This quiz seems a bit extreme even for BLM.
This is mild compared to BLM's official list of demands. They told white people to give their homes for free to black families and for white people to take their own kids out of their wills and give everything to black people when they die because their white kids will just become rich on their own through white privilege.
This quiz seems a bit extreme even for BLM.
This is mild compared to BLM's official list of demands. They told white people to give their homes for free to black families and for white people to take their own kids out of their wills and give everything to black people when they die because their white kids will just become rich on their own through white privilege.
Their followers tend to not be as extreme as their loudest rhetoric, much like the right.
This quiz seems a bit extreme even for BLM.
This is mild compared to BLM's official list of demands. They told white people to give their homes for free to black families and for white people to take their own kids out of their wills and give everything to black people when they die because their white kids will just become rich on their own through white privilege.
Their followers tend to not be as extreme as their loudest rhetoric, much like the right.
I'm not talking about their loudest rhetoric, I am talking about the demands the group as a whole has declared their official demands.
I kind of see movements like BLM as a response towards seeing what's more likely to enact change.
On one hand, they could push reasonable ideas through peaceful protests like they've tried doing already, making for a crowd of people mostly ignoring it and letting it go on from it not being their problem.
On the other hand, forcing the conflict to be noticed makes it easier to be heard, easier to rally numbers, and keeping the views on the extreme end helps for forcing a compromise between the current status quo and the hard rhetoric that became the spine of the movement.
This quiz seems a bit extreme even for BLM.
This is mild compared to BLM's official list of demands. They told white people to give their homes for free to black families and for white people to take their own kids out of their wills and give everything to black people when they die because their white kids will just become rich on their own through white privilege.
Their followers tend to not be as extreme as their loudest rhetoric, much like the right.
I'm not talking about their loudest rhetoric, I am talking about the demands the group as a whole has declared their official demands.
So you're ignoring the people then?
the 'governments/corporations should pay slavery reperations to black ppl' one is BS too
i dont owe you shit if my great grandad stole your great grandmas tobacco pipe
You aren't the government. At worst you'd see a small increase in taxes.
I don't think wealth should just be handed straight to them, as it'll just be spent within the models they've already found themselves in, but rather on programs meant to help people learn how to push out of poverty.
It'll need to be multiple programs too or we'll just see everyone piling into the same few jobs to the point of surplus.
I kind of see movements like BLM as a response towards seeing what's more likely to enact change.
On one hand, they could push reasonable ideas through peaceful protests like they've tried doing already, making for a crowd of people mostly ignoring it and letting it go on from it not being their problem.
On the other hand, forcing the conflict to be noticed makes it easier to be heard, easier to rally numbers, and keeping the views on the extreme end helps for forcing a compromise between the current status quo and the hard rhetoric that became the spine of the movement.
What is the change and what makes it worth it?
If the goal is to improve conditions of the black community how does BLMs general narrative and set of demands actually improve conditions? No other ethnic group has to act in that way to improve their conditions and moreover the way they improve their conditions does not intersect with the demands of BLM.
BLM seems like a group more interested in scapegoats than actual change given the set of actions they exhibit.
This quiz seems a bit extreme even for BLM.
This is mild compared to BLM's official list of demands. They told white people to give their homes for free to black families and for white people to take their own kids out of their wills and give everything to black people when they die because their white kids will just become rich on their own through white privilege.
Their followers tend to not be as extreme as their loudest rhetoric, much like the right.
I'm not talking about their loudest rhetoric, I am talking about the demands the group as a whole has declared their official demands.
So you're ignoring the people then?
There is a difference between the person and people, generally the person can be rational but when grouped with other under the banner of ideology people are irrational. So the question is what is the banner and how does it effect the people. Does 90% of people matter when they generally back 10% of a more extreme people whom are giving the demands. History says no.
I kind of see movements like BLM as a response towards seeing what's more likely to enact change.
On one hand, they could push reasonable ideas through peaceful protests like they've tried doing already, making for a crowd of people mostly ignoring it and letting it go on from it not being their problem.
On the other hand, forcing the conflict to be noticed makes it easier to be heard, easier to rally numbers, and keeping the views on the extreme end helps for forcing a compromise between the current status quo and the hard rhetoric that became the spine of the movement.What is the change and what makes it worth it?
A recognition of the problem, and solutions that can get past tokenism.
If the goal is to improve conditions of the black community how does BLMs general narrative and set of demands actually improve conditions? No other ethnic group has to act in that way to improve their conditions and moreover the way they improve their conditions does not intersect with the demands of BLM.
Firstly, what is acting "in that way"?
Secondly, how do you expect their culture to trust anything after the FBI's believed involvement with cocaine traffic proliferated their ideas of their own government? They've been "shown" since before we were alive, after slavery, that despite not being slaves anymore that their situation is far from equal.
What makes now different from earlier points is moreover attempting to gauge how much of it's runoff from before versus how much of it's a current problem, such as KKK members being prolific among cop circles.
