and many others don't support them.[/QUOTE] That kinda nitpicking my argument. My point is that they're not violent just because the media reports they're violent. The mainstream media might be, you know, biased.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52768241]That kinda nitpicking my argument. My point is that they're not violent just because the media reports they're violent. The mainstream media might be, you know, biased.[/QUOTE] You can't trust the "mainstream media" because it is lazy and misleading with it's biased and poorly cited articles, unless it's about Antifa or BLM violence in which case it is completely accurate, factual, and an honest portrayal of events with full context and if you disagree with that that means you inherently side with BLM who are all black supremacists or Antifa who are all communists. And also moderates and centrism is dead

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52766653]BLM is left wing but I dunno if I would call them liberals. That's like calling antifa or communists liberals.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure I'm comfortable calling BLM any specific political label - they're too much of a disorganised mess for that to work. They barely even have consistent demands, let alone political ideology.

[QUOTE=Rufia;52768332]I'm not sure I'm comfortable calling BLM any specific political label - they're too much of a disorganised mess for that to work. They barely even have consistent demands, let alone political ideology.[/QUOTE] Well they're not a political organization, so I'm not surprised. Activism is their focus, not forming a coherent ideology.

BLM, from the very beginning, has been defined more by it's anger than it's goals. Even the most organized groups who identified with BLM had extremely vague and/or idiotic policy demands. BLM NEEDS something to be angry with. It can't have a real discussion or hold a rational position because it isn't founded on those things.

didn't the ACLU recant their declaration of protection of neo-nazi speech after Charlottesville?

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52768537]didn't the ACLU recant their declaration of protection of neo-nazi speech after Charlottesville?[/QUOTE] No, they said they'd stop defending people's rights to armed rallies.

To be honest the only reason I still voice a support for blm is just because it pisses conservatives off sooo much, and I still stand by the original goals of the group.

Did you double check if the source isn't the onion?