Wouldn't it be more accurate to say: Pro-Trump Leaders Shine by Offering a Platform for BLM?
BLM has interrupted other speeches, demanded microphone time and shouted down people to prevent them from talking. As you mention, they were doing that in the first place. The people holding the rally offered them the stage for 2 minutes. Who is the bigger person here? The one demanding to be heard or the ones offering to listen?
Sure, BLM says they are anti-Bad Cop, but St. Louis shows that isn't true.
Read the article, because I think BLM is often radical and violent, but they shined here and expressed grievances well enough to reach the Trump crowd.
I already know that the free speech rallies are trying to be upstanding and hear different points of view. I commend them for what they did, but I expect that from them. BLM surprised me, so I'm giving them props.
Well, 1st the "free speach/anti-hate/anti-racism" rallies are not being upstanding and they don't want to hear other points of views. This wasn't one of those rallies.
In the article and video, Newsome admits that his only goal was to disrupt and not listen. He was given the opportunity to say a few things and try to paint himself differently than the other leaders in BLM. He might have succeeded in doing so, but he didn't change the overall view of the BLM. Because, in the end, it was the pro-Trump organizer who stood out and offered the platform in the first place, even against the advice of another organizer with his group. At the end of the video, he talks about how surprised he was by how the militia leader and the pro-Trump leaders treated him so kindly.
What will be more interesting, is to see what happens to Newsome after this. He said "All lives matter", which BLM did not want people to say. They claimed it was an insult to their movement.
I think Newsome got red pilled and maybe it will change his local group, but I don't think it will change the larger group, because there are other forces involved that want BLM to be violent.
deanlogic, I have to agree with you. jamell, I personally don't believe that any organization that resorts to violence and murder have anything to say worth listening to - whether they are "calm" at the moment or not. If there were anything socially valuable to hear from these people, they wouldn't need violence to disseminate it.
I would be much more comfortable with the slogan "Our Lives Matter" rather than theirs; at least this is someone anybody could agree with. Their actual slogan doesn't mean that "black" lives matter, it means "No One Else's life matters" otherwise they wouldn't be triggered by the obvious, self-evident truth that All lives matter. If they really were interested in saving black lives, they'd be looking into black on black murder rates in the inner cities, where the real problem lies.
Their tactics are no different than the Nazi Brown Shirts, the Fascist Black Shirts or any other organization trying to force their will upon the rest of a population. History has shown us that it ALWAYS ends badly - not necessarily for the organizers, but for their "useful idiots" who are mowed down in the streets for someone else's "cause".
I would have to disagree with your point that any organization turning to violence undermines their ideas. If you are opposing an entity that has a monopoly on force (like the government) there is a chance that you will have to not play by the rules when they won't let you play the game. The founders of the United States had to do this with the British government. That being said, BLM is not at all on that level and their ideas are, in my opinion stupid.
I think it is useful to recognize people stepping outside of their side of the dichotomy and speaking truth, which this BLM protester does. The fact that other BLM sects have denounced him with their usual means shows that this was quite the anomaly and his honesty was threatening to those "black lives matter, and other lives don't."
I agree that there has to be an all lives matter aspect to it. Or say "Black Lives Matter too." By only naming one race, it does lend itself to supremacist philosophies, which is dangerous every single time it has been practiced.
I stand against the essence of what the BLM movement has decided to manifest itself as, but I do recognize the grievances that many black people have in feeling undervalued in society. I think those who are angry have jumped to the wrong conclusions, and if they keep stepping back to look at the situation, like Newsome did here, they might see what the true cause of strife in the black community is.
jamell, you are right; perhaps I should have written "aggressive" violence. Defensive violence is the only justifiable violence. This was the case with the American colonists against the British. Also, I cannot agree that black Americans are "undervalued" in the U.S.. They have reached the apex of practically every area of American society and are among the highest paid in their fields - from sports to entertainment to music to the military to politics, economics and sciences. Even if what you claim were true, I would argue that it would be a societal problem in nature, CAUSED by the government's policies. Murdering police is NOT a solution. MLK faced REAL problems and he did it with non-violence. He was heard.
I agree 100%. I want to make it clear that I neither support or defend the BLM movement. I just can see it from their point of view and think that answering their grievances, which can be legitimate at times, with their terminology would go farther than pure logic and rationale. Basically no one suffers today, based on race, anywhere comparable to early 1900's blacks. I think their feelings of being undervalued should be addressed, but not incentivized. I should say that I think any problems with law enforcement and the system that surrounds it are true for all races, but I can see why black people would be more suspicious of this system, given the history, than whites would.
It's the old 'uncle Tom' shit that's so prevelent with them. There is a total victim mentality among blm and if you even attempt to step out of that narrative you betray 'your people'. It's Leftism pure and simple. Race is just the excuse to persue an agenda.
I couldn't agree more. I think that identifying based on race for anything more than mocking the absurdity of doing so is stupid. The ideology that BLM promotes is detrimental to the aims they claim to have. If they were really keeping blacks in mind when making decisions, they would identify as individuals and ask the best of each person as each person can do. However, they don't, so it is up to rational people to reason with them in a way they can understand, and I think this video and article show a way to make that happen.
I agree, I have no expectation that BLM as a whole will come to realize the beauty of this moment at all. I thought it was a good way to demonstrate the point I make at the end. I believe in hearing people and listening to understand, not just to have my next argument back.
BLM has committed atrocities all across the country and radicalized people as well. That is why this spoke to me so much. If just giving people like that the stage at an opposing rally brings them around, even if it is to just save face, that shows the power of listening.
As for the free speech protests, they are very positive, at least at first. They were just people gathering with the hope of being heard. The problem was that Antifa began crashing these protests because they disagreed with most of the protesters and classified their speech as violence. That is when people like Based Stickman began coming out on the free speech side to defend people from the paramilitary Antifa attacks.
The anti-hate and anti-racism are not part of the free speech rallies and are generally far left radicals like Antifa. The goal of these is to paint people who don't agree with radical leftism as racist and bigots in order to justify violence against them to shut them down and impede upon their right to speak.