Dan asked if I'd watch and whether I could acknowledge that the information in the Phil Vischer was a compelling case for systemic racism.
Unfortunately, since I'm not allowed to respond at his blog, I'll have to answer here.
I have no problem with the reality of his recitation of history.
It's interesting that FDR isn't credited with redlining.
It's interesting that he uses MPLS so often given that it's one of the most liberal cities in the country and has been for decades.
I have some questions about his interpretation of some of the data, and his imputation of racism without actually demonstrating racism.
It's interesting that I've written things that agree with his opinions on FDR's redining, I've asked questions that remain unanswered regarding police stopping motorists for broken taillight types of things, yet the assumption in the post is that I am hostile to the positions expressed. The further assumption regarding Vischer's theology certainly is not demonstrated to be true either.
If Dan was reading my comments, and paying attention, he'd likely know the answer.
84 comments:
I'll point out that the very basis of Dan's post and the underlying assumptions is an example of what happens when you politicize these sorts of issues. I'm using "politicize" to include the theological divide as well.
The fact that Dan felt it necessary to identify Vischer as "very traditional" demonstrates this preconception.
So, the points he's making AR that we got here by way of systemic racism. That we've reached the system of inequity and discrimination by the way of policy, not by accident. You agree with this?
Because Marshal and other conservatives appear to want to discredit the notion of systemic racism. But you're saying you agree?
Did you not read my answer?
I've never denied that these sorts of raced based things were codified in law. My point has ALWAYS been, if the blame is being laid on the SYSTEM, then the issue becomes who controls the system.
If we're going to ignore those who control the system, or ignore the fact that many of these systems are NOT federal, then the conversation is pointless.
Yet, I've said this sort of thing for years, and it's made no difference.
So, when Trump or martial or others say that there is no systemic racism, no policies disadvantaged people of color by policy, that they are mistaken?
So, if you and I have common ground on this systemic racism put in place by policy, let's drill down to some specific policies.
1.Can we agree that black lives matter and saying black lives matter specifically is important?
2. Can we agree we need to change our drug policies and decriminalize drugs. Especially merely being caught holding drugs?
3. Can we agree that we need to change our prison sentencing situation so that it no longer unjustly penalizes poor and black people?
4. Can we agree that we need to end the militarization of our police forces?
For starters
Systemic racism, is a term that has come to mean everything and nothing at the same time. So without knowing what meaning they give the term, I'm not prepared to speak for them or to declare them wrong.
If, however, they are denying the fact that there have been things codified in law that have disadvantaged people of certain ethnicites, then I would say they are mistaken. FYI, my suggesting that I disagree with Trump or Art isn't news, it happens all the time.
"So, if you and I have common ground on this systemic racism put in place by policy, let's drill down to some specific policies."
Oh, lets!!!!! I can't wait to answer some more of your questions, while mine languish.
"1.Can we agree that black lives matter and saying black lives matter specifically is important?"
Sure, as long as that statement doesn't apply to the organization named Black Lives Matter.
"2. Can we agree we need to change our drug policies and decriminalize drugs. Especially merely being caught holding drugs?"
I think we could probably agree to this in broad principles, I suspect we'd disagree on specifics. The fact that your very premise is vague and broad, raises concerns for me.
"3. Can we agree that we need to change our prison sentencing situation so that it no longer unjustly penalizes poor and black people?"
As long as we're talking about actual "unjust" sentencing, sure.
"4. Can we agree that we need to end the militarization of our police forces?"
Probably not. Diminish, probably, end probably not. Let's not forget what prompted the "arms race" in policing to begin with.
" let's not forget what prompted the arms race in policing to begin with"
An ill-informed and immoral War on Drugs? That and surplus from other ill-informed Wars around the world? That, and ill-informed attacks on civil rights protesters in the 60s.
Yes let's remember all that.
It appears your racist president shares your racist views of the group black lives matter.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/01/politics/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-confederate-race/index.html
Embrace your black neighbors, Craig. Say it. Say, black lives matter.
Do it without pauses or caveat. Just declare it.
Black lives do matter.
Say it. Leave behind your racist president that your fellow conservatives put into office.
"An ill-informed and immoral War on Drugs? That and surplus from other ill-informed Wars around the world? That, and ill-informed attacks on civil rights protesters in the 60s.
Yes let's remember all that."
Let's just make up a bunch of bullshit because it fits your narrative. Or, let's look to the North Hollywood Shootout where the cops went up against bank robbers who had them substantially out gunned.
How about this, what specific "military style" equipment would you suggest be eliminated?
You are clearly a complete idiot of you can't differentiate between the rubric "Black lives matter" which virtually everyone agrees with, and support of the organization "Black Lives Matter".
If you are unable to make the distinction that it's possible to heartily affirm the former, while acknowledging the significant problems with the latter, then your partisanship, biases, and prejudices make conversation pointless.
The fact that you intentionally choose to ignore the areas of agreement, in order to focus on one (potential) disagreement is telling. The fact that you choose to cast that "disagreement" in the terms you do, is also telling.
More questions to join the ranks of the lonely, ignored questions.
Do you unreservedly, wholeheartedly, and without exception support the organization called BLM?
Do you agree with all of the tenets they express and with their use of donated funds?
In your understanding is BLM a recognized non profit orginization?
After trying to get your link to load,and getting the gist of the story, I will categorically say that it is wrong to call the "words black lives matter" racist.
I have to note, that I'm not sure I could say the same thing about the organization.
I also have to note the lack of actual quotes of Trump's actual words and no screenshots or anything to back up the reporting.
I also have to note that CNN falsely characterized the incident in St Louis, but I guess leaving out pertinent information, doesn't quite get to the "fake news" level.
But, I clearly and unequivocally disagree with anyone who would suggest that the phrase "black lives matter" is (in and of itself) racist.
