C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
you only need to see some of the other stuff on their website to see their clear bias.
there is no room for bias in fact checking.
No. Black Lives Matter Is Not Trying to Destroy Your Nuclear Family
- Thread starter blackforest
- Start date
- Status
there is no room for bias in fact checking.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
The true BLM is a bit like the True Scotsman. As soon as BLM says or does something unpalatable, and even if there is no visible internal criticism of that within BLM, people will get on their soap boxes and say, that it’s not the real BLM and you shouldn’t be holding BLM to account.
T
TheIttyBitty
Guest
They’re directly fighting ideologies and social mores. It’s true, they may not impact your own marriage and that family, but it will impact greatly your children and grandchildren as they become adults and move into a world changed by these ideologies and these replaced social structures.
Society will be impacted last, and it will be a mess, but that is at least a full generation away from realisation.
There are healthier ways to tackle racism and inequalities.
Society will be impacted last, and it will be a mess, but that is at least a full generation away from realisation.
There are healthier ways to tackle racism and inequalities.
N
neophyte
Guest
At least, that’s what it claims to be. It’s obvious to me that it’s anything but.
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
Allsides.com assesses Politifact as a “left leaning” site. Investors Business Daily concluded a few years back that nearly 20% of their “facts” were really opinions. In, I believe, 2016, Politifact stated that a person’s gender is whatever they identify as.
People who cite right-leaning news outlets have been pilloried for far less on this board.
People who cite right-leaning news outlets have been pilloried for far less on this board.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
Then why did you leave out several words such as “structure requirement” that completely change the meaning from what you’re asserting it to be?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Where I live, there is virtually no chance of some BLM mob coming to burn my house down without being interdicted long before they arrived. But that’s far from true in other places. I have relatives in St. Louis who ARE afraid of exactly that. Remember the couple in the gated community in the Central West End of St. Louis? And they are Democrats, or were.
The threat to my family by the like of those mobsters is the economic disruption that can ultimately affect the whole country and the lasting effect of their murderous hostility. Their purpose is to generate racial violence and hatred. Nobody can be certain that he or his children will not be attacked by some misled soul or souls someday who have been ruined by the like of BLM and Antifa.
Finally, those groups are allied with the Dem party. We already know that party is entirely willing to pervert the uses of government agencies to oppress and destroy their political enemies. They are now “enjoying” the services of the violent thugs to intimidate their political opponents.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No they are not. I see the signs they carry. Many are homemade. They just say Black Lives Matter, which is a phrase that is well known for what it stands for, which is a lot more important than the flaws of the impotent organization of the same name. The movement is grass-roots and decentralized. It does not take orders from any central authority.
See above.
No, the movement is clearly distinct from the named organization. The vast majority of those supporting the movement don’t give a fig about communism or Marxism. They just want to see justice for black people.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
Can you provide evidence of this? I strongly doubt that a good number of people in Kenosha show up at the protests without signing on to every last tenet of the website.
What does the article get wrong?
The main point of starting this thread was to discuss it. It’s not enough to dismiss something as “biased.” You bear the burden to rejoinder in proving that it’s wrong.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
Again you keep circling back to the issue of African Americans being killed by law-enforcement, nationwide, at a rate that is higher than any other cause of death for them.
The issue with BLM is that they keep pushing this narrative, and their focus is against law-enforcement and the perceived racism by everyone else who is non-black. But in actuality if they really cared about black lives, they would be more concerned with the rate at which African-Americans are being killed by other African-Americans.
The issue with BLM is that they keep pushing this narrative, and their focus is against law-enforcement and the perceived racism by everyone else who is non-black. But in actuality if they really cared about black lives, they would be more concerned with the rate at which African-Americans are being killed by other African-Americans.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
… and by abortion providers.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
But by using the same name as the organisation and by not clearly distancing themselves from teh organisation, they are in effect allowing themselves to be use as tools of the organisation. They are allowing the BLM organisation to say, look, all these people support us, and thereby support everything we say and stand for.
It would be as if i called myself a communist and walked around with placards of Karl Marx and of Lenin, but if you asked me about them, I would say, i don’t actually beleive in or condone what these guys stood for or did, but the word communist is a nice word with positive connotations for many peeople so I will march under it.
