Minneapolis is Burning

[Bama Chick 28,596]

OMG fuck worrying about bitch ass rhetoric.

Families and parents need help. Part of the reason why so many of our systems are failing is we have ZERO sense of tribe or community.

We all live in our own bubble and don’t interact with those physically closest to our homes.

Who the fuck cares what it’s called if we can achieve something better by trying something different?

God.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

11 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

... I think they could win a lot more support for their cause if they didn't give these PR tasks to imbeciles.    

This, boys and girls (and others), is called concern trolling, which is when an ideological opponent pretends to want what you want, but ignores the actual agreement in favor of continuing the conflict over minor/unimportant factors.

A common tool of the concern troll is tone policing, which is ignoring the content of a message and instead focusing on tone or phrasing.

These people would rather see their own goals die than see their ideological opponents succeed.

It's fucked up and annoying.

[Huckleberry 32,695]

17 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I agree with the basic idea that we need to provide better support for the family.  I don't agree with some specific examples of the rhetoric they use and believe it works against their end goals, if their end goals are gaining broader support for their ideals.  I don't find it offensive in that it challenges my views & perceptions or hurts any feelings; I think they could win a lot more support for their cause if they didn't give these PR tasks to imbeciles.    

The last word of your post reveals your true issue here. It's emotional, not factual.

You agree with what they said, but they hurt your feelings with how they said it. There is nothing imbecilic about their messaging; in fact, you have already admitted that the content is agreeable. Essentially at this point you recognize that what they said is accurate but you are clinging to something, anything, that will let you continue to view yourself as having an intellectual reason why you don't support BLM instead of wrestling with the possible truth that the only real reason is selfish pride.

You fully understand their statement as saying "The Western way isn't the best way for everyone, so we will support people who want to do it another and possibly better way for their family. We only wish to do that for those families who feel comfortable receiving that support." And after you read that, you don't focus on the truth that you agree with. You focus on the part where it says the Western way isn't the best way for everyone, and you emotionally react to it. If your identity truly is about seeking truth then you would recognize this as a failing. If your identity is actually more tied to being a historically socially normal Westerner then you will continue to react this way.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

47 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Or maybe it is when someone agrees with an ideal and thinks you should not allow your movement to get hijacked by people who care more about achieving their goals at the expense of the movement.  

You never really got into what BLM's ulterior motives are.

Also, who is it that you think is being isolated by their rhetoric? Who are the "winnable" people? And what evidence do you have that this rhetoric has alienated or will alienate them?

Quote

Now the statement on western families is not as overtly bad as a racial slur, but it will absolutely alienate people that otherwise agree with much of the content.

Not only is it not as bad, it's not even 1/1000th as bad.

It's kind of a joke comparison, really.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Can you tell me what BLM's ulterior motives are?

Can you tell me what winnable contingent of people are being alienated by BLM's rhetoric regarding family structure?

[jimmyjazz 45,546]

This appears to be a disagreement over marketing.  I'm no marketing guy, but I have observed them for decades in their native habitat, and I have also seen that what appeals to me often fails to appeal to the general public.

For instance, I see "Flo" and the Progressive Insurance commercials as utterly lowbrow, humorless garbage, but they clearly work on someone.  It could be argued that they work on me, since I remember enough about the campaign to remember the brand.  Perhaps that's their goal.

Maybe BLM chose their wording specifically to trigger philosophers like Axiom.  Or, maybe their target audience is different.  Arguing about the language seems a whole lot less important than discussing the content.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Axiom might be the best unintentional troll we have. I just adore him.

[CowboyFred 1,151]

On 7/3/2020 at 10:24 PM, GRHorn said:

🤔 🧐 🤨 

you talking about the people who want to blast the mountain or Sanders specifically?  I must have missed Sanders saying that.  

Edit: just realized this post is kinda old, my bad, I'm high.

Edited July 7, 2020 by CowboyFred

[bad_teammate 13,132]

"One person said one thing, so isn't it ironic that someone else is saying a different thing?"

DESTROYED!

 

[Mole 4,320]

We’re now just a few pages from discussing the ontological argument for the existence of BLM.