But, that was clear earlier, you just wanted to bash me with Trump and focus on disagreement.
Context matters. If one says "Black lives matters, TOO", clearly that's a mere statement of fact. It flows from the more proper "All lives matter." That is to say, all lives matter...black lives, too...Asian lives, too...Hispanic lives, too.
But the phrase "black lives matter" standing alone does not at all suggest either "all" lives or black lives "too", and as such carries a hint of racism. Without context, it doesn't take much to infer only black lives matter, or black lives matter more whether intended or not.
Thus, this wouldn't even be a discussion if the phrase, stated by noble people with the best of intentions, or exploited by radical Marxists, began by saying, "black lives matter, TOO. But then, where would they be as the vast majority of Americans would shrug and say, "who said otherwise?"
" do you unreservedly, wholeheartedly and without reservation support the organization called black lives matter?"
I unreservedly, wholeheartedly and without reservation support the mission a black lives matter as specified in their own words. Because I listen to black people.
Their mission statement:
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=f8881d0c57da3e6dbd9f16d5cd96e020be034690-1593644410-0-AWoIWHeZDAdbzO74ZN8Vq_oxelKeCoaLuE0FNLkKzQ_MD8QtaHwgnk5-XvoE74zQqvV1HVPsYnE5bw7Z0SHz4FjwQXN1atDj8-cUpNx7RGv8UDDh98rz6WxB2TDrxbrBcOT28iMkvJfo8jsx99K5kLTNNEEKxIPPuSFAr75THlfUCLVL7YIohVCF0UEjB9Yj1ys345FOYyHMt0UlKTVqtJ0GW_Jwzd8o20yTs7eMLWvxk_EG6sGk99lGdkhULoB0i0FkMptGoUzcnxcNrcjFuzAk_5mxKt1NKFPiktZPl5u9VJYCuAfzQDmELstlsy5hm2B67AJya0RBCI-vuFR0LE_f2myBxIGRS7d2wqDvyAeU
I don't know why that link looks so ugly. I copied it from their page.
Now, Beyond their mission statement, do I support everything ever done in the name of black lives matter by individuals within black lives matter? Probably not. I would need to know the specific circumstances.
Generally speaking I don't have a problem with black lives matter as far as I know what they've done. Are the people within black lives matter perfect? No. Likewise, the people within the various police departments are not perfect. The people within our churches are not perfect.
So I prefer to look at mission statements and what they're actually about. I am a whole lot closer to supporting the mission statement of Black Lives Matter than I am, for instance, Family Research Council.
How about you? Can you affirm the mission statement that tells what Black Lives Natter stands for?
I suspect the point of your question is that you have a problem with the actions of some individuals within black lives matter. Irony.
I’ve decided that it’s not a hill to die on.
Dan,
It’s interesting that you choose to (in this case) look at the idealized “mission statement” while ignoring the actions of those who represent the organization,
But, you did sorta answer one whole question, so there’s that.
I’m impressed that you are down with the dismantling of a he nuclear family. Impressive,
I’m assuming that you’ve no problems with various BLM leaders commitments to Marxism.
I realize that you’ve hit your answer limit, so I expect nothing.
It appears that you’re willing to accept the tenets of BLM based only on your belief that those tenets were written by people of a certain skin color. You further seem to be assuming that those tenets represent or should represent all people who share nothing in common but a particular skin color.
That’s an interesting way to look at things.
So I went and read the "what we believe" page at BLM.com. Lots of vague platitudes and bromides that mean very little and don't make much of a mission statement. But ignoring those we're left with lots of incredibly racist, anti-Christian, anti-family, indeed, anti-American positions...perfect for Dan to get behind. It doesn't help that it begins with two heinous lies which they put forth as the impetus of their evil organization.
It’s certainly vague.
Marshal, the ignorance is breathtaking. How many BLM supporters do you know and know well, Marshal? How many of them are anti-Christian? Racist? Anti-American?
There is, of course, a range of people involved with BLM, but I don't know one who fits that description. How telling is it that you think the simple request for freedom, life and respect for black people is anti-American?
It's a mission statement like many mission statements. They tend to be aspirational and general. They don't outline specific steps they're taking, but ideals that they aspire to. That's what a mission statement is.
Good Lord, only some modern conservatives and white supremacists could find something to criticize about that set of VERY American (in our best moments), very Christian, very moral, very rational ideals.
Craig... It’s interesting that you choose to (in this case) look at the idealized “mission statement” while ignoring the actions of those who represent the organization,
You asked if I supported BLM. Looking at their ideals is a rational way to examine if I support them. It's a way of looking at SPECIFIC positions/beliefs to be able to say yes I agree with those, or not.
Craig... I’m impressed that you are down with the dismantling of a he nuclear family. Impressive,
This is, of course, an outright bullshit lie. You just made that shit up. Shame on you for attacking people and then criticizing them. How DARE you?
Can you admit that this is just another stupidly false Trumpian false claim?
What they said about dismantling:
"do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence...
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."
They work to dismantle harmful practices, not the nuclear family.
What they said about the nuclear family...
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another"
They advocate the universal and millennia-old traditions of having WIDE support for families that goes beyond MERELY the nuclear family, but includes grandparents, aunts, uncles and "aunts" and "uncles" and others who embrace the family as family.
That you piece of shits could find something troubling in that gives lie to any claims of morality or Godliness or reason on your part. Or, maybe once you look at it, you will realize and you made a mistake and you will offer a great deal of apologies for your stupidly, godless false claims and attacks.
Yes Dan we understand that you uncritically accept their ideals as a substitute for their actions and will defend them no matter what.
Dan,
I have to applaud your well executed move of this thread away from the topic, and the areas of agreement into the land where you revert to ad hom attacks and bullshit.
As a white person it’s amazing that you have the balks to try to tell others what black people mean.
