I was sympathetic with the anti police (brutality) movement but I was never convinced that racism was disproportionally responsible for it. Gender seems to be an even greater factor, yet you don't see a "Male Lives Matter" movement. I don't have a strong opinion on the subject though and I'd be open to see some data.

Black males seem to disproportionately die at the hands of police. But BLM is about much more than just death. Death is just a catalyst that makes people notice.

Lots of Black people deal with disrespect and abuse from police on a regular basis. A lot of the seemingly flippant behavior from Black people towards police that we sometimes see during recorded interactions is well earned by years of subtle, and not so subtle harassment by some police officers.

Look up some of Amber Ruffin's videos on her interactions with police growing up in NYC. It's pretty eye opening and all of my Black friends have echoed similar stories.

Another example that comes to mind is the story of the Black women and children that were made to get out of their car and lay handcuffed, face down on the asphalt in the arizona sun while the cops slowly discovered that the car they were driving was not actually stolen and that they had read the plate wrong. Supposedly, the cops tried to handcuff the little 7 year old girl but even fully tightened her wrists were too small.

I have been unable to find a comparable story of an innocent white family of women and children made to lay handcuffed face down like that. I suspect very strongly those same cops would not have treated a white family like that.

Excess deaths at the hands of cops is just a serious symptom of a much larger underlying problem of disrespect and abuse.

> Black males seem to disproportionately die at the hands of police.

There are lots of ways to measure this, which one are you talking about? There are lots of variables to control for: # of police encounters. Person being confronted while in the middle of (or just after) a committing a crime. Person being armed or not.

Talking just about deaths I feel like distracts from the issue that really warrants discussion in American society, which is number of interactions with police and how many of those turn into physical altercations. Then we need to look into the reasons for those and what the possible solutions are. We also need to admit that this likely isn't just a policing issue, but a societal and cultural issue that needs to be addressed.

It's definitely not just a policing issue. But it's also definitely partially a policing issue. And fewer things can make a people feel more powerless than authority figures with guns that can literally get away with murdering you. As a police officer, when you are representing an institution that was originally created to hunt down and return your enslaved ancestors to their masters, you have to really put out a strong effort to build trust. And I am just not seeing a lot of that effort, even today.

A great example of this was played out by the nypd when they came banging on the door of a blm organizer claiming to have a warrant for his arrest. They apparently did not. He didn't open his door when they refused to show him the warrant. That quickly escalated to dozens of cops and vehicles outside and pounding on his door and getting battering rams ready. What was his accused crime? Shouting in a cop's ear with a megaphone.

You get enough bs like that going on, and statistically, people are going to get killed.

The other comment raised the interesting point that the gender gap is a stronger signal here than the race gap. Do you have a comment on that?

Seems irrelevant. Of course police see women as less threatening. Most police are men. Though I'm sure Black women are killed by police at higher rates than white women.

Seems like just trying to redirect the narrative. Kind of like when you bring up the studies where identical resumes were sent out half with white sounding names and half with Black sounding names and the white sounding names get way more callbacks.

The response is usually something like, that probably has more to do with class/wealth, not race. As if the two are not strongly linked.

It's more complex than that because not every black person is equally likely to have an encounter with the police. There are studies that suggest that if you control for encounters with the police, blacks are just as likely as whites to be killed by the police. Half of violent crimes in the US are also committed by blacks. This is definitely one of the consequences of the history of slavery and segregation. Nevertheless, given that blacks commit 50% of violent crimes, it should be expected that the percentage of people killed by the police who are black, will be higher than their rate of representation in the general population.

There ARE also videos of whites getting killed in conditions just as tragic as e.g. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, etc. But they go largely unreported in comparison.

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1371481061620781061 Blacks are not only more likely to be killed by the police but also are more likely to be unarmed. Blacks are likely not committing 50% of violent crimes, but are rather convicted for 48% of the crimes which if you've looked into studies on community targeting seem to have to do more with police officer bias.

Take a look at the policeviolencereport.org. They have some data relevant to your inquiry.

This is the language from the BLM site regarding disrupting the nuclear family. I'm very pro nuclear family. This didn't seem bad to me.

--------------------------

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable. -----------------

A dig at fathers in the first paragraph, and a diplomatically stated rejection of the nuclear family in the second.

You need to be very generous to interpret this as anything other than an attack on the traditional family.

And across all the KPI's we know of - kids in a two parent household are more successful by every measure.

Which is why it says they reject the "requirement". No one is denying that a 2 parent home is better.

But if you are a kid that grew up with one parent, we need to have alternatives to help those kids thrive. Harping on the fact that 2 parents are better than 1 does nothing for kids with only one parent (except maybe make them feel defective and disadvantaged).

Who made it a requirement?

They are probably referring to policies or laws or just culture that make it more difficult to thrive if you don't have 2 parents, one male, one female. It's obviously not an actual, literal requirement, hence the quotes.

Does that measure have an inherent bias? Is it like saying kids with parents that tolerate each other are successful? When they don't tolerate, they separate and are not a two parent household anymore and so don't show up in the measure. Maybe it just means kids in peaceful households fare better?

It does. This text picks it apart concisely. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/03/01/the-success-...

That text doesn’t actually dismantle anything (and ignores mountains of other evidence) and doesn’t defend its own alternative either. Put simply, if redistribution worked, we’d see poverty rates decrease rather than stagnate or increase.

In contrast, single parent households drastically reduce the chances of success in life along a ton of metrics. Those kids get worse grades, drop out early, suffer learning and mental disorders at a much higher rate, are much more subject to domestic violence, etc. A shocking statistic is that around 85% of people in prison had no significant father figure in their life. This isn’t a one-off statistic either as incarceration rates do seem to track with single mothers over time. It even affects the mothers themselves who report higher rates of mental health issues (this tracks over time and across racial and ethnic groups).

Note: This probably would occur with single fathers too, but fathers are unlikely to be granted custody unless the mother has extreme issues going on and the father has a pristine record in comparison. Likewise, with 90+% of elementary teachers now being women (this wasn’t always true), finding a male role model is more difficult during the early, formative years.

> Put simply, if redistribution worked, we’d see poverty rates decrease rather than stagnate or increase.

That is what we see, in other countries with more robust (and more redistributive) welfare state systems than the US.

I've encountered people who say that's bad, biased, unfair, etc. - and not that we should encourage more two parent households.