[Bookman 4,610]

Oh man I just face-palmed myself again.

[Serak The Preparer 3,424]

@Axiom of Choice For someone who seems to want to elevate the discourse of discussion, you have a strange way of showing it.

 From your initial post where you (like @GRHorn, @workswithseed, and @Onboard 2.0) you immediately claim that BLM has as an objective to disrupt the nuclear family. Whether through conscious choice or willful misinterpretation you leave out words in the sentence, changing the meaning. You can say that @Huckleberry was rude or dismissive in his reply, where he pointed out the other words in the objective (e.g. the requirement for nuclear families) but I am not sure what you expected. Especially given your multiple posts on logic / philosophy, I would hypothesize that you are certainly capable of parsing the sentence.

So, are any of the following thoughts correct?

1- You hadn't read the statement so accepted the notion from others that BLM is trying to disrupt nuclear families.

2- You read the statement but missed the notion of requirement.

3- You read the statement, saw the notion of requirement, but you think that this is the same thing as disrupting the family itself.

4- You willfully misrepresented the objective of BLM in order to make a point (maybe about marketing)?

5 - Something else?

[bad_teammate 13,132]

2 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

If I had to guess I would say the majority of those involved with the movement probably do not care about this issue one way or the other as it really has nothing to do with their fundamental tenets.  This is my point.  

What are their "fundamental tenets"?

Quote

Why would a group organized around the idea that there is a gap in the normative claim that black lives matter (i.e. black lives ought to matter) and the descriptive claim that black lives matter (i.e. black lives do not seem to matter in modern society based on the way they are treated) make such statements on an ideological divide in which one’s views either way are neither necessary nor sufficient for acceptance of the BLM fundamental tenets?

I don't think you know what BLM stands for. Probably because you don't believe them when they say what they stand for.

So please tell us, what is their actual purpose? What are their actual beliefs that they are hiding underneath all this other stuff?

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Do you think the black family structure is important to black lives?

If yes, do you think that black Americans are intelligent enough to understand that and, as a result, make it a tenet of their platform for advancement?

The destruction of the black family is not simply a matter of black people deciding to not have solid families.

Here's something to chew on:

[TXSG8R 3,360]

Really good article about how Bethel Ohio blew up because of a BLM demonstration organized by locals.  This is a quote from one of the few black kids that grew up there and I think he nails why Trump appeals to so many.   

Quote

They can’t understand themselves as racist, Riley said, because they cannot empathize with the experience of it. They can’t see it because they haven’t felt it or listened when others described it. Their closest experience is hearing the phrase “Black lives matter” and thinking that it is actually racist against white people.

“They’ve been taught all their lives that if you work hard, everything’s gonna be just fine,” Riley said. “But they see now that they worked hard, and did the work, and they didn’t get what was promised. They’re so mad, and they turn that hatred inward and feel inadequate. But Trump says, ‘No, I can ease your pain. These people over there, they’re to blame. It’s their fault.’”

“People have been telling you that your bigotry is bad, and you should feel bad,” he continued. “But Trump is there to tell you: It’s good.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/bethel-ohio-black-lives-matter-protest

[GRHorn 105]

On 7/5/2020 at 9:37 PM, Huckleberry said:

You've completely lost your mind. The fear has seeped into every corner of your mind, even your ocular processing centers.

I have conveniently highlighted the location where "Western-prescribed" was not omitted when I quoted their statement.

But I'll try to help you live your life with a little less fear. Non-western cultures much more frequently consider child-rearing to be a community endeavor. "Western-prescribed" means that western cultures are far less likely to do so, and that parents in western cultures are more likely to feel like child-rearing is something they must do themselves or feel like they've failed.

And again, your entire response once again completely misses the point. Their statement is calling for community support in addition to the immediate family structure. Only a coward who fears what they don't understand would be running with your interpretation.

I know it was in the portion you quoted.
 

I intended to reference your summation of it, which included just about everything but “western prescribed”. Wasn’t sure why you left that out. Sorry, i wasn’t clear. It was a long weekend. 