I'm literally quoting their words.
Listen to black people.
THEIR words, which you were caught making a false claim about.
Just admit your stupidly false claim was stupidly false.
You've been caught. Own it. Admit the false claim. Apologize.
Be an adult.
Really they aren’t about disrupting the nuclear family? Substitution of dismantle for disrupt and is a mistake, not a lie.
It’s “patriarchal” when a woman is left to raise children without the father(s) around and might need to work double shifts to support her children.
If “patriarchy” is about abandoning one’s children, I’m thinking that it doesn’t mean what they think it means.
But we’re back to uncritical acceptance of anything they say simply and only because of the skin color of the authors.
If you were concerned about lies, maybe you should clean out your own house first.
You stupid lying sack of shit. WHO in the fuck is talking about abandoning their children, you lying racist? The systemic policies that force women - especially women of color - to work themselves to death, that's who! Those who defend these systemically racist policies.
I'm not uncritical of what they say. I'm specifically critical of those who defend racist systems and make brainless, stupidly false attacks against people of color, just like the Klan and their ilk.
Admit you made a mistake and made a stupidly false and godlessly slanderous attack on BLM. Admit it. Be an adult and admit it.
They're talking about ENHANCING families, not tearing them apart. You CAN'T be this stupid, and that only leaves deliberately racist or worse.
But tell me, maybe you truly ARE this stupid. Did you read those words and HONESTLY think to yourself, "Man, those people are advocating tearing apart families?"
Tell me you're that stupid and I'll apologize for getting nauseated by what appears to be a Trump-like, Klan-like racist attack. I'll try to help you understand if you are truly this stupid and truly that unable to read words for understanding.
Come on, I'll hold your hand and walk you through this and THEN, when it's blindingly obvious how slanderous and stupidly false you idiotic racist attack against BLM was, THEN you can show that you are a decent adult and apologize and repent.
THEIR words...
"We disrupt the
Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement..."
NOT DISMANTLE FAMILIES, you idiot. Do you see what they ACTUALLY said, now?
NOT dismantle families (because that is an diabolical lie, the type that the KKK and Trump revel in...), but specifically a requirement of a WESTERN-PRESCRIBED family "STRUCTURE."
Do you NOT understand that? In many places around the world (and including even white America), the nuclear family is NOT the end all and be all of family. There are grandmothers, aunts, uncles, people that they call aunts and uncles and cousins who are not blood related, preachers, teachers and a whole village of beloved community watching out for families.
That is an endorsement of a deeper, more beautiful family structure and it's specifically and literally NOT advocating the "dismantling of family..." It's nuclear family PLUS.
Are you NOT aware of this? It's not a hidden secret. Do you see now what it's NOT a dismantling of family or of a nuclear family... it's adding to? It's MORE support for family, not less. DO you see?
BLM continues and spells it out for people so people can't miss the meaning (except noting that racists and Trump types will deliberately choose to misunderstand so they can engage in racist attacks...)
"by supporting each other
as extended families and
“villages” that collectively care for one another,
especially our children
MORE family, MORE support, MORE nurturing, NOT a "dismantling of family."
They continue with the caveat...
"...to the degree that
mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
And THERE is your nuclear family. It's not forced on anyone. It's not a dismantling of the nuclear family. Anyone who reads those words and says that they're talking about dismantling of family or dismantling of the nuclear family is just making a stupidly false claim and probably in order to engage in a brainless and racist attack against BLM.
SO, now that I've taken the time to spoon feed you the understanding to clear up your stupidly and godlessly false claim, NOW will you admit you were wrong and apologize like an adult? I'm not even asking you to act like a Christian, just a reasonable adult.
Don't embarrass yourself or the church with this nonsense attack that lends support to racists and idiots. Repent.
We should ignore the words and actions of Opal Tometi because they might conflict with the ideals of BLM as interpreted by Dan.
"Marshal, the ignorance is breathtaking. How many BLM supporters do you know and know well, Marshal? How many of them are anti-Christian? Racist? Anti-American?"
The above has to be among the most moronic responses Dan's offered yet, when he has nothing intelligent to say. That's saying a lot. Exactly how does knowing ANY BLM supporters have anything to do with the racist, anti-Christian, anti-American tenets of BLM? This isn't "breathtaking ignorance" on Dan's part. It's breathtaking dishonesty!
But aside from that, the number of well-intentioned idiots supporting immoral positions only increases the destructive potential of the agenda promoting the immorality. Eventually, these sad souls become like Dan...totally given over to corruption.
But if Dan truly wants to prove he's not breathtakingly ignorant, he can address what I said instead of deflecting to something entirely irrelevant. (Fat chance that'll ever happen. )
Dan,
I'm sorry that acknowledging the reality of single motherhood being very high in the black community has launched you into paroxysms of ad hom attacks. The reality is that there is no vast conspiracy forcing black women to work "double shifts". Please point to the government policy that forces black women to work "double shifts".
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205106/number-of-black-families-with-a-female-householder-in-the-us/
Over 4,000,000 black single mothers in 2018,
https://www.afro.com/census-bureau-higher-percentage-black-children-live-single-mothers/
61.3% of black children live with a single mother.
I'm not going to respond to your specific questions, because they're pointless. I'll say that when they day "disrupt", I have no reason to doubt that they mean disrupt.
I'll give you a hint. This continuous calling others racist and the other ad hom attacks don't help you in any way. In fact, they hurt you.
I'd suggest that the statistics would tell anyone who's reasonably honest that the black nuclear family has been disrupted more than enough since the 60's and that perhaps strengthening the nuclear family might be a productive goal.
Again, your ability to focus attention away from things like answering questions, and dealing with things that aren't convenient or easy, by hiding behind faux outrage, ad hom attacks, and slander isn't new but isn't helpful either.