"Some say" doesn't make it so. Two-parent households make children more successful; emotionally, intellectually, and economically.

> A dig at fathers in the first paragraph

The writers are African-American women. Working has been a feature of most African-American women's lives for the entirety of America. It's not a dig at the fathers, who have historically also been working. The traditional African-American family has typically had two workers. (The "double-shift" is working for someone else, then coming home and doing homemaking. Commonly, the father would be working a second job during the evening hours.)

I think reading this as an attack on the traditional American family is making a lot of assumptions about which families are considered "traditional."

The first sentence is "We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children." That seems very pro traditional family. What is the dig at fathers that you speak of? Is it the women working double shifts thing? If the double shift thing is true, then it's a rightful dig at fathers that should happen. We should do more domestically. If you think there isn't a double shift and that all domestic tasks are shared equally, then I can see it coming across as an unwarranted attack. Personally, I don't.

There is no dig. Just people finding excuses to be offended. Based on the assumption that any thing pro-motherhood is necessarily anti-fatherhood. Good grief.

Yes, if the traditional family implies that the bulk of child rearing falls on mothers and there is little help from the community in that respect.

It’s calling for a village rather than just nuclear families. But somewhere someone reads this passage and their instincts tell them that traditional families are being attacked.

What is your vision of traditional black family?

I don't think this is a very charitable take. To me this statement is about making sure mothers don't have to do all the child-rearing, and coming together as a community to raise children. In any event, I definitely don't buy "tradition" as the sole reason to keep doing something a certain way. I also don't think the tradition you're talking about is nearly as traditional as you think.

The reason I don't interpret it in that innocuous way is because the founders of Black Lives Matter are self-described "trained Marxists" (https://www.city-journal.org/marxist-revolutionaries-black-l...), are follows of the ideologies of various Marxist theorists like Lenin and Mao (https://time.com/5171270/black-lives-matter-patrisse-cullors...), and therefore know full well that a core tactic of socialist/communist theory is to disrupt the family unit as a way to eliminate private property, increase the collectivist/state-rearing of children (propagandizing), and diminish competing ideologies/culture that can emerge from family structure (https://thefederalist.com/2015/06/29/americans-buy-into-marx...).

That's an amazing inference.

IIRC, The Occupy Movement heavily influenced BLM.

David Graeber talks about the origins of Occupy in The Democracy Project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Democracy_Project

Sure Anarchists like Graeber are adjacent to Socialists, Marxists, and other groups. But Anarchists are for participatory democracy, against government. The left-wing version of libertarians. So Anarchists oppose Socialists, Communists, and Liberals (today's Democrats & Republicans) equally.

I couldn't say if Occupy or BLM are Marxist, Socialist, or whatever. Or since everyone uses their own definitions, what that could possibly mean. Things get nutty when people try to use 100 year old terms to talk about contemporary stuff.

It's on my to do list to find similar write-ups about BLM. Please share if you found any.

> I couldn't say if Occupy or BLM are Marxist, Socialist, or whatever.

You can say, at least regarding the founders of BLM: https://therealnews.com/pcullors0722blacklives

"BALL: ...he was concerned or is concerned that there’s a lack of perhaps ideological direction in Black Lives Matter that would allow it to be, to fizzle out in, as he said, in comparison to Occupy Wall Street. As you advance in your own organization, as you all are headed to Cleveland to participate in this Black Lives Movement conference, how do you respond to that particular critique?... CULLORS: Um, I think that the criticism is helpful. I also think that it might–. I think of a lot of things. The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk. We don’t necessarily want to be the vanguard of this movement. I think we’ve tried to put out a political frame that’s about centering who we think are the most vulnerable amongst the black community, to really fight for all of our lives. And I do think that we have some clear direction around where we want to take this movement. I don’t believe it’s going to fizzle out. It just gets stronger, and we see it, right. We’ve seen after Sandra Bland. We’re seeing it now with the interruption of the Netroots Nation presidential forum. What I do think, though, is folks–especially folks who have been trained in a particular way want to hear certain things from us, that we’re not sort of framing it in the same ways that maybe another generation have, has. But I think it’s important that people know that we are, the Black Lives Matter movement doesn’t just live online, although there’s many people who utilize it online. We’re in a different set of circumstances, a different generation that–social media may feel like it’s diluting the larger ideological frame. But I argue that it’s not. "

Right, and that's straight from Engels' playbook on advancing Marxist agendas. Nuclear families lead to private property, therefore, inveigh against nuclear families. [1]

This is exactly backward for how to elevate poor and minority interests. Strong ("nuclear") families, education (not indoctrination), and _more_ private property from which those families can build security is what's needed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Priv...

> We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work

That’s not a stab at fathers. It’s a stab at the societal norms that force single mothers to work double shifts just to support their family. They are purporting that this is due to the fact that our society is patriarchal (run by men - which it is). Whether they’re right or wrong it’s not a dig at traditional dads.

They’re attacking the societal norms that a straight cis mom and straight cis dad are the only foundational units for a legitimate family.

We have to separate micro from macro. At micro, there are many succesful families of all kinds. At macro, families where biological parents raise their children are happier, wealthier and safer.

> traditional family

What's a "traditional family"?

Typically it means children being raised by their biological parents.

So foster kids like me aren't traditional?

If I offended you, I'm sorry. The terminology we are using in this context was not invented by me. My only intent with the post was to clarify the definition of the term in question.

That's the point. There will be people who look down on your foster family for not being their idea of "traditional" and therefore inferior.

Increasingly, lots of different kinds of families are being recognized as good, and they're pushing back against people who insist that only one kind of family is acceptable.

No, a foster family is not a traditional family. That's not a value judgement, it's a basic classification. Is there a point to your line of questioning?

I'm trying to figure out why the GP was triggered by some random BLM statement about families.

Those paragraphs go through great contortions to avoid using the word "father".

Yeah, especially odd that they don't make it into this sentence.

> mothers, parents, and children are comfortable

Well, they said "patriarchal", I am sure that is linguistically related.

That's a vague value statement. But it's meaningless without any concrete solution/proposal presented.

It's easy to agree on platitudes. The disagreement comes when it comes to the implementation.