It’s naive at best and cynical at worst.
I had a teacher at school who once challenged us to explain why we weren’t nazis. He said we were nationalists because we loved our country and we admitted to that, and that we were socialists because we believed the government needed to help the poor, and we admitted to that - so in what way were we not national socialists? The answer was that probably we actually were in the true meaning of the term, but somebody else had tainted that word and therefore it can never be used in a positive sense ever again. If ever we claimed to be national socialists people would misunderstand and it’s a battle not worth fighting. The word is irretrievably lost to any good cause. Period and over.
Is that happening to Black Lives Matter too?
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
The meaning doesn’t change one wit, and you know it: BLM wants to disrupt the nuclear family and replace it with hodgepodge of trans families; gay families; aunties, whatever.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
They can say that, but the only people listening to them are the white supremacists that are just looking for some way to discredit the legitimate outcry for racial justice. This smear is nothing new. MLK was regularly criticized by the white supremacists of his day as supporting communism in the very same way critics are saying today that the Black Lives Matter movement is supporting all those bad things.
P
phil19034
Guest
What about the official Black Lives Matter online store?
I’ve seen PLENTY of these t-shirts, signs, etc around.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Is there any evidence that the protesters are all buying stuff from the online store? This is grasping at straws. The movement is good and righteous and well supported today by the American people.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Look. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the concept that black lives matter is horrific. All people are made in the image of God, OF COURSE black people matter! All people, all lives matter.
Any one who needed an organization or a movement to teach them that was honestly a horrible person!
This would be like chanting constantly changing “Drinking Water Matters.” OF COURSE black lives matter. It’s common sense & basic human decency.
But the ORGANIZATION is Marxist, anti family, etc. Good Christians of all races (white, black, Asian, etc) should be distancing themselves from the organization.
It doesn’t matter who had the slogan first. The organization and the phrase “Black Lives Matter” are forever intertwined.
Imagine for a moment a bunch of teachers protesting “I love Xerox, I love Xerox.” Well, what they talking about? Are they talking about photocopies? Or are they talking about the company Xerox?
I support black people 100%! I want Cardinal Sarah to be the next Pope! Some of the most inspirational people I’ve heard are Africans. Growing up, I had a number of black friends and had many in my neighborhood. Heck, my nephew (my parents first grandchild) is black.
Black People MATTER 100%
But as a man with a Puerto Rican mother, but with an Italian last name, you want to know what I have found? Most racists I’ve met (who didn’t know my mother was Puerto Rican - so they let their guard down around me) were all DEMOCRATS and/or leftists. The number of white supremacist things I’ve heard over the years have always been from people on the political left. The Republicans I know, all have black friends, invite black friends to attend family events, etc. The Democrats I know, never have black people at family events.
- family events = birthdays, baptisms, first communions, graduations, baby showers, wedding showers, etc.
That would be like chanting “I love Nike, I love Nike!” but then saying, “but I don’t support the Nike Corporation.” Can’t do it. You can’t go around declaring how much you love Nike shoes without people confusing the message for a love of the company.
In my opinion, it’s the same with BLM.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
They have a history of saying outright that the facts are not actually in dispute, they just don’t agree with the conclusion. They should not be viewed as an independent or credible fact-checking source. They are an overt arm of the Democratic party.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
I think that already the act of dismissing any criticism, however legitmate, as “white supremacy” is already part of the problem.
If you go to bed with extremists you will wake up with extremists. If you don’t disown them you risk being taken for one.
At the Charlottesiveille protests, we were told that the legitimate protesters had no ground to stand on because they were at the same march as white supremacists and didn’t disown them. In effect anybody who was there for whatever reason was a white supremacist.
The same people who supported that argument are however in denial that people attending marches organized by extremists and giving their movement the same name as an extremist outfit, are somehow associating themselves with said extremist outfit and lending it civil credibility.
This sounds like a severe case of situational myopia to me.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
It is an assumption. It never determines what the meaning is per the org. BLM never responded.
As stated above, it is an opinion
- Status