The fact that you demand unquestioning support for an organization (to the extent that you ignore or excuse their actions), instead of acknowledging the reality, is a strange and pointless place to get this angry.
I'd ask you more questions, but as we see, it's pointless.
Craig, because I do not believe you to be evik, I am appealing to your human decency. Just answer the questions I've asked of you as it relates to you being caught and making a stupidly false claim.
Answer those questions, admit that you made a false claim and demonized black lives matter with that false claim, THEN I'll answer every question you have on this thread.
But we can't just let these stupidly false and slanderous and Godless claims like the ones you're making go. Trump and racist and their allies continue to make these false claims and it's just dangerous and wrong.
You've been caught. Anyone can see it. I pointed out how stupidly false your claim was. Just admit it. Tell me that you can understand that it was a stupidly false claim to make.
Do that, then I'll answer every question you have on this thread.
As always, the ball's in your court.
Dan,
Your last several comments have made it clear that you are all in on ad hom attacks and character assassination. Your bullshit attempt to try to cover your attacks is a waste of time.
I've answered your questions. Even an idiot can see that.
As for "false claims", how about you start by acknowledging the false claim in the CNN piece you offered, then get rid of the false claims at your blog, then you might have some credibility. It's interesting that you've adamantly embraced the notion of "multiple truths" in theory, but your fail to live out what you claim to believe. It's almost like your "values statement" has not relationship to your words and actions.
"Do that, then I'll answer every question you have on this thread."
Speaking of stupidly false claims, you haven't answered multiple questions on any of the recent threads, why would I believe you this time.
The problem you seem to have is an inability to differentiate between a "false claim" and a different interpretation of someone else's words. My disagreement with your pollyannaish interpretation is because I'm looking at the larger picture. I'm not putting blinders on and focusing on only the ideals, while ignoring the reality.
So, you can either stop the ad hom bullshit, deal with the answers I've given you, and engage in a conversation or not.
The ball, as it always is, is in your court. It's just a question of when you'll take it and go home and what you're trying to avoid when you do.
What's interesting as you spin your web of lies and bullshit, is that you've been dodging questions (and discussion topics) since long before you started ranting about your newfound commitment to a singular truth.
Nice try, the ball's been in your court since yesterday.
You were caught in a stupidly false claim and you have no honor or Integrity to admit it.
Shame on you.
We see you, Craig. We see all the racists out there doing their little cowardly sniper attacks. We see you.
Craig... The problem you seem to have is an inability to differentiate between a "false claim" and a different interpretation of someone else's words.
Then answer the question and expose your ignorance and inability to understand words.
When you 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."
When you read that, do you REALLY think they are talking about "dismantling families" or even "dismantling family units" as opposed to STRENGTHENING families and family units?
THAT is what you take away from that?
Answer the question. Don't be afraid to expose ignorance and biases, just be honest.
You keep up the bullshit, if it makes you feel better. I’ll note that I asked you questions which you ignored early in the thread, then all of a sudden you’ve managed to obscure your failures behind a big ad hom smoke screen.
Yes, I believe that when they said “disrupt” they chose that word intentionally to indicate that they want to disrupt the nuclear family. Yes, I take them at their word.
Of course their silence on one of the most significant problems in the black community, doesn’t help your case.
The other difference is that you’re choosing to look at these aspirational goals in a vacuum without considering the actions of the group, while I’m willing to look at what they wrote, what they say, and what they do. It’s not my fault you choose to look at only one facet, and you choose the one that you think is the best optics.
Your belated acknowledgment that there are not multiple truths, is welcome, but you should probably acknowledge your massive shift on the issue.
Hey Dan, do you agree with the young woman who thinks anyone who says “all lives matter” should be stabbed?
So then, your answer is, "YES, I have difficulty understanding words, because I TRULY THOUGHT that they were advocating the dismantling of families..." And it appears you still don't understand, NOR do you understand that you don't understand.
I don't know what to do with that sort of racist idiocy. Get help.
Answer to the last question. No. young women should not be stabbed. Period. No, I don't agree that young women should be stabbed. Period. If they said "All Lives Matter" or if they said "Go to hell" or whatever they said, I don't agree that women should be stabbed.
Of course.
Follow up question: Are you an asshole? Are you an idiot who doesn't understand reality? What part of "I AM ALWAYS OPPOSED TO VIOLENCE AGAINST INNOCENT PEOPLE" makes you think there is a world where I might agree with stabbing a young lady?
No, you ask to divide. To accuse. To make up the very same stupidly godlessly false claims and slanders that Trump and other racists do, to try to weakly, feebly, impotently paint the Other as immoral. That is obviously what you're trying to do because there is not a world where my words in any way could be taken to mean that I might support such actions. There is not a world (well, outside of Klan rallies and the current white house) where BLM's words could be taken the way you are taking them.
The problem with such stupidly false questions is that they are so blatantly obvious what you're trying to do and what you're trying to do is diabolical. Anyone who isn't blinded to human decency and reason can see that.
Get help. Repent. Have some shame.
If there’s an asshole here it’s you.
I specifically corrected my error. I believe that when they said “disrupt”, they meant “disrupt”. Yet you’re prepared to lie about what I claimed, tell me what I meant, and tell me what they meant. That’s an impressive level of hubris.
FYI, if you’re going to bitch about me misunderstanding things, then it’d be a good idea to make sure you understand what you’re flying off the handle about. No, I ask because there a young woman who’s a BLM loving, progressive, left wing, type just like you who’s advocating stabbing anyone who says “all lives matter”. I know, y’all are pacifists.
Of course you and your idiotic ad homs and accusations are designed to unite, right?
But, the smokescreen between you and the questions you’ve been avoiding just gets thicker.
Again I appreciate your repudiation of your multiple truths hunch.
Disrupt. Dismantle. You've used both words and you've assumed negative connotations. "They want to disrupt / dismantle the nuclear family."