That's my biggest problem with the BLM movement. The cause sounds great, but I still don't understand the solution. Everything is vague, like "systemic racism". It feels like they are just winding up millions of people into a frenzy, gaining allies to a cause that is to-be-defined. I shudder to think what solutions will finally be presented when everyone is at peak temperature.

Thank you for calling into question my underlying assumption (that media representation of BLM could be taken at face value).

I found this summary of the BLM language online to be pretty fair: https://www.iwf.org/2020/10/01/fact-check-is-it-true-that-bl...

I guess I believe that society functions best with households where a mother figure and a father figure are present and align as a team with the goal of providing for and raising their children. Many circumstances can get in the way of that ideal to be sure. I do see BLM language above calling into question that ideal by labeling it western which is ridiculous.

More fundamentally though it seems the solution to their problem may not be political as much as cultural. Where have the fathers gone? Honestly - where did they go? So many broken relationships, so many men in jail. These are the issues we should be fighting more than anything else _by far_.

We can tackle this in the political arena by looking closely at over-incarceration, but that's only one aspect of the problem. It seems detrimental to the actual "Black Lives Matter" cause to ignore the rest. Of course admitting that your group has a problem isn't exactly protest inducing material, and that is where my cynicism creeps in.

> We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another

A commune? Your child will be raised by the state automatically?

It's hippy-dippy marxist nonsense.

Depends on how far you take it.

"Your kids are on their way to becoming sociopathic gang members, but far be it from me to lift a finger to help you. My kids are fine." Yeah, that's going too far on the individualistic side. Help your neighbors and your community, not just your own family.

"All children will be taken from their parent(s) at birth, and raised exclusively by the community/state." That's too far in the other direction. Take care of your own family first, don't depend on others to do it.

(And if you think I contradict myself: I'm saying take care of your own family, and help others outside it, and (to the extent you can) don't depend on others to do the same for you. Give more than you get. Yes, it's unfair. Don't look at life in a purely selfing manner.)

I can't tell, from the BLM statement, how far they want to go away from a pure no-community, nuclear-family-only position. (I must say, though, that "We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work 'double shifts' so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work" sounds to me like "We're too busy marching in the streets to take care of our own kids, so someone should do that for us".)

You should read the rest of the page, it's quite eye-opening. It's most certainly not an equality movement for black people, it's some sort of leftist intersectional organization. No wonder people extrapolate the meaning of that marketing-language laden sentence.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200408020723/https://blacklive...

I do hope everyone would be at least sympathetic towards other human beings wanting justice and equal treatment.

I would be wary about that website and I would take whatever you see about a central organization relating to BLM with a grain of salt. I've been involved in local protests and other events in Chicago and I've never once been directed to or heard of a centralized website.

I hope you reconsider your stance with the knowledge that BLM is a very decentralized movement, and (while anecdotal) no one I've known who's been involved has been "disruptive" towards the idea of nuclear families. If I can make any other supporting statements or answer questions that might sway you please let me know.

I get that BLM is decentralized and I agree that most people are just protesting injustices, but then my question is: to whom did all that money go? Clearly it went to someone. Isn't it fair to consider this organization representative of BLM?

> Black Lives Matter raised more than $90 million in 2020

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-lives-matter-raised-...

It's not just the $90 million given to this one organization either, although they are facing their own controversies with BLM chapters raising alarm about the lack of transparency from BLM leaders (https://apnews.com/article/black-lives-matter-90-million-fin...). Corporations have given massive quantities to many other organizations (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/want-know-where-al...), which are pursuing similar social/political/activist goals even if they aren't the same "official" Black Lives Matters organizations. In total, $10.6 billion was given, and that's just what journalists were able to identify (https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/12/10/six-month...).

It's a massive injection towards the entire ideological package associated with Black Lives Matter. It's not just about injustice in policing (which does occur but is very rare), but also about everything from environmental causes to tax policies to universal healthcare. Put another way, these donations in the name of racial policing equality are bolstering the entirety of progressive politics.

> these donations in the name of racial policing equality

Neither the BLM movement generally not most of the organizations associates with it nor their supporters nor their donors pretend that it's about simply “racial policing equality”.

But it's cute that conservatives scaremonger about bourgeois identity politics (though they don't tend to call it out as bourgeois) for being needlessly divisive and counterproductive to their overt goals by not incorporating and prioritizing crosscutting issues that fundamentally underlie the specific problems of the groups notionally served, but also criticize progressive identity politics as counterproductive to their overt goals for incorporating and prioritizing crosscutting issues that fundamentally underlie the specific problems of groups they serve.

It's almost as if the problem wasn't about the approach to the problems of the particular populations, but that any approach is taken to those problems at all.

> my question is: to whom did all that money go?

(The link you provide outlines where the money went.)

The point is that this "decentralized" movement has a central organization that has a lot of money donated to it, and that the central/important tenets of that central organization probably has some measurable influence in deciding which "decentralized" parts of the organization get funding/donations/focus/marketing.

So if the "BLM" organization views the nuclear family as something that has to be abolished, then one can assume that they wouldn't donate to local BLM chapters that don't subscribe to that idea. Maybe not always, but a greater than 0% chance for sure.

With this whole "decentralized" argument, we might as well say the Republican/Democratic parties are decentralized and that what the RNC and DNC do/say hasn't a huge bearing on the way that the individual local leaders/sub-organizations of the parties do or how their rallies behave. It's more "centralized" than BLM, sure, but like with a lot of things, it's not a black/white description. It's rather a range, and we can't just say "no it's not" when we can clearly see that the "central" portion has some bearing on the smaller parts.

So, my thinking on this also aligns with the Sorites Paradox:

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

> With this whole "decentralized" argument, we might as well say the Republican/Democratic parties are decentralized and that what the RNC and DNC do/say hasn't a huge bearing on the way that the individual local leaders/sub-organizations of the parties do or how their rallies behave.

That's not a terrible argument, and actually aligns quite well with my own experiences.

My local GOP isn't well aligned at all with the national party.

The NRA is an even better example. I refuse to directly donate to the NRA due to their mismanagement of member funds in the recent past and their lack of support for important court cases going back much further. My local NRA, on the other hand, uses the large majority of funds raised for local support and outreach: education, maintenance of public ranges, instructor training, etc.

I don't think it's uncommon to support a local chapter of an organization while being at odds with the organization itself.

> With this whole "decentralized" argument, we might as well say the Republican/Democratic parties are decentralized and that what the RNC and DNC

It's worse than that; it's a classic motte-and-bailey.