As others here have said augmenting or supplementing a structure is typically not intending to disrupt the same structure. Again you can try to add context or explain away what they’re saying, but it’s the words they’ve chosen. Against the backdrop of “trained Marxists” running the organization and their views on Western families it seems pretty self explanatory what it means. 
 

In a self proclaimed Marxist’s intellectual framework wouldn’t “western prescribed” essentially mean “captialist”? 
 

Something to think about. Or not. Or go fuck yourself. 

[Anastasis 23,393]

I think what is being described is more accurately described as a family structure largely shaped by American values and culture.  I wouldn't call it western per se, in the sense that people coming from a variety of Western cultures, and Mediterranean cultures in particular, tend to have very different social structures and living arrangements.  These family structures imported in the US with the immigration of these people, and in first and many times second generation families these support structures and living arrangements persisted.  Once you get to third generation that family dynamic has largely been replaced with the American cultural norms.  I think that you see the same sorts of trends among asians, middle easterners and non-westerners as well.  At least that is my observation. 

 

This doesn't really impact the conversation around family structure as it relates to African Americans.  That conversation is infinitely more complex, imo. 

[softlynow 1,783]

11 hours ago, Mole said:

We’re now just a few pages from discussing the ontological argument for the existence of BLM.

I'm waiting for the epistemological argument to take off with the occasional deontological and hermeneutic asides. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

It's not really all that complex unless something inside the thinker believes that black Americans suffer from an internal racial deformity regarding family structure that others don't suffer from.

We brought them over in chains, destroyed their heritage as a policy, and have had a boot on their necks (or knees, to keep it topical) ever since. And any attempts to ameliorate are either destroyed outright or picked apart to the point of uselessness by outright white supremacists or their far more insidious cousins, the centrist/liberals who spend the effort concern-trolling and being pundits and means-testing/grand-bargaining.

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by bad_teammate

[Pescado_Rojo 19,331]

5 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I give you credit for being relentless.  

There are very poor and transparent attempts to link concepts that are not entailed by the other.  The BLM movement is not identical to the BLM organization.  People who believe blacks have dealt with terrible injustices for generations and march in the streets with black lives matter signs do not necessarily agree with or even know about the full agenda of the BLM organization.  Regarding family, you will ask silly leading questions about the right to care about family structure as if that if necessarily linked with the very stupid way to frame the discussion as a disruption of some fantasy of a monolith west giving a consensus prescription.  You would like to treat things that are different as interchangeable.  The goal by some is to tie these things so it can be claimed that anyone who opposes the BLM organization in any way necessarily opposes the BLM movement and therefore is against black lives generally and are racist.  As for me, I agree with many of the general ideas of the BLM movement (as stated above, I agree there is a gap in the normative claim that black lives matter and the descriptive claim that black lives matter and that we should seek to right this injustice) but I hate marxism and do not like the general and often vague attack on anything perceived as western.  If it is the case that the BLM organization is marxist and set "the west" as their ideological adversary, then they are my ideological adversary.  But of course this has nothing to do with how much I nor anyone else cares about black lives.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

36 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

... but I hate marxism and do not like the general and often vague attack on anything perceived as western.

Axiom of Choice, the guy who will say pretty much nothing while answering zero questions, doesn't like general and vague attacks.

Quote

If it is the case that the BLM organization is marxist and sets "the west" as their ideological adversary, then they are my ideological adversary. 

General? Check
Vague? Check

What are the ulterior motives of BLM that you find abhorrent?

Let's put aside whether or not you care about black lives, I'm wondering if you have any discernible ideas or beliefs at all.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Can you explain what that specifically entails with regard to the topic of this thread?

What specifically about BLM's goals or purposes sparks an anti-Marxist response?

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Alright y’all got some shit to handle in Austin.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Since you are more knowledgeable on the tenets & goals of the BLM organization, do you know if any of the founders or primary organizers were marxist?  Does the group currently have goals that would be categorized as marxist?   

Am I more knowledgeable on the tenets & goals of BLM? I never claimed that.

I would take them at their word on their "What We Believe" page. All of that seems fine and I don't see anything Marxist in it, and if there is I don't know why that should be a problem. And if the founders were/are Marxist... ok? So? What is the problem we are supposed to collectively have with that?