That is NOT what they said. Do you realize the false claim that you made?
They did not say we want to disrupt or dismantle the nuclear family.
They did not say we want to disrupt the nuclear family.
Say it out loud to yourself.
They did not say we want to disrupt the nuclear family.
Do you understand that they did not say they want to disrupt the nuclear family?
Use your reading as a tool for understanding. Not for slander, false claims, oppression and support of racism and racists.
“If you love black people, don’t support Black Lives Matter.
They support two of the most destructive things against black people today: fatherlessness and abortion.
Abortion and fatherlessness has destroyed more black lives than racism has—and BLM is enabling that oppression.”
Samuel Sey
I’m torn. I can listen to a white guy who tells me to listen to black people and who tells me what they mean, or I can listen to actual black people.
They literally said “disrupt” the nuclear family.
I understand that you want to interpret “disrupt” as “not disrupt”.
I understand your desire to cling to your version of their manifesto. Yet, you contradict yourself. I’m literally listening to what these black people are saying, yet you’re demanding that I should listen to your hunch about what they really mean.
So, why not drop this self contradictory insistence that there aren’t multiple truths, and go back to earlier and start be acknowledging that I answered your questions and answer my clarifying questions.
If you do, I’ll delete all your comments that make you look bad.
They literally did not. Go back and look. Read. Read for understanding not for a cheap false claim Godless attack.
Read.
Then, when you've read and realize that it literally does not say what you are claiming that it says, then come back and apologize. Take back your words and apologize for the stupid false claims. Be an adult.
Craig... "why not drop this self contradictory insistence that there aren’t multiple truths..."
You keep bringing this up and I have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. Recover the truth before set the record straight. So I don't know what you're talkin about.
There are, of course, just factually multiple truths. It is one truth, for instance, that my car is blue. It is another truth that doctors study medicine. Most of us believe there is another truth that all people are created equal.
Those are multiple (ie, more than one truth) truths. This is just a point of reality. So, I don't know what you're talking about.
And of course at least one of the founders labeled themselves as "trained marxists", which does not bode well for the nuclear family given the history and philosophy of the Marxist. Dan, being a willing sheep and supporter of so much of that philosophy, but either too dishonest to take that into account or too stupid to know what he supports, pretends the lies of the BLM agenda aren't easy to see by rational, honest and Christian Americans.
“"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement”
That’s exactly what they said. The fact that they want to take more black fathers out of black families doesn’t sound like a great plan to me. Maybe they’ll start communes. In the context of a movement to replace biological family relationships with “contracts”, this sounds like a bad idea no matter how much lipstick you put on it.
If, as you claim, there are “factually multiple truths” (a claim you’ve made but not even attempted to prove), then why do you continue to insist that in this case there is only one truth? Clearly if there are “factually multiple truths” (claim yet unproven), then there are “factually multiple truths” about this. How can you possibly prove that your truth, is the only possible truth?
Art,
But the “trained Marxist” comment isn’t in the tiny slice of BLM that Dan has limited himself to. As far as he’s concerned those comments by the founders, don’t count, because he’s arbitrarily excluded them.
Of course Marxism has always treated black people well, and it’s worked every place it’s been tried.
48 comments in, Dan’s still shoveling straw and bullshit on the fire to obscure the questions he was asked early in the thread.
Lies, fake news, ad homs, personal attacks, no answers. One wonders why.
Dan is all about the touchy-feely. He's drawn to the emotional, like some 12 yr old school girl. If he hears a weepy story about oppression, by golly oppression took place. Don't bother him with questions meant to get at the real story, just see how weepy the story-teller is and that's all you need to know the story-teller is providing the full story. It's the patriarchy that's responsible for the black woman who had two kids before she was 20 years old and now has to work two shifts to support herself and her two kids. She wouldn't have to work those two shifts if not for the patriarchy. How unjust to have to support one's own kids! That poor girl!! Who are you to interfere with the continuation of generational poverty by suggesting a long-standing proven remedy?
You’ll notice what he’s done, I suspect he thought he’d score some BS points by asking me to agree to an assertion. He asked me to affirm that black lives matter, which I of course agree with. (Obviously this statement has some loopholes, but whatever) so he decided that I needed to pledge allegiance to an organization. It’s classic bait and switch, a tactic that constitutes fraud in many cases.
I have my suspicions as to why, but we’ll never know for sure.
Given the political and "social justice" bent of the expression, I will not give voice to it. I've never, EVER, in my life suggested that one race matters more than another, and I'm not about to start speaking differently now...ESPECIALLY now, when truth is so important.
More importantly, I will NEVER lend support in any way to the evil, racist, marxist organization, Black Lives Matter. It is an un-Christian and un-American outfit and should be opposed with extreme prejudice, just should the Klan be opposed, as they are opposite sides of the same tarnished coin.
As regards the Vischer video, I spent time trying to figure out how to respond at Dan's blog, and finally did. But I let the following link do the talking for me, as it covers most, if not all of the complaints that sprung to mind while watching the video:
https://pastorgabehughes.blogspot.com/2020/06/whats-wrong-with-phil-vischers-video.html
Dan has the link at his blog and most surely won't take the time, any more than he took the time to look at the links of black voices at my blog. He doesn't care about "black voices". He cares about voices that carry leftist narratives.
Art,
I have no problem with the phrase, after some of the things I’ve read it makes some sense. I realize it appears to be exclusive and appears to assign value based solely on ethnicity, but I’ve realized it’s not a hill to die on.
As far as the organization, it’s an entirely different matter. I’m able to separate the two with no problem.
I pointed out my problems with the video, and agree that it’s not perfect. However there’s enough accurate information (especially about FDR’s abomination) that I can’t write it off entirely.
It’s obvious that Dan isn’t interested in paying serious attention to black voices that disagree with him, but I keep posting them, and I keep finding new black voices to listen to.