Try to address some issue with the Black Lives Matter organization, and you're apt to see a retreat to the banner of lowercase "black lives matter" as a principle. This is like trying to address some issue with the "Democratic Party", and then those being criticized scurry over to an excuse like, "What, you don't believe in democracy?" Of course, no one makes that kind of mistake, because such a defense wouldn't be possible. It's well understood that the capital-D Democrats comprise a concrete organization with an actual platform, etc that is identifiable by the proper noun, which is distinct from democracy as a principle, even though they share a root. In the case of Black Lives Matter, it's more than just a shared root, and this is less clear overall, so people who can benefit from the halo effect strengthening their foothold knowingly exploit it for gain.

> The point is that this "decentralized" movement has a central organization that has a lot of money donated to it,

It doesn't, though. There are several large national organizations (BLMGNF, M4BL, and others) associated with the movement, not a single central organization.

> and that the central/important tenets of that central organization probably has some measurable influence in deciding which "decentralized" parts of the organization get funding/donations/focus/marketing.

The tenets of the various organizations do obviously play a role in how they distribute funds, and the tenets of the various large and small organizations play a big role in which of them get funding donated to them by various donors.

> So if the "BLM" organization views the nuclear family as something that has to be abolished

Which, contrary to the misrepresentations, none of the major movement-related organizations do; a number of movement-related organizations have said things about policies which are punitive to families outside of that assumed norm as part of institutional racism especially in the presence of other institutional and social factors which result in more Black children not being raised in nuclear families.

> then one can assume that they wouldn't donate to local BLM chapters that don't subscribe to that idea

One can also assume that, if that were true, it would be competitive fundraising advantage to other movement organizations (e.g., direct donations to local orgs, if this really was the single central organization) without that belief, to the extent that the belief conflicted with the grassroots. But since there is neither a single central org nor any major org with the viewpoint being criticized, it's moot.

> With this whole "decentralized" argument, we might as well say the Republican/Democratic parties are decentralized

No, you might as well say the that the “right-to-far-right political alignment” and the “center-right to moderate left political alignment” are decentralized movements.

The Democratic and Republican parties are centralized organizations, in ways that the BLM movement is not.

I didn't see anything to suggest that the nuclear family should be abolished.

Just a statement that we shouldn't structure our society in a way that makes it impossible for those not fortunate enough to have been raised in a nuclear family to still succeed.

While I agree we need to communicate that the nuclear family is very important and beneficial to our society, we need to do so without making children of non-nuclear families feel inferior.

> "I didn't see anything to suggest that the nuclear family should be abolished."

I was just using it because it was the example in the thread.

I don't know where all that money went. I do know that I, along with several other thousand people, helped fund our local protests and events. I don't know of anyone who donated to "Black Lives Matter". The donations I was aware of went towards specific events or pre existing charity funds for specific causes, such as community centers or legal fee funds. Again this is all anecdotal.

I would assume it is fair to say this organization is representative of BLM, as I'm sure they have been under more scrutiny than I can provide and I would hope any bad intentions or funny things happening to the money would have been caught by now. So if I think it's fair to say that if this organization is representative of BLM, I think it would be fair to assume they would also be sending the money to the places they are stating.

I'm not saying that they used the money unwisely, but that clearly such a thing as "BLM" exists and is run by certain people, people who have supported things like "disrupt the nuclear family."

Y'all seem to me to be selectively quoting from the statement to make it seem like they're attacking or attempting to destroy nuclear families when the full text shows that they are extending the concept of family from the nuclear family to a larger group.

> We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure

But the real question is, what does this have to do with racial justice? As someone like Sowell points out, many inequities are themselves the consequence of disrupting the two-parent household.

While I think some of their talking points are reaching, this one is not. One of the most damaging things affecting the Black community today is the lack of fathers in the home. A lot could and has been said about why that is (over-incarceration of Black males is one), but the purpose behind the statement in question, i think, is to try to make the best of reality. Try to adjust society in a way so that children of single parent homes can still thrive and not feel inferior because they weren't raised in an "ideal" family.

I think we can do that without disavowing the traditional nuclear family and I don't read anything there that implies that.

Well your questions indicated you were more concerned about the money than the original nuclear family statement. My argument regarding the nuclear family stance was and is this:

I wouldn't discredit an entire social movement about demanding equality and fair treatment because of what someone put on a non-profit's website. Further, a statement like "BLM supports disrupting the nuclear" doesn't hold up because that stance has apparently been taken down from the website in question. If it was still on the website, which admittedly I haven't checked, then I can understand taking this more seriously.

It was taken down from the website because people noticed it was there.

Anyone who has read Marx and Critical Theory knows that disrupting the family is a key tenet.

Overall you seem to be saying you don't know anything about the actual organization or people at the helm of BLM, or what they've done with the money they've collected, but you hope it's all good.

I guess I agree with all of that, but I don't feel like it's a strong argument.

I agree "I don't know what this organization is doing with their money" is not a strong argument, but I think just asking what a non profit is doing with it's money is also not a very compelling argument. I don't know much about this organization, but I know a fair amount about the BLM movement, and the local organizers or groups I've interacted with which I've made clear is where my argument is coming from.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone who protested over the summer that has had any contact with or knows anything about or even donated money to the BLM non-profit or even cares what they have on their website. It's a catchy phrase that captures the essence of what many people were protesting and not much more. Personally, I gave money to the naacp.

I'm tempted to agree with you because the BLM non-profit seems to be an extremist political organization, and most people are not extremists. On the other hand, that does not explain why so many of those selfsame people become very defensive when you criticize the BLM non-profit organization.

The great thing about modern day activism is that just about anyone who is willing can join the decentralized movement. But, there is also an official institution/organization controlling the purse strings and spending the donation money. I think it's more important to look at the formal organization's activities because spending money moves the needle when it comes to societal change.

