Sarah Palin: Black Lives Matter is a 'farce'

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Abner, Jul 9, 2016.

Loading...
  1. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member


    "Those who say that BLM is racist because it is exclusive of others are simply grasping for straws. It has nothing to do with the absence of a "too." They'd be upset if it was called the "Hugs and Kittens Movement." As the kids these days say..."


    Grasping at straws. That sums it up nicely.
     
  2. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    No, I don't. I never claimed to. Funny part is, the people at the top of BLM don't seem to understand either, especially when they have a very confused set of "guiding principles".

    Hard to understand something so poorly crafted and confused. Or, simple if you look at it for what it is.

    Cohesive? No. But, it's certainly official. It's public, and those who identify to it perform duties and actions of its core mission. It passes the minimum requirements of the officiality test by definition.

    That's true. But as it stands only one site is being held up as THEE site for this, and it's BlackLivesMatter.com:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

    ^^^ Note the site and people identified.

    True, it's definitely not organized like the NAACP. However, its founders and key people are recognized as its leaders. It also has recognized chapters which is a form of organization:

    http://blacklivesmatter.com/find-chapters/

    Not that it matters. All that matters is its image and how its participants are behaving. That really is the make or break point for any sort of public movement regardless of how its pieces are put together.

    Better or worse, it's what people generally do when asked about their race/heritage. White people will normally say "I'm German/Italian/Greek". Black people will normally say "I'm Black", and because the term African-American is so widely used you'll get "I'm African-American" sometimes.

    Black people come from many countries, and there is some debate that not all were African nations even historically, yet the term African-American is still used regardless of that.

    Many if not most American black people are mixed with various ethnicities, sometimes more DNA of another than black African, yet the term African-American is still used regardless of that.

    I love those DNA tests. They at times reveal things about people's actual background that they had no idea about. I can remember a few where some black people who were certain that they were fully black (seen the same with white people, too). I remember one black lady took the test and found out she was more WHITE than black! Another found out she was more indian than black. Still "African-American" though...

    Right. But what can be said when you're a Black Canadian/Australian/Dominican/etc., being called an "African-American"?

    I understand the issue of things being taken in offense, but I say, why is it offensive? What makes "Negroid" supposedly offensive but "Caucasoid" not offensive? They were both scientific identification terms widely used and still used sparingly, but now sparingly it appears more over PC pressure, pressure that appears overzealous in that regard especially when it applies as offensive to every other group but not white people who are also "oided".

    Why do you keep saying this? I haven't said this.

    The division happens through actions far deeper than that of course. All I've said is that these things continue to hold on to the legacy of that division, not to mention that it's used so inaccurately so often as I've pointed out a few times above.

    Who's offended by it? The issue is with the legacy of division it holds on to, not with being offended by the words.


    Who said it was? However, these designations are man-made and often used for political purposes, so there is some irony there.

    It should be noted the debate, with plenty of credence, that not all black people even come from Africa, so there's that...

    I think I've been more than clear in stating the issue of what it represents for all, not just black people.

    That's a rather silly, pseudo-scientific conclusion. I could say something similar like, I think people who feel the need to constantly come up with these divisions have a poor sense of self identity and are looking for external crutches to compensate, displaying immature and overly-emotional reactions when its necessity and accuracy are challenged... but I won't do that.


    And it's been told to you twice that this is completely meaningless, even though I disagree with your measure of what makes it official since your measure doesn't stand up to the textbook definition of officiality.

    The Civil Rights Movement wasn't an official group by your standards either, it still had identified leaders, a narrative, and public perception based on the behavior of those involved. So enough with that "it's not official angle", it's irrelevant and not accurate.

    What you clearly don't seem to understand despite it being simple, is that in any movement/organization whatever, you're going to have differing views among the people who involve themselves in it, but the public perception of it will be determined by the behavior of the people who hold themselves up as part of it, as well as the leaders (self-identified or otherwise). You don't have to like that, but that's how it works and there is nothing you can do about it.

    Moreover, things like this don't help Black Lives Matter:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqQXmnMr_w8

    Now, I'm sure you'll watch that and say "Oh, BLM disavowed that!" but wait, how can "they" do anything when they're not "official" and not an "organization", right?

    See the problem there? That's the point. It doesn't matter. Every movement's public perception is shaped by its participants. That's how it works.


    Yes, I'm confused as to how supposedly educated people could fall for such complete and utter tripe that is so obviously complete and utter tripe. George Soros is LOVING this!


    It's called paying attention to what's happening...


    Meaningless. I can say the same, and yet that has no impact on the public perception of the movement which has been damaged by those vowing to it.
     
  3. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    The nonsense is that you think some minute anecdotal evidence is proof of something.