Speaking of things Dan won’t watch, I’m looking forward to the new documentary Uncle Tom.
It's not just that it's not a hill upon which to die, but it's not a hill I'll allow anyone to force me to climb. It's a different thing to be asked sincerely if I believe black lives matter, than to expect me to proclaim it as if I ever felt or acted differently, and worse, to appease activist asshat or white-guilt pseudo-Christian who think they're doing anything constructive and truly beneficial. It's a vile litmus test one must pass in order to avoid the false charge of racist. Such people can go f themselves for exploiting in such an evil manner.
And speaking of exploitation, the accurate info in the video is being used in a very exploitative manner...to perpetuate the myth of "systemic" racism. I reject citing past wrongs to explain current issues when those wrongs don't have any connection to today. If (legal) immigrants with very little can come here and make good...particularly black immigrants...citing the past is no more than a cheap excuse. As such, the video doesn't prove systemic racism. It proves how the past is falsely used to falsely pretend it's an issue today.
I do agree that many times the question is asked in a manner designed to elicit a certain response based on the prejudices and biases of the questioner. I also agree that the real issue isn't whether or not I repeat a mantra, but how I live my life and how I interact with individual humans, as individual humans. Whether or not I make a generic, broad statement is really meaningless, if my life doesn't reflect my commitments. I'll also say that the mantra, reinforces the notion of blacks as a group, rather that as individuals.
I'd argue that it's impossible to separate (at least) some past wrongs from current situations. To me, because of my background, the housing issue is the one where I don't see how it's possible to separate FDR's racist policy from our current situation. Further, I don't see how the later policies that attempted to correct FDR's racist legacy can be separated either because the housing crash in 08 is still reverberating today.
My problem, I think, is that I don't like the term "systemic racism". I'm think that a better term might be codified racism. At least that is specific to point out where racism was actually put into law. Obviously, I've been vocal in pointing out that proclaiming the "system" as racist, while allowing that same people to operate the "system" for decades, is an absurd position to hold.
As I pointed out, the video does make some unsupported assumptions about "racism", without actually proving the connection.
As we are seeing with the folks here clarifying that "defund, dismantle, etc the police", didn't really mean what they said. What they meant/are proposing is more like "rename, reorganize, and rebrand" the police. It's easy to say things, it's harder to do things. I think that we're at the point where we can compare what's been said with what's been/being done and draw some conclusions.
You do you, I just don't have an issue with affirming that black lives matter. I do have an issue with being forced to support an organization that is engaged in things I don't agree with.
" Claira Janover, who graduated in May with a degree in government and psychology, went viral after posting a short clip in which she attacked anyone with “the nerve, the sheer entitled caucasity to say ‘all lives matter.’”
“I’ma stab you,” the Connecticut native said, zooming in close on her face.
“I’ma stab you, and while you’re struggling and bleeding out, I’ma show you my paper cut and say, ‘My cut matters too,’” she added."
This Dan, this is the kind of person you are allied with.
So, a group should be judged by those who are behaving the worst. And so, we should assume that BLM supporters might say something like I'm going to stab you. AND we should assume that all cops are going to kill black people.
Is that what really what you want to say?
Because judging the group based on the actions of its worst supporters is going to make the police look hella worse than black lives matter.
Shame on you for that bit of racist doggerel. But, if it makes you feel better, with that sort of language, while you'll be seen as an opponent of BLM, you'd be welcome at Trump and klan rallies. So you have that going in your favor.
Dan,
I asked you that question earlier and you responded “No, except.,.”.
I’d say, no you should never judge a group by those who behave the worst.
I’m not doing that here, I’m pointing out that this sort of person is your comrade. I’m not judging you, I’m just pointing out the company you’re keeping.
So, no that’s not what I want to say.
I love how you attribute some sort of “racist doggerel” to me without actually identifying or demonstrating any racism.
It’s almost as if you’re saying that failure to 100% agree with BLM (the organization) is de facto racism. You do realize how insane that sounds, don’t you?
You do realize that BLM doesn’t speak for all black people, don’t you?
“"We have to separate this movement from the issues. I know that [Black Lives Matter] is a phrase that is part of an organization. It is a trademark phrase. And it's a phrase designed to use Black people."
“"And so if I'm really concerned about issues in the black community – and I am – then I have to refuse, and I have to repudiate that organization." Baucham said. "Because they stand against that for which I am advocating."”
BLM raises an interesting conundrum.
Many people I know are committed to issues of reconciliation and SJ because of the teachings of Jesus. Historically we’ve seen that the relationship between Marxism and Christianity has been not particularly welcoming. Further, we don’t see any mention of the Church in the BLM manifesto. Not even a mention of the Church (or Islam for that matter), yet the black Church has historically been heavily involved in these movements.
One wonders what the role of the Church will be if BLM gains enough power?
I have to note the fact that there are questions in this thread that predate this detour which remain unanswered. This obviously makes me wonder why not, and what about those questions necessitated this string of false, ad hom, vitriolic, and scurrilous personal attacks.
It’s been said that BLM is the largest “movement” in history. It seems reasonable to judge BLM, by the actions of these large groups. By the words of their founders and leaders, and by results. Surely that is reasonable.
“My position summed up in two short sentences.
1. Black lives DO INDEED matter.
2. The Black Lives Matter organization and movement is horseshit.”
Tyehimba Nahsi
BVMLTT
“I don’t know how many people really look into the mission statement of Black Lives Matter. But I did, and when you look into it, there’s a couple things that jump out at me. And I’m a black man who’s been black and my life has mattered since 1974, and this organization was founded in 2013. I’m proud of you, but I’ve been fighting this fight for me and for others a lot longer.