It may be decentralized, but it does have a shared slogan (which is repeated and amplified by individuals and organizations affiliated with the movement), and it does have an agenda expressing their ideology. BLM deleted the "What We Believe" page once it became controversial but you can find a copy of the original online (https://uca.edu/training/files/2020/09/black-Lives-Matter-Ha...). You can also see the "13 guiding principles" that are commonly adopted and implemented by institutions like schools (https://www.blacklivesmatteratschool.com/13-guiding-principl...) or the NEA (https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/black...), which is the main teachers' union in the US and also the largest labor union in the US. Even if there are many organizations and actors, the widespread and uniform adoption of their agenda resembles the long march through institutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_ins...), and is turning our institutions into channels for indoctrination (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/should-bla...),

Also tellingly, they are far from an organization focused on just policing equality, which is ostensibly where BLM began. If you look at the latest updates on their website (https://blacklivesmatter.com/blm-demands/), you'll see them advocate for various explicitly political goals aligned with the Democratic party, such as wanting Trump banned from digital platforms (censorship), wanting to expel legislators who challenged election results (violating their political rights), and more. The 13 principles and "what we believe" manifesto I mentioned above also encompass the vast majority of the progressive political platform rather than focusing on the policing issue.

I'm not saying they don't have democrat aligned demands, but as to your examples, you can certainly want Trump and other supporters of the big stolen election lie to be banned for incitement to violence and insurrection. That is not necessarily a political issue so much as a legal one.

Xkcd.com has a perpetual image link to that website (very prime ad space, given for free) with the text "how to help".

It's not an obscure site and lots of people equate the site with the movement.

That's not the point of BLM. It's purpose is to advance communism, using race relations as its vehicle.

There's the notion of BLM, of which only sociopaths would disagree, then there's BLM the organization which is exactly how you described it.

The naming of this organization was actually a stroke of genius. Only the crazy edge cases would refute it's name but served as a Trojan horse for an ideology that is inherently un-American. If you disagree with them the immediate reaction has been "you don't think black lives matter?" This is a brilliant move.

Just an inheritance from the term progressive.

"I disagree with you."

"What, you're against progress?"

Also "anti-fascist" and "anti-racist".

The left has gotten clever with their naming, similar to the conservative movement in the 90s under the advisement of George Lakoff ("death tax", etc).

It's a Motte and Bailey, by design (which I seem to end up pointing out a lot on HN, apology for the repetition but it's a common and important pattern).

The core BLM organization are subversive Marxists. Their tenants are extremely un-American and probably not shared by most of the people marching under their banner. When you point this out, they can retreat from the Marxist Bailey to the racial equality Motte and attempt to shut down criticism.

This pattern of equivocating between subversive ideas and basic liberal tenants is extremely damaging for the liberals accidentally aligning themselves with extremists, but this smokescreen tactic has existed longer than most any HN posters have been alive. This is the proverbial "Useful Innocents" (and its more pejorative alternative).

BLM was founded by Marxist-Leninist activists. The original statements about the nuclear family were consistent with viewing the family as a site of patriachical oppression. None of that antagonism is innovative or surprising if you know a bit if intellectual history. I suspect they changed the language because it was too radical to hold a coalition together. Most people seem to like their families and view the nuclear family as a good thing.

I see I'm getting downvoted. Will any downvoters have the balls to say why? Here's the relevant quote:

"Just ask BLM leaders Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi.

In a revealing 2015 interview, Cullors said, “Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” That same year, Tometi was hobnobbing with Venezuela’s Marxist dictator Nicolás Maduro, of whose regime she wrote: “In these last 17 years, we have witnessed the Bolivarian Revolution champion participatory democracy and construct a fair, transparent election system recognized as among the best in the world.”"

"Just ask BLM leaders Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi.

In a revealing 2015 interview, Cullors said, “Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” That same year, Tometi was hobnobbing with Venezuela’s Marxist dictator Nicolás Maduro, of whose regime she wrote: “In these last 17 years, we have witnessed the Bolivarian Revolution champion participatory democracy and construct a fair, transparent election system recognized as among the best in the world.”"

From Time's interview (https://time.com/5171270/black-lives-matter-patrisse-cullors...) of Cullors, the "main" founder and the only one still maintaining a leadership position at BLM:

> Cullors weaves her intellectual influences into this narrative, from black feminist writers like Audre Lorde and bell hooks, to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. Reading those social philosophers “provided a new understanding around what our economies could look like,” she says. Reading Lorde and hooks “helped me understand my identity.”

All the people happily repeating "Black Lives Matter", putting up lawn signs, and donating to them have no idea that it is led by someone who admires and is inspired by Marx, Lenin, and Zedong. They think the accusations of Marxism are a right-wing conspiracy theory, when the reality is that this is the ideological rot at the core of the Black Lives Matter organization, that its philosophies and goals are based around the same principles espoused by some of the most dangerous ideologues of all time. From https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-m...:

> the deaths caused by communist regimes [...] is closer to 100 million. That makes communism the greatest catastrophe in human history

The idea of somebody being a "trained Marxist" is very funny. Personally, I'm a 4th degree Historical Materialist and I'm training for the 2nd level Communist obstacle course

I can see how it's "funny" if one is trying to minimize and deflect, but if they're hanging around characters like maduro then they're probably referring to more than just economic or government theory - these people see themselves as full blown subversive revolutionaries.

And then if you consider the spread of critical theory and postmodernism and the general influence of the Frankfurt school through our institutions, then the overtly "anti-establishment" protesting and rioting spearheaded by BLM and Antifa (which "doesn't exist", "isn't an organization", sure, how typically "revolutionary") starts to look very much like the start of a subversive, insurrectionist ploy, much like that of the bolsheviks that lead to the disaster of a government that my family fled.

And then it really isn't funny to me at all. And it also isn't funny to me when one considers that part of the rise of the Nazi party pre WWII can be attributed the behavior of very similar "revolutionary" communists who also were running destroying businesses and beating up citizens on the street for disagreement. No, I'd say such an overtly insurrectionist movement evolving openly in the US is not funny at all.

I don't think you have much to worry about in the US. From my experience, those who call themselves "Marxist" have a hard time organizing a barbecue, let alone a revolution. They are mostly revolutionary LARPers. I think the internet and media sometimes magnify the size and power of these groups and it warps with our perception of reality. The largest Leninist group in the US is the PSL and they're a joke. A bunch of weirdos with no friends but the ones they found online

This suggests you didn't get a degree in the humanities in the past 20 years and don't understand the Leninist part of Marxist-Leninist.