This quiz seems a bit extreme even for BLM.
This is mild compared to BLM's official list of demands. They told white people to give their homes for free to black families and for white people to take their own kids out of their wills and give everything to black people when they die because their white kids will just become rich on their own through white privilege.
Their followers tend to not be as extreme as their loudest rhetoric, much like the right.
I'm not talking about their loudest rhetoric, I am talking about the demands the group as a whole has declared their official demands.
So you're ignoring the people then?
There is a difference between the person and people, generally the person can be rational but when grouped with other under the banner of ideology people are irrational.
Even when grouped they tend to not just yell the most extreme language. This is squeaky wheel shit imo, meant to draw in each group over their singular concerns rather than attempting to find people who carry every single one.
Interviews tend to show them lumped into the group over one or two concerns of their own, following that with the notion of an "enemy" they have to rally against, usually pushed with 'slippery slope' language to make their extremes sound preferable to the other faction's.
So the question is what is the banner and how does it effect the people. Does 90% of people matter when they generally back 10% of a more extreme people whom are giving the demands. History says no.
We didn't descend into the utmost rhetoric of The Black Panther Movement, even though it was responsible for mobilizing many who supported black rights and even organized their own squads to defend against cop tyranny.
I kind of see movements like BLM as a response towards seeing what's more likely to enact change.
On one hand, they could push reasonable ideas through peaceful protests like they've tried doing already, making for a crowd of people mostly ignoring it and letting it go on from it not being their problem.
On the other hand, forcing the conflict to be noticed makes it easier to be heard, easier to rally numbers, and keeping the views on the extreme end helps for forcing a compromise between the current status quo and the hard rhetoric that became the spine of the movement.What is the change and what makes it worth it?
A recognition of the problem, and solutions that can get past tokenism.
The problem has been recognized and debated for decades and solutions by community spouting the problem have not only been given but in many instances have been implemented. Yet, the problem persists.
What are the solutions and what makes it different this time? What makes this approach that has a poor track record better than the approach implemented by other groups who share a similar problem of poverty when their solution actually allowed them on average to escape it?
If the goal is to improve conditions of the black community how does BLMs general narrative and set of demands actually improve conditions? No other ethnic group has to act in that way to improve their conditions and moreover the way they improve their conditions does not intersect with the demands of BLM.
Firstly, what is acting "in that way"?
Marching in the street and preaching inequality and racism and the overall necessity to up root a system that is keeping them down.
Secondly, how do you expect their culture to trust anything after the FBI's believed involvement with cocaine traffic proliferated their ideas of their own government? They've been "shown" since before we were alive, after slavery, that despite not being slaves anymore that their situation is far from equal.
That is a narrative that serves no utility in reality even if true.
Blacks escape the cycle all of the time. The ones that do focus on education and work, the ones that do not focus on narratives as a means to rationalize their situation and there by act on faulty information.
Turncoat said:What makes now different from earlier points is moreover attempting to gauge how much of it's runoff from before versus how much of it's a current problem, such as KKK members being prolific among cop circles.
This can be believed and can even be true. Not all cops are KKK members or white supremacist. It is not clear how many cops fit this description, as such we are making assumptions purely built on anecdotal evidence.
It does not negate the fact that current actions are inefficient and by no means correlate to actual solution which can be defined as a positive change in conditions.
.Their followers tend to not be as extreme as their loudest rhetoric, much like the right.
I'm not talking about their loudest rhetoric, I am talking about the demands the group as a whole has declared their official demands.
So you're ignoring the people then?
There is a difference between the person and people, generally the person can be rational but when grouped with other under the banner of ideology people are irrational.
Even when grouped they tend to not just yell the most extreme language. This is squeaky wheel shit imo, meant to draw in each group over their singular concerns rather than attempting to find people who carry every single one.
Interviews tend to show them lumped into the group over one or two concerns of their own, following that with the notion of an "enemy" they have to rally against, usually pushed with 'slippery slope' language to make their extremes sound preferable to the other faction's.
These groups causes $1-2 billion dollars and damages most of which were small businesses.
Actions are louder than words.
So the question is what is the banner and how does it effect the people. Does 90% of people matter when they generally back 10% of a more extreme people whom are giving the demands. History says no.
We didn't descend into the utmost rhetoric of The Black Panther Movement, even though it was responsible for mobilizing many who supported black rights and even organized their own squads to defend against cop tyranny.
There are groups just as extreme as the Black Panthers if not more at said protests and they made their voices heard loud enough to be heard given I heard them. They even have the same reason, Cop Tryranny among other things such as black supremacy.
My final point is this, BLM isn't doing anything amazing and they are not going to change the conditions of the black community. Pass police reform, fine. Get the television to tell you it stands in solidarity with you. Get the politician to tell you your conditions are unfair and pass legislation on your behalf.
It's changed nothing, you are still poor and angry.