Two things: my family structure is so vital, important to me. Not only the one I grew up in but the one I’m trying to create right now. Being a father and a husband, that’s my mission in life right now. How do I reconcile that, what I just told you, with this mission statement that says, “We dismantle the patriarchal practice, we disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement.”
When I know statistics, when I know my reality, forget statistics, I knew this before I even went to Columbia and saw these same statistics that I’m going to read to you right now. That children from single parent homes versus two-parent homes, the children from the single-parent homes — this is in 1995 I was reading this — five times more likely to commit suicide, six times more likely to be in poverty, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, ten times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape, 20 times more likely to end up in prison, 32 times more likely to run away from home.”
Marcellus Wiley
BVMLTT
“There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America."
BVMLTT
Craig... " I’m just pointing out the company you’re keeping."
And I'm just pointing out the company you're keeping: vulgar oppressors, sexual predators like Trump and the Klan. That's on you.
A large majority of the nation and vast majorities of black people support the Black Lives Matter movement, but if it makes you feel better, you're in agreement with the klan and Trump types.
Which side are you on, bots?
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/06/12/amid-protests-majorities-across-racial-and-ethnic-groups-express-support-for-the-black-lives-matter-movement/
Regarding this quote... "There is not a black America and a white America..."
If this is a black person speaking, I'm glad this has been his/her experience. BUT, when we listen to ALL black voices, we hear a majority report a different experience.
This is why we listen to ALL black voices, not just the ones that some conservatives and Klan-types find appealing.
Just to provide a more laser-like focus on my position, I have no need to say "black lives matter" because it goes without saying if my position is that all lives matter. Why would I have to make the distinction? What in anything I've ever said (a question that's been on the table for years without a fact-based, evidence-supported response from either of the Bobbsey Twins) would necessitate making one? If I've made known that I cherish all human life, the question is idiotic...the demand that I proclaim it more so. And more shameful are those who would dare take offense at hearing the more Christian "All Lives Matter" when so confronted. I ain't gonna play that game. Period.
(Just an aside...as I scrolled down to comment, my eyes noticed the name "Marcellus Wiley" but for a microsecond it registered as "Marcus Welby". I snickered.)
As to "codified" racism in place of "systemic", I think one still has to go back pretty far to find any...or at least far enough where it has no true impact today. The policies that led to the housing crash weren't only impacting POCs. Many who couldn't otherwise scrape the bread together to buy a home were lulled into doing so without being financially prepared to cover the mortgage every month. Heck, even investors suffered from buying more than they could reasonably afford! But while I get your point, I think it's more of a stretch to imply bad intent to those corrective measures, or even that the negative impact was the result of those measures, rather than the unwillingness of borrowers to acknowledge the risk was still on them regardless. And of course, those corrective measures were created and implemented by the same destructive political party still supported by too many people.
Dan,
Really, trotting our that same old Trump/Klan bullshit. That’s just old boring lies.
Got it, you marginalize black voices who don’t agree with you.
Oh, that was P-BO you idiot.
I’ll note that you’re poll didn’t specify the BLM organization that I could see. They specifically used “movement”. Nice try.
"So, a group should be judged by those who are behaving the worst."
With this group it doesn't matter. One would be better off trying to pretend the group isn't the vile, racist, marxist asshats they are by pointing out the misguided people who don't behave badly. The founders of the group speak and behave badly enough to have marked the group as bad actors from the start. Not surprising that some followers would try to outdo them to win praise as true soldiers of the cause. That's not "doggeral" at all, but simply the facts.
"Doggeral" would be the stupid comparison of judging cops by the bad ones given that their purpose is not the Marxist deconstruction of America.
By the way, of course I'd absolutely be welcome at Trump rallies, as well as pleased to be in attendance had I the time. That's where true Americans come together in celebration of how great a nation the United States truly is despite its flaws. Those true Americans who attend come in every color and race. By golly, there are even homosexuals there!
I wouldn't be welcome at a Klan rally, however. I'm not a racist like they or the BLM founders are. Again, they are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Dan's comments and position reminds me of an episode of the original Star Trek series, “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” (S3-E15) in which two combatants from a war-torn world are on board the Enterprise fighting each other. They are each half-black and half-white, the difference between them being one is black on his left side and the other is black on his right side, thus being a not-too subtle commentary on the foolishness of racial animosity over superficial differences of skin coloring. The point here is that one of them is akin to the Klan, and the other is BLM. We rational, honest people are the crew of the Enterprise astonished by their hateful behaviors. The perfect analogy of the two racist groups!
Art,
As far as codified racism you don’t have to go back that far. FDR’s racist programs were in the mid 30’s and some of those persisted into the 70’s. The 08 housing crisis was significantly caused by an overreaction to FDR’s racist housing policies.
Before you bitch, unless you have the specific questions asked, you’re just imposing your biases on the survey. If you’ve got proof that people specifically support the organization and all the goals of the organization, cool. If not, don’t try to force things.
You go right ahead and ignore the black voices you don’t like. Just remember, right and wrong aren’t decided by opinion polls or by majorities.
"And I'm just pointing out the company you're keeping: vulgar oppressors, sexual predators like Trump and the Klan."
Now you're just lying again...not a surprise, by the way...while marxists are well known oppressors and you support sexual predators as a solid abortion supporter and defender. Nothing either Craig or I have said puts us in league with the Klan...not by a long shot...and only a liar would try to pretend that is so. In the meantime, you're aligning yourself with a truly racist group (not that they really care about black lives).
"Which side are you on, bots?"
The side of Christian brotherhood and truth, neither of which is evident in anything BLM promotes as their purpose for existing. We're totally bots for Christian brotherhood and truth.
I looked at your poll, Danny-boy, and I must say that I'm impressed with the number of respondents. Almost 10,000! The on-line surveying reaches more people. It's now .00003 of the total population instead of the, at most .000006 of the population of the typical phone poll, or even the .00000266 of the population feo found so compelling in his Monmouth poll.