I'm yet to see anyone describe themselves as simply a 'trained Marxist' without any indication as to what that might mean specifically, other than these BLM leaders. A 'trained Marxist guerilla'? Sure. A 'trained Marxist economist'? Sure. 'Educatied in Marxism'? Sure. Even just a 'Marxist', sure. But even with the Leninist part (which the quote doesn't specify - there are plenty of non-Leninist Marxists about) it's unclear what it means to be a 'trained' one. It's not as though there's a 'Marxism coach' somewhere who trains you on understanding the significance of the ratio between constant and variable capital or the labour theory of value.

It's hilarious because it's so vague, not because there are guerillas or revolutionaries who have been trained by Marxists in agitprop/organizing/guerilla tactics. In short, what's the difference between being a 'trained Marxist' and 'educated in the works of Marx and Engels'? If I heard someone describe themselves as a 'trained literary critic', I'd think exactly what GP pointed out too.

My comment is just as much a criticism of the vagueness of the BLM leaders as it is the people who accept them at their word without even inquiring into what it means. For all we know, they could literally just be holding a philosophy degree completed with a Master's project in an aspect of Marxist philosophy.

Right, if you haven't seen it it must not exist. Are you from Missouri? If that level of radical skepticism works for you, good on ya. Personally, I don't conflate things that I don't know with things that can't be known.

A trained Marxist is an activist, it's really that simple. The point is not to interpret the world but to change it yada yada yada. A Leninist is a Marxist who believes the proletariat is too economically comfortable to bring about the revolution and therefore an intellectual vanguard of "trained" revolutionaries (marxist activists) are required to lead the way. Time to hit the books!

>Right, if you haven't seen it it must not exist. Are you from Missouri? If that level of radical skepticism works for you, good on ya.

There's no need for a confrontational tone. In the past I've interacted with many Marxists, activists, organizers, and academics. I'm more trying to apply my experience to the topic, not to suppose that nobody describes themselves as a 'trained Marxist'.

>A trained Marxist is an activist, it's really that simple.

Why do we see people describe themselves as 'Marxist activists' etc. more than 'trained Marxists', then? If somebody learned Marxist philosophy in private, does this make them a 'trained Marxist'? Who trained them, in that case?

>A Leninist is a Marxist who believes the proletariat is too economically comfortable

I know it's a technicality, but this is not the reason behind the vanguard party. The idea of a proletariat which is too comfortable with capitalism is more of a Frankfurt School flourish on Marxism, and bypasses Lenin entirely. The vanguard party, at least in Leninist theory, is not a specially trained force of revolutionaries, but a party (in the normal sense of the word) open to anyone to join. It's not a group of trained revolutionaries (and perhaps you recognize this by the fact you put 'trained' in quotes). In theory, the vanguard party could be completely transparent (in the sense of not even being a formal party, but encompassing all who share in the ideals), or even non-activists (such as academics) and untrained people (such as those who have come accross Marx without any outside influence or instruction) could be a part of it.

Obscuring 'trained Marxists' into 'Marxist activists' requires a non-obvious interpretation of 'trained' and 'activism' which misses out on the nuance of both. An activist for animal rights along Peter Singer's philosophy is not a "trained utilitarian", nor even a "trained animal rights activist". An an activist for Stallman's free software philosophy is not necessarily a "trained free software activist". If all 'trained Marxists' are 'Marxist activists', then the obverse would have to be true as well, but I can think of many 'Marxist activists' who have a very poor grasp on Marx and Engels, to the point where it would be farcical to call them 'trained Marxists', much in the same way a 'trained programmer' who can barely write more than a fizzbuzz would be a farcical designation.

People can be trained guerillas, trained activists, etc. - because those are things you do, and the origin of the knowledge is inherently practical and handed down by someone external. Marxism, however, does not provide practical guidance (at least not in any sense, as Marx admits, to be relevant after he initially wrote the Manifesto). It's theory, and you're reading 'activists' into it in a way that has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of 'training' or 'activist'.

This is the point of the Leninist party politics. It is the activist embodiment of Marxism. The Frankfurt School was trying to understand why the revolution had only occurred in Russia despite the predictions of Marx's theory. Their reasoning was post-hoc rather than strictly causal but it is the reason given to account for the failure of the proletarian class to rise up in class consciousness and the justification for a vanguard to lead the way. It remains Leninist despite the involvement of the Frankfurt School. In fact, it really proves the point. The training is literally training in revolutionary tactics. Peter Singer qua philosopher us not an activist, but of course there are trained activists in the animal rights movement who are trained in tactics to promote an agenda rooted in utilitarian reasoning. Sorry for the snark but you seem to be engaging in a bit of casuistry or being willfully obtuse about the ordinary meanings of activist and training.

It's not as funny when you get to live under the rule of well trained Marxists. Hundreds of millions of them have been produced over the last century. Look into a history book or just ask around.

It turns out that some genocidal ideologies are too hard to let go, we managed with Nazism pretty well but Marxism is taking some time. Cambodia under Pol Pot should have been enough.

Indeed it is surprising, but I think it's because communism wasn't put on trial when the Soviet Union collapsed. There weren't courts punishing gulag wardens and KGB officers for torture, murder, and everything else under the sun. Everything was forgiven for the sake of peace, but everyone learned the wrong lesson. Which is why when "nationalism" is mentioned, people think of Nazi germany, but when "socialism" is mentioned, today's youth especially wants to think of Sweden. The crimes of Nazi Germany are regularly mentioned in popular culture, but those of Communists not so much, though they're more contemporary, lasted much longer, and arguably affected a lot more people.

China is currently butchering Uyghurs.

That people in the US espouse Marxist beliefs while a Marxist state commits genocide is “the same” as when parts of American society supported Nazis.

Disney thanking China for their help filming Mulan next to a camp is the same simpering we saw from corporations supporting the Nazi regime.

Why is this funny to you? There are many Marxist organizations in the world, surely some of them focus on organizing considering that one of the core ideas of many Marxist and “post”-Marxist intellectual currents (like critical theory) is proletarian or some other sort of revolution.

I’ve had colleagues in Silicon Valley who were members of their home countries’ Communist Party student organizations.

Commies killed a lot more than Nazis, yet I would be extremely surprised if Nazi party student organization would be allowed.

"Trained Marxist" might as well mean college graduate these days.

Black activists (people presenting themselves as activists on behalf of black folk) seem to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It's almost as if the people funding these activists don't have black folks interest in mind at all...

Long history of this. Many such cases. Follow the money and you'll see.

