BLM and WLM

[Mindmaster]

I was hoping for something more substantial than vague rants here, to be honest. It's disappointing that you don't seem to be able to offer anything resembling a well-supported argument.

Asking sources is called "debating in bad faith", but I'll simplify it... Nearly 100% of anything on a forum is opinion. If you want some dog-eared study with a bunch of "Ph. D's" on it, obviously you've come to the wrong venue. This is just extremely passive-aggressive trolling masquerading as inquiry. Of course, you could easily look up information anywhere on Google and see why I might see it as similar to or the same as bigotry to racism and then present your thoughts on that, like...linking sources that refute my thinking or whatever, but you didn't...

Explain to me how it isn't bigotry, ageism or racism all rolled up into one? I mean, for me, that's good enough to take it right to the trash bin. The mental gymnastics required to remove these associated ideas from Marxist-Intersectionality is beyond me, but I digress

Let's put it more simply: MI's agree with white supremacy on everything fundamentally they just think everyone who got something "taken away" from should get it back in spades by stealing it from someone else who has privilege. Of course, very rarely, is someone actually having some sort of privilege as an excuse for the success and it's more that they got there through their own blood, sweat, and tears. Since that's impossible to determine in an objective and the factual way it must be simplified to, "all white people are bad", and anyone non-white must be "ranked" according to what they are "owed". This means if you're a poor white guy in a ghetto you get the same treatment as the rich person whose wealth came from their inheritance. The problem of course is that stealing is stealing -- it doesn't fundamentally matter why you're stealing. This has nothing to do with justice either, and if that were the primary concern then THIS PERSON stole X from you, and X is returned. It doesn't latch onto the presumption that someone's ancestors stole from someone, and they are personally responsible for returning the goods or making reparations. (That's not justice, but an extreme mockery of it.) But, in the end, these are just false pretenses for bigotry and racism, and that isn't a primary concern. If justice was an important factor then the whole ideology is dead arrival, because the responsible parties would largely be deceased.

 

[Tambourine]

Asking sources is called "debating in bad faith"

I'm of the opposite opinion. I believe that providing sources and evidence for one's claims is simply good form, especially when making factual claims like you have been doing.

I've tried to support my arguments with sources where I thought they might have been contentious, and I am ready to provide more if prompted to do so.

Nearly 100% of anything on a forum is opinion. If you want some dog-eared study with a bunch of "Ph. D's" on it, obviously you've come to the wrong venue. This is just extremely passive-aggressive trolling masquerading as inquiry. Of course, you could easily look up information anywhere on Google and see why I might see it as similar to or the same as bigotry to racism and then present your thoughts on that, like...linking sources that refute my thinking or whatever, but you didn't...

I don't want a "dog eared study". I want you to provide examples of real "Marxist Intersectionalists" saying what you claim they are saying, or doing what you claim they are doing. I cannot refute your claims when I don't even know who or what you are talking about.

I assumed you were talking from a position of knowledge, and it would be trivial for you to show me where you are coming from with this. You still have the opportunity to prove my expectations true.

If you cannot do that, then I am sorry, but I don't see a reason to simply take your word for it when it runs contrary to everything I know about Marxism and Intersectionalism.

Explain to me how it isn't bigotry, ageism or racism all rolled up into one?

How can I explain anything when I don't know what you are even talking about? Who are these "Marxist Intersectionalists" that you are talking about, and what are they factually doing here in the real factual world?

Can you provide *any* example *at all* of a "Marxist Intersectionalist" doing what you claim they are doing?

 

[halbhh]

I can probably find one story every day about a black person who was followed around a store by a rent-a-cop, yelled at, discriminated against in hiring and promotion, subject to unequal education in school, subjected to racist code-phrases by the tyrant (trump), yelled at by an out of control lunatic and so forth.

Dealing with cops is just one example of the universal systemic problem.

The cure is not the logical fallacy of "whataboutism". The problem is indeed a heart problem and the solution has to be a heart solution.

It does not involve asserting this other group is suffering. It involves seeing the pain and feeling the pain and responding with a loving heart to the pain.

Until we can stand in their shoes and feel what it's like to be them, there is no permanent solution, there are just band-aids.

Part of the solution involves the attitude of police toward their jobs. I can and read stories about positive interaction with cops such as the one about a complaint with teen-age blacks. The cop showed up and shot hoops with the kids. Problem solved. Until police see their role not as swaggering around asserting their power but rather serving the community, we'll continue to be stuck.

In other words: "Love your neighbor as yourself".

But, who is our neighbor? Christ was asked --

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan [Samaritans and Jews were prejudiced against each other and avoided each other], as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Luke 10 NIV

 

[sun rise]

In other words: "Love your neighbor as yourself".

I count as a Christian those who truly try to live those words. But that is not limited to any religion or religion at all.

 

[halbhh]

I count as a Christian those who truly try to live those words. But that is not limited to any religion or religion at all.

That's right. If there was an 'agree' button I'd use that. It's also stated in different words in Romans chapter 2 v 6-16 (it's not about belonging to a religion), and also in the epistle of 1rst John chapter 4 -- God is love, and those who do not love do not know God.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you pin a completely subjective label

What's subjective about it? It's a fairly well known fact that Candace Owens whole schtick is standing up for far-right wing business interests for money. She is not a spokesperson for the black community in America.

pigeon hole her and dismiss her,

I judge people by what they say and the effect of those words. Based on those, I dismiss her, yes.

then tell someone else to accept opinions from a wider range of black people(whatever that is supposed to mean)

You don't know what it means to listen to people of differing views?

all the while doing to opposite yourself. Oh, the irony.