However, I could not find the breakdowns by political party. This is an essential element of a poll to get the best sense of who is being polled. If they poll 10,000 Democrats, the poll is totally worthless except to see how Democrats feel.
It also includes some foolish questions, such as the one about being stopped by cops because of one's race. It's a worthless question except to determine how many perceive a cop's intentions. How can one studying such responses determine if the respondent isn't just the typical brainwashed black person who as a default attitude assumes racist intent? Such people are perpetuating racial division and people like you do nothing to disabuse them of the notion, preferring instead to take it as a statement of absolute fact simply because they insist it's true.
The bottom line is that the poll in general does nothing to provide any worthwhile opinions. For example, I'd love to see a question that separates "protest" from "riot, looting, burning and murder". But that's just me concerned about truth again.
"Regarding this quote... "There is not a black America and a white America..."
If this is a black person speaking, I'm glad this has been his/her experience. BUT, when we listen to ALL black voices, we hear a majority report a different experience.
This is why we listen to ALL black voices, not just the ones that some conservatives and Klan-types find appealing."
First, kudos to Craig for the great burn ("Oh, that was P-BO you idiot.")!
Once again, I don't want to hear about "experience". I want to hear facts and truth supported by evidence. One's perception of what is experienced can be, and way too often is among too many black people, more than a bit biased, or worse, just an means of deflecting personal accountability. It's an old story and frankly, I saw it among my friends and acquaintances during my high school days. The fact is that more often than not, a cop has no idea who is driving a car until he's got the driver pulled over and he can approach him to see. So when you hear, "He just stopped me because I'm black." it usually means the dude did something wrong to draw the attention of the cop, but is pissed he got caught. I mean, just think about it for a moment. When you pass a squad car, do you notice the race/sex of the cop sitting in it? And that's you moving past a stationary vehicle. The perception is tougher when you're the stationary one and a car goes speeding past...even at the posted speed limit!
The same is true of the "two Americas" angle. It's a matter of perception far more often than not, and the perception of way too many black people is corrupted by the notion that cops are out to get black people. The black voices that are truly important and worth a damn are those who can back up their opinions with facts and evidence, not weak correlation/causation arguments.
Finally, for now, I say again that our rejection of your favored black voices doesn't mean we haven't been listening. It means there's nothing solid for us to believe that what they say is reflective of reality. The voices WE favor do indeed have evidence, facts and truth on their side, which is why we prefer them, being bots on the side of Christian brotherhood and truth, and all.
Craig,
I get what you're trying to say about the housing crisis. But my point is that those measures didn't force anyone to take out loans they couldn't truly afford. The ultimate effect of that crisis was felt by everybody, not just the black community. It certainly affected me as it was during that time I was out of work for almost two years. If it wasn't for my white privilege...
Art,
The FDR redlining could have, simply by allowing people who could afford houses to buy them, likely would have eliminated the wealth gap we currently see. The fed action that led to 08, didn’t force anyone but, they did lower the barriers so low (and minimized the risk for lenders, that they were offering all sorts of insane loans. Obviously by pushing POC into loans they weren’t qualified for, they set back the accumulation of familial wealth a second time. It’s too complex to distill into a blog convo, but the point is that the effects of codified racism are more recent than you might think.
But they WEREN'T pushed into loans. Lenders were pushed into granting them and the minimizing of THEIR risk came later in order to relieve them of the threat of non-payment. In any case, the Community Reinvestment Act was not racism of any kind. It was just stupidity.
It was certainly aimed at increasing home ownership in the black community, it was certainly intended to entice, push, encourage, etc people who were bad credit risks to borrow money they couldn’t pay back. This only works when the lenders know their losses will be covered and that they have virtually zero risk.
I’m not suggesting it was “racist”, I’m suggesting that it was an ill conceived attempt to roll back FDR’s racist policy, and that it ended up causing more harm than good. By increasing the number of black people with foreclosures, it probably caused more long term harm than good.
I do not deny that the Act mandated lowering standards by which banks would lend money. But the intention was to provide for those who previously were assumed to be bad credit risks by virtue of their location and/or race. What constitutes a risk to a bank is somewhat subjective/arbitrary based on the bank's level of risk aversion. For one bank, a monthly payment must be no less than one week's pay. For another, it might be enough that a borrower can afford it with two. And in each case, the borrower might be totally irresponsible or absolutely golden. There was a time when banks required a 20% downstroke. All that was erased in order to give more people the opportunity. But I don't believe they intended that welchers should apply. The issue of risk was always a matter of numbers adding up to the bank's satisfaction. Low income areas were automatically below the level of risk any bank, including black owned banks, were willing to tolerate.
But the banks balked at the Act because of the increased risk they were forced to take. But determined as moronic politicians were at the time to appear to be friend to the lower income groups, they created a means by which the banks could be absolved of consequences of a risky loan. The banks were pretty much forbidden to say no, but the borrowers were not forced to take loans they still had little chance of paying back, regardless of the terms. And that did indeed lead to a lot of harm throughout the economy...and not just among the high-risk, low-income groups. It screwed everyone.
Also, in true lefty fashion, it resulted in redefining a word. Eligibility (for a loan) now meant "low risk", though being eligible has nothing to do with whether or not one is truly a risk.
““There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about a robbery. Then (I) look around and see someone white and feel relieved.””
BVMLTT
Art,
As I said it’s way too complex to adequately deal with here. My only point is that it was a reaction to the circumstances driven by FDR’s racist policies.
Cool.
“During the Atlantic slave trade, more Africans were enslaved in Brazil than any other nation—nearly 5 million between the early 1500s and the mid-1860s. But what's never mentioned is the numerous black Africans who willingly participated in and profited from it. Shhh! ��”
Darrell B Harrison
BVMLTT
Post a Comment