What's even more shady is that they did not acknowledge the criticism directed on this point at all. Instead they quiety scrubbed their "What We Believe" page (https://thepostmillennial.com/exposed-blm-quietly-scrubs-ant...), without actually admitting that this screed was based on Marxist philosophy (likely Friedrich Engels). In various works, such as "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", Engels claimed that the modern family unit gave rise to the notion of private property, and therefore capitalism, and that it must be undone for socialism to succeed. The greater ecosystem of fundamental socialist and communist theory includes proposals to ban all home and religion education, banning concepts like property and inheritance, nationalizing various housework, and even separating children from parents at an early age so they could primarily be reared by the state (https://thefederalist.com/2015/06/29/americans-buy-into-marx...).

It's incredible to me that activists who often complain about vague "dog whistles" cannot connect the dots on an ideological relation that is so basic and clear.

The alliance of necessity between social liberals and racial justice advocates creates this problem. There is not anything inherent about “people of color should be treated equally” that also requires buying into “we should disrupt the nuclear family.” That’s just how the political alliances have worked out. The latter ideology in practice works to undercut the former ideology. The contribution to racial inequality is stark: the poverty rate for Black, Latino, and Asian children in two parent households is 1/4 to 1/2 the poverty rate for white children in single mother households.

As a south Asian person, I find the aggressive push to move Asian Americans to the left quite troubling. The intense social norms in south and East Asian culture in favor of two parent households is an incredible advantage we should not give up lightly. But it’s almost taboo in socially progressive circles to say that family structure matters (even though this is obvious to Asians).

>But it’s almost taboo in socially progressive circles to say that family structure matters (even though this is obvious to Asians).

You must hang in some especially woke circles

Doesn't seem that extreme to me. Even saying that divorce should be avoided at all costs and a two parent household is vastly superior to a single parent one is enough to get labeled as a conservative by many.

Definitely not by the average American. Twitter and San Fran/Portland are a small minority of the US.

College students too, unfortunately.

So a small minority with almost no experience raising children?

The question isn't whether they are correct (clearly they aren't) but if they are influential in culture and government.

Many/most social movements start on college campuses, so I would consider it pretty relevant.

Yes, but you’d be surprised how woke some circles have become: https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator.... That’s from my quite business-oriented law school.

Try saying that you believe that two-parent households are better for a kid that single-parent households in the presence of anyone who considers themselves social justice oriented or left-wing.

I live in the very liberal Bay Area, and I have indeed said that repeatedly, and rarely do I get pushback. The biggest question is "do those parents have to be a hetero couple?" to which I reply "nope, but unless the single parent has amazing cash means or a large extended family to support them, then generally regardless of much else, 2 is better than 1".

I've never otherwise had a difficult time supporting that position in front of young SJWs at all.

I usually agree with leftist views and I feel like having both parents is good for the kid. Maybe only fringe leftists believe otherwise. Or maybe it's lacking context, for example the discussion might be about abusive partners, or single people who don't want to marry but want to adopt a kid.

> single people who don't want to marry but want to adopt a kid

ie, a single parent.

BTW, I'm kind of on the left as well, in some ways (eg, I think income inequality and poverty is a huge problem). I just can't stand the current leftist orthodoxy, which is belligerently anti-fact if they don't like where the facts lead (two-parent households being a great example).

I guess I'm a Laschian leftist, or Laschian conservative, depending on your view of Lasch.

Does left-wing include the majority of Biden's base?

Woke twitter is a small minority.

The media is Woke twitter, or at least a large part of it.

And if you don't believe that the media doesn't have any influence on people, particularly Biden's base, try reading Chomsky's _Manufacturing Consent_, or even Walter Lippman, if you want to read someone who thinks this influence is a positive thing.

Seems to include the policy setting part of Biden's base.

Which policies and who?

The American Rescue Plan Act is being called the most significant progressive legislation, maybe since the New Deal.

Not saying that makes it bad, but it's certainly boldly progressive.

No, but it includes the vast majority of the 20-30 year old college grads that comprise the rank and file of Biden’s staff. And those people are influential.

It's also much better to grow up with enough money rather than not enough money. But what good are you doing by going around announcing that?

You speak as if single parent households are that way by choice. I'd wager 99.99% wish they had a stable partner helping them out.

Clearly “choice” is a sliding scale here that’s based on prevailing social norms. The US has double percentage of single parent, households compared to Germany, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/12/u-s-childre..., almost five times the rate compared to India, and almost eight times the rate of China.

But why does that alliance exist, I wonder? What is necessary about it?

It’s simple. A disproportionate share of racists and nativists are in the conservative wing, and more to the point conservatives are ideologically resistant to potentially aggressive government interventions to eliminate discrimination. So racial minorities are forced to ally with white social liberals. But that alliance doesn’t come for free. Social liberals insist on driving the bus on non-civil rights social issues, such as norms around marriage, child bearing, and premarital sex. (To this day, Black Democrats are far more likely to call premarital sex immoral compared to white Democrats. On that and similar issues they’re actually as conservative as Republicans. But that aspect of the culture is muted as a result of the alliance with disproportionately white social liberals over civil rights issues.)

We've been through this argument, recently, and I'm a little disappointed that you're framing this observation as if that discussion hadn't occurred already.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23766155

The implication of your comment is that the alternative to "the nuclear family" is "single-parent families". But the other alternative to nuclear families is "extended families", which you yourself have written about on HN numerous times.

There is an important racial justice issue involving nuclear vs. extended families; to wit: high-status municipalities (and their school systems) discriminate against them, both by mandating single-family housing and by working to exclude students who reside with extended family care networks. That's a thing we're grappling with in Oak Park, where I live just outside of Chicago, right now. It's not random; it's in fact a lot more legitimate than other BLM grievances (against, for instance, capitalism writ large).

I recall that argument, I just don’t read the platform page as charitably as you do. Even in an extended family network, the two parent unit is the nucleus. Particularly in view of the conspicuous absence of the word “father,” I read the platform point as seeking to further normalize the situation where kids are raised in households that lack fathers but includes other relatives (usually grandmothers and aunts).

I agree with you about the need to remove barriers to multi-generational households that include other relatives in addition to two parents. I just don’t read the platform that as being directed to that.

Thanks. But, see, now it's you reading tea leaves. The original language read:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another , especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable. (em mine)

It's explicit about extended families.