    Please, smh.
     
  4. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    I do not "troll". That is a lie, I'm sure you learned how from MIGS...
     
  5. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    You wish you understood a thing about MIGS, but you don't. You think that, somehow, saying "MIGS" matters. But it doesn't.

    Sarek: Tellarites do not argue for reasons. They simply argue.

    You're arguing with almost everyone, with nothing substantial to contribute. That makes you a troll.
     
  6. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    That was probably the stupidest and most unnecessary post I've ever read here and that's hard to do. So, kudos?

    I agree though, I do know nothing—about your intelligence...
     
  7. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    I agree, it doesn't matter. Didn't matter then, doesn't matter now. Except, it obviously bothers you to have it brought up or you wouldn't have responded to it in that way.

    I'd think for someone so educated you'd know what the definition of trolling is. BTW, that's not it. I also couldn't care less of your assessment of my contributions, you belong to the popular peanut gallery anyway.

    And call it what you will. I'm not going to agree with popular opinion just because the majority wants to suck down mass media drivel and be told what to believe then attack anyone who can think for themselves and not subscribe to said drivel and flimsy anecdotes. But you're free to do that.

    Now Richie, be a good boy and don't forget to vote for your next puppet like they told you to, and keep on doing it every 4-8 years as nothing changes except to only get worse each and every single time! That's what America is all about, being a zombie, being led and controlled by whatever nonsense they put in front of you! That's freedom!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2016
  8. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Ah, MIGS . . . what fun memories. And, while I'm sure Rich wouldn't be happy about it, all of those memoriess are alive in the MIGS forum here on DI, which is worth a read by everyone. For the big picture, start reading from the earliest messages on the last screen of the forum - the messages in which Rich identifies himself as a Ph.D. candidate at the school and comes off more as a shill than a troll.

    One thing I'll say about Rich - he ccleaned up his act and has since earned two legit doctorates. But even today, it's waaaaaaay too easy to push his buttons. At which Maxwell_Smart has proven to be quite adept. (And, unlike Vinny123 at DD, also a great button-pusher, Max knows how to format quotes properly.)

    Thanks for the comedy, Max. Keep pushing buttons, even if I think of Don Adams when I see your user name.
     
  9. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    I am a believer in the death penalty, so I am not sure if all lives matter to me. I also believe in assisted dying. Anyway, as a black man life can be tough. I face problems on a regular bases that my Caucasian wife does not face. She tries to fight my battles but I think she is too overly protective. I am not sure of her opinion on black lives moment. We never discuss it. I recently had nightmares with one of the shooting. The one in Louisiana. Why this one, I do not know. I told me wife and she was very sympathetic towards me.. I notice that she was also hurting, because there was another shooting in Minnesota which bother her but did not have the same effect on me as much.
     
  10. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    Because an opensource encyclopedia is everything.


    So, what is your problem? You don't have a problem with someone who is a 7th generation American calling himself or herself German, but you have a problem with someone calling himself or herself African.

    The overwhelming majority of African Americans are from Sub-Saharan Africa, so again, what is the issue?

    Many white people have Native American and even African ancestry, but they still call themselves white and Caucasian. What is your point?

    Most African Americans are well over 50% Sub-Saharan African. I've taken one of those DNA tests. I'm about 86% Sub-Saharan African.

    From what I've seen, most black Dominicans simply describe themselves as black, Latino, and Dominican. Regardless, black Canadians, black Dominicans, and black Americans have Sub-Saharan African ancestry. We hardly have any Aboriginal Australians in the U.S., but they usually refer to themselves as Aboriginals, other terms to describe their native Australian heritage, and, sometimes, black.
    Why is any word considered offensive? Sometimes, it's because of the context in which it is used. Sometimes, it is because of the history of the word. Words for black based off of the Latin nigrum were often used in a negative context.


    It's a legacy of human history. It is the norm for people to identify their ethnic groups, even within a nation.

    "Black" has its own meaning in various cultures. In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of black people have African ancestry. When an American says black, it is understood that he or she is referring to someone of African descent.

    You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of history. The Civil Rights Movement was, clearly, not a group. You had various groups from black, Christian churches to the Nation of Islam to the Black Panther Party. The Civil Rights Movement had leaders across multiple groups. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were not a part of the same group. According to your definition and comparison, Martin Luther Jr. and Malcolm X were leaders of one group going in one direction with one set of principles. That would be highly inaccurate.

    What you don't understand is that for any leader or group to be considered official, it has to be accepted by the majority as being official. I could declare myself, right now, the official leader of BLM, but that wouldn't make me so.