What are you talking about? Because I dismiss the opinions of one particular person, and have good reasons for doing so, you think I am not listening to a wide array of views on the issue?

The reason I reject Candace Owens is BECAUSE I listen to wide range of views, and thus I know that her opinion is not representative of - nor in line with actually aiding - the black American community.

Funny how you accused me of "pigeon-holing" while displaying a perfect example of it yourself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is a demonstration of a closed mind to information she supports statistically and having come from the Democratic Party, I think she has a good handle on things

Then who else have you listened to?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why do you think she doesn't think for herself?
She could very well be an independent thinker, one made prominent by
those who see her as an effective useful representative of their views.

Oh, she thinks for herself in the sense that she is willing to promote and defend any viewpoint which will earn her attention and money. Her arguments are wholly rhetorical, and I have never known her to make any argument that was sufficiently rational, unbiased or non-reactionary.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, she thinks for herself in the sense that she is willing to promote and defend any viewpoint which will earn her attention and money. Her arguments are wholly rhetorical, and I have never known her to make any argument that was sufficiently rational, unbiased or non-reactionary.

That could be said of anyone making money from advocacy.
Why believe it of her?

Btw, I don't know anything about her.
Just skeptical of the claim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That could be said of anyone making money from advocacy.
Why believe it of her?

Because of what she says and who her words benefit. When a person spreads misinformation and rhetoric, there are generally two reasons:

1) They are an idiot doing so unwittingly.
2) It is misinformation that benefits them, directly or indirectly.

I don't believe Candace Owens is an idiot. I feel she has promoted herself as a powerful tool of the right wing, much in the same way that Patrick Moore - the former founder of Greenpeace - now makes a living as an environmental consultant for various industries by giving talks around the world calling climate change a hoax.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because of what she says and who her words benefit. When a person spreads misinformation and rhetoric, there are generally two reasons:

1) They are an idiot doing so unwittingly.
2) It is misinformation that benefits them, directly or indirectly.

I don't believe Candace Owens is an idiot. I feel she has promoted herself as a powerful tool of the right wing, much in the same way that Patrick Moore - the former founder of Greenpeace - now makes a living as an environmental consultant for various industries by giving talks around the world calling climate change a hoax.

One person's misinformation will be another's truth.
People can sincerely believe things I find utterly false & loopy.
That would apply to 99.98% of the posters on RF who disagree with me.
But I don't dismiss them as shills.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One person's misinformation will be another's truth.
People can sincerely believe things I find utterly false & loopy.
That would apply to 99.98% of the posters on RF who disagree with me.
But I don't dismiss them as shills.

I don't dismiss her as a shill because I find her opinions false and loopy. I dismiss her as a shill on the weight of the evidence that everything she says greatly benefits powerful groups and businesses, while a lot of it is demonstrably false.

Like I said, she's either an idiot, or a con artist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't dismiss her as a shill because I find her opinions false and loopy. I dismiss her as a shill on the weight of the evidence that everything she says greatly benefits powerful groups and businesses, while a lot of it is demonstrably false.

Like I said, she's either an idiot, or a con artist.

People who disagree with me often support powerful groups.
Doesn't make'm a shill.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

People who disagree with me often support powerful groups.
Doesn't make'm a shill.

So she's an idiot, then?

 

[Revoltingest]

So she's an idiot, then?

You've not mentioned her views.
Which ones do you find idiotic?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You've not mentioned her views.
Which ones do you find idiotic?

She called Trump the saviour of the free world (https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/986066422399774720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=about:srcdoc), police violence against black Americans is "not a major issue" (Candace Owens says Trump will 'crack the black vote' because he loves America and 'the left hates' it), has said that black people do worse under the modern Democrats than they did under Jim Crow (previous), that Antifa were more dangerous than the KKK (previous), that the resurgence of political violence in recent years is because of "the left" (previous) and calls the Southern Strategy a "myth".

Among other things.

 

[Revoltingest]

She called Trump the saviour of the free world
(https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/986066422399774720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=about:srcdoc), police violence against black Americans is "not a major issue" (Candace Owens says Trump will 'crack the black vote' because he loves America and 'the left hates' it),

I know many people who believe those things, & aren't paid to say so.
While I find these beliefs loopy, those people aren't idiots....they just
have a very different take on things.

...has said that black people do worse under the modern Democrats than they did under Jim Crow (previous), that Antifa were more dangerous than the KKK (previous), that the resurgence of political violence in recent years is because of "the left" (previous) and calls the Southern Strategy a "myth".

I disagree with those things too. But the vast majority of people also
believe things I find similarly bonkers, eg, God, Allah, Military Industrial
Complex Conspiracy, socialism, mercury vortex anti-gravity fields.
These people (most) aren't idiots.
They just believe in things I find unsupported...magical thinking is common.

 

[Kenny]

Then who else have you listened to?

My Democratic brothers who have more melanin than I

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My Democratic brothers who have more melanin than I

Any black political figures, speakers or thinkers?

 

[Kenny]

Any black political figures, speakers or thinkers?

Our city mayor.