I think we should be able to quickly agree that there are two things going on here:

First, the part you're responding to: Black culture contends with a great deal of blame and social disapproval regarding single mothers and absence of fatherhood (something Thomas Sowell talks a lot about).

Second, like many cultures around the world, including several in Europe, Black culture relies on multigenerational extended family networks for child care. Those family networks were, as I'm certain from previous discussions you agree, explicitly targeted by housing segregationists to keep Black families out of suburban enclaves and to keep Black students out of the best-performing schools.

There's apparently this whole sort of internal cultural debate about Black advancement --- I'm a white dude and talking out of my ass here, but, like, I read some stuff --- between what you might call the Booker T. Washington school, which says Black advancement has to come from Black people improving their own circumstances and correcting the problems that are holding them back, and the W.E.B. DuBois school, which says that the first order of business is to secure formal, recognized equality with white people. It strikes me that you can read Sowell vs. BLM in that light.

They might both be right, with regards to families! Certainly, Oak Park needs to stop rigging systems to keep extended Black families from taking root here. And it's hard to deny that children are better off raised by more than one loving stable caregiver, though we might go back and forth about how important it is that the other stable caregiver be a father, vs. for instance a same-sex partner or a committed grandparent --- I had friends growing up raised by grandparents and those grandparents were probably a lot more conscientious than a lot of our parents.

At any rate, my main argument here is that this "nuclear family" stuff is a weird bone to pick with BLM. They're an easy target! They believe that we can beat back racism without reforming all of capitalism! Pick that fight, not the one that actually does implicate 75 years of racist housing policies that created the impoverished neighborhoods that have trapped and killed so many Black people.

The platform statement mentions mothers and parents, but not fathers. I don't think it's tea-leaf reading to figure out what it's talking about.

> There's apparently this whole sort of internal cultural debate about Black advancement --- I'm a white dude and talking out of my ass here, but, like, I read some stuff --- between what you might call the Booker T. Washington school, which says Black advancement has to come from Black people improving their own circumstances and correcting the problems that are holding them back, and the W.E.B. DuBois school, which says that the first order of business is to secure formal, recognized equality with white people. It strikes me that you can read Sowell vs. BLM in that light.

My point is the internal debate is filtered through a media and academic framework controlled by white social progressives that elevate one view and suppress the other based on their ideology. Don Lemon faced intense criticism when airing the Booker T. Washington view, because Bill O'Reilly said the same thing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2013/07/29/don.... It's pretty hard to get tenure at an American university doing work based on the Booker T. Washington view. But the W.E.B. DuBois view gets amplified through those same outlets. That's not because the Booker T. Washington view isn't extremely common. It's because the alliance between Black people and white social liberals suppresses the strong social conservatism in the Black community, as a matter of political necessity.

Now, I understand why the alliance exists. But as applied to Asians, I think the Booker T. Washington view is obviously correct and the W.E.B. DuBois view would be disastrous. I worry that the increasing affiliation of Asians with the left will suppress the very necessary and important social conservatism that exists in the Asian community.

I think it's quite a rhetorical lift to try to discredit W.E.B. DuBois given how the 20th century turned out, which is what you're inadvertently doing when you suggest DuBois approach wouldn't work applied to Asians. The circumstances of Asian Americans and Black people aren't directly comparable.

We probably don't disagree that much! The bullshit I am on, generally, is that left liberals underestimate just how conservative Black people are, and instrumentalize them in the service of their own policy agendas. It's not hard to find Black advocates of the Booker T school; I think you provided one a week ago!

I think it's important to recognize the validity of both trains of thought.

By all means, take potshots at trust-fund leftists. They richly deserve it! But I'm going to call you out when you pick bad targets, as you did here. There's stuff to criticize even in the specific BLM messaging about families (BLM is a deeply imperfect advocate), but to suggest as you did that "nuclear family" bias is a baffling leftward shift is beyond the pale. It's square in the middle of real, practical problems.

I appreciate the response, as always!

I just checked, and that's definitely not what I meant.

How else should one interpret this sentence other than, "I've already corrected you on this, so you should know better"?

> We've been through this argument, recently, and I'm a little disappointed that you're framing this observation as if that discussion hadn't occurred already.

I don't know, but we can be sure that I didn't mean it that way; we now have an authoritative citation for that.

Can anyone point me to where the millions raised by BLM after the summer riots has gone?

BLM seem to cause a lot of agitation, but I am not aware of them doing anything helpful to the communities that it claims to be fighting for.

ActBlue.

Yes, much like how MLK's popularity made this country socialist. This whole thread reeks of "unwise and untimely".

It is amazing that people are always projecting these ideas of organization so aggressively. Here BLM is portrayed an organization with founding documents that are have important guiding philosophy from which the rest emerges.

Actually looking at the people and what happened shows that there was very little organization involved and what little there was got conjured up late in the game by the most extreme involved players. In reality what happened is that our media intensive culture broadcast a nearly nine minute video of a black man being strangled by a cop and there was a broad visceral reaction against that. So what is really being said here is that a cop strangling a black man isn't that much of a big deal and what really matters is the philosophical positions expounded by the founding documents of the organization that emerged as protests grew. Want to object to cops strangling black men? You better be really slick with your organizational skills and foundational document writing because that is what really matters.

Yes, it matters what the group espouses: a group using the death of George Floyd to attack the nuclear family using trickery is a second problem.

What group is this? Protesters used the slogan and there is now an organization that uses that slogan. Does that mean that the protestors and their protests can be conflated with the organization that makes use of the name? Sharing a negative reaction to cops murdering citizens is not the same as being an organized group. Slogans have great power, but not that power.

The cop restrained a black man using a standard technique, while the balck man had overdose levels of fentanyl in his system. The cop has not been found guilty of strangling Floyd so far, and I believe the system in the US means innocent until proven guilty.

"Two autopsies — one by a county medical examiner and another by a private medical examiner hired by Floyd’s family — as well as a review by military experts conducted for the federal government, reached the conclusion that Floyd died of cardiopulmonary arrest as the officers subduing him compressed his neck and chest."[1]

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/...

Do you believe the story about Epstein hanging himself? Because its the same examiner that was hired by Floyds family. Didn't have access to the body.

Three independent investigators came to the same conclusion, but we're supposed to believe you know better from your armchair?

So you do believe the person that claimed Epstein hanged himself?