    If you comprehended anything I said, I stated more than once that there are different ideologies within BLM, which would include racists and those calling for violence against cops. It is people like you who can't seem accept that. One minute, you're complaining about BLM for its "official" guiding principles. The next minute, you're blaming the official BLM for something the official BLM condemned. You have to make up your mind. Either the official BLM represents the movement or it doesn't.

    It doesn't help police officers that there are cops online saying racist and violent things. It doesn't help white people that the number of people in white supremacist groups has grown, but our brains are capable of compartmentalizing.

    Sure. Wrongly or rightly, people see white supremacist groups supporting the Republican Party nominee for president. It doesn't make them intelligent to assume that the Republican Party is a white supremacist group.
     
  11. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    I disagree with Black Lives Matter.

    That does not meant that I disagree with the statement that "black lives matter." Of course they do.

    I disagree with the implication that it's ok to get all of your facts wrong so long as it helps to further a purportedly benevolent agenda.

    I also disagree with the assertion that you are above criticism and reproach so long as it helps to further a purportedly benevolent agenda.

    I also disagree with the accusation that anyone who expresses, out loud, doubts about your agenda being actually benevolent is actually against the purportedly benevolent agenda itself.

    The fact that I have a seriously sour taste in my mouth over the antics done under the banner of Black Lives Matter does NOT mean that I want unarmed people to be shot, races to be profiled, police to be brutal or discrimination to be normalized. Nor does it mean that I don't think that any of these problems actually exist. It means I'd rather a more honest, rational organization to take up these issues instead of the reckless, childish mess that we have.

    In short: let's keep the motto "black lives matter". Let's disband the organization Black Lives Matter.

    Of course I won't get my way. I never get my way.
     
  12. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    There's nothing to "disband." It's not an organization. It is a movement behind a concept. As such, there's bound to be disagreeable elements that arise. Also, there's bound to be disagreement on what is disagreeable. And even if there was something to "disband," I'm sure we would not want our government doing such a thing, violating the Constitution regarding free speech and free assembly, right?

    Like them, don't like them. Like the message or don't. But I like my Constitutional rights left unfettered, please, even if the permit speech I (or others) may not agree with.
     
  13. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Precisely!
     
  14. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Fine, it's not an organization, It is a collection of affiliated groups and organizations as well as a collection of nonaffiliated t-shirt sellers, but even so, yes, movements CAN be disbanded. I don't think I was wrong in simplifying for the purpose of making my point, and I also don't think I'm wrong to assume that you're nitpicking my wording as a way of putting me on the defensive and completely ignoring the major points I made in my post. Here's a challenge for you: find ONE collective of Black Lives Matter (is the word collective more agreeable to you than organization? that includes groups of all sizes and doesn't assume that it's one large single-minded entity) that will admit that the totality of evidence proves that Michael Brown did not have his hands up or that police interactions with black people are proportionate to the amount of violent crimes that are committed by black people. If you can, I'd say you've done something quite amazing and maybe found a small glimmer of hope where I failed to do just that.

    You really, really, really like strawman arguments don't you?
     
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    You really, really like being an idiot, don't you?

    Yet another moderator choosing to dip into an ad hominem. I don't recall saying a thing about you, yet you resort to this. You're weak and stupid. So back atcha. (Thanks for the permission by setting the example. Great stuff.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2016
  16. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Who is the other moderator that has dipped into ad hominem?
     
  17. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    And to think that Rich is often the first one to whine about TOS violations.

    Yes, I said whine. You're a whiner, Rich. A whiner. Especially when someone puts across an argument that's stronger than yours.

    But good for entertainment.

    Oh, did I mention that you're whining? I guess that when you can't win, you whine.

    So, as you said, thanks for the permission by setting the example. Great stuff. :tongue:
     
  18. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Of course Levicoff jumps in. You're late, dude.

    I don't like personal attacks, Steve, but they're your stock in trade. So of course you responded here.

    But here's the thing: I used to take what you said both personally and seriously. That was my fault. But you can't seem to move on. That's your fault.

    I don't take you seriously anymore, and haven't for a very, very long time. But your ego has never allowed you to see that, so you continue.

    Carry on. Have fun. Fortunately, it doesn't matter one whit.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2016
  19. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    As is typical. Quit thinking what you're thinking and think what I tell you think. "Conversation" to Rich is one sided. It's always a lecture.

    Most people see through your bullshit. Many never speak up, but your true colors come out from time to time. Truly intelligence people don't react like a child when their ideas are challenged. You lash out like a cornered rat when questioned or challenged.

    Rich is the smartest person he's ever met.
     
  20. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    I just saw on CNN three more cops have lost their lives. The situation is now becoming unbearable. Having an extreme opinion is not the solution. There is a need for more tolerance from everyone.
     

Share This Page