Can you explain?

[jimmyjazz 45,546]

This whole "BLM is Marxist" angle is just another talking point distributed among Trumpkins.  It directly preceded Trump's claim that liberals are "fascists", which, as I pointed out elsewhere, leads to the glorious irony that the far right is now not only anti-Antifa, but also anti-fascist, which implies anti-anti-Antifa.   Well done, Donald.

[SameSame 1,692]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Alright y’all got some shit to handle in Austin.

 

That is fucked up.  No telling how many times through the years he’s casually done that and not been filmed.

[Dahobbs 17,437]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Well the claim that the BLM organization wants to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" is clearly antiwe. 

Since you are more knowledgeable on the tenets & goals of the BLM organization, do you know if any of the founders or primary organizers were marxist?  Does the group currently have goals that would be categorized as marxist?   

What precisely is "marxist" about their ideas and why is that a problem? You say you hate "vague" arguments, but here you are, vaguely, attributing "marxism" to BLM without saying what that means or why anyone should have an issue with it. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What precisely is "marxist" about their ideas and why is that a problem? You say you hate "vague" arguments, but here you are, vaguely, attributing "marxism" to BLM without saying what that means or why anyone should have an issue with it. 

He is tiptoeing. "Western" is a code word.  

[hayden_horn 11,360]

34 minutes ago, SameSame said:

That is fucked up.  No telling how many times through the years he’s casually done that and not been filmed.

he's doing it to provoke a response so he can get more violent with the arrested person, and possibly throw in a "resisting arrest" charge or some other elevated charge.

all cops are bastards.

[Anastasis 23,393]

21 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

"Western" is a code word.

For Axiom, or for BLM, or for both?

[Bama Chick 28,596]

That is fucked up.  No telling how many times through the years he’s casually done that and not been filmed.

Not gonna lie, as a woman who has a past incident very similar to this (not cops though), this video was VERY triggering to me.

I’ve never made fun of the whole “triggering” response - I’ve always accepted it as valid but I have never experienced it personally and I’ve always kind of not taken seriously because I sort of thought it was just another buzzword thing that meant “I don’t like this”.

Yeah, I was wrong.

As I watched that cop sexually assault that woman, I practically relived my incident in my head and could feel the hands on me.

And my incident happened 15 years ago.

I can’t watch it again.

[TwiceHorn 31,265]

14 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Not gonna lie, as a woman who has a past incident very similar to this (not cops though), this video was VERY triggering to me.

I’ve never made fun of the whole “triggering” response - I’ve always accepted it as valid but I have never experienced it personally and I’ve always kind of not taken seriously because I sort of thought it was just another buzzword thing that meant “I don’t like this”.

Yeah, I was wrong.

As I watched that cop sexually assault that woman, I practically relived my incident in my head and could feel the hands on me.

And my incident happened 15 years ago.

I can’t watch it again.

Rightfully so.  Triggering is a real thing.

I think it gets overused for things that are merely offensive or otherwise provocative.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

3 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

 

It's not of any interest if they just happen to be marxist.  It is of interest if it is the ideological basis used to structure the organization and its goals or if they use the organization to promote marxism.  I would have a problem with that if it is the case, because I am antima.  I don't think you would have a problem with it, though.   

 

I don't think the BLM movement is marxist.  I think that the founders of the BLM organization are guided by Marxist ideology.  It's not a conspiracy or anything; they are not trying to hide it and will say so explicitly :

 

I think in order to be a trained marxist all one has to do is read some pamphlets.  

 

I asked because I thought he might be more knowledgeable on the subject since he cares enough to defend them at length and also because he is a marxist (at least I think he is and has admitted to being one; he can correct me if that is not the case); seems like he would be a guy who might know. But I did not attribute.  

 

Are you antiwe?  

Not at all.  I think most cultures have something to offer.  But we have been down this road before.  That time you were anti-Chinese.  You are tilting at this dumbass windmill because you don't believe that black Christian capitalists are "Western" either.

[Dahobbs 17,437]

17 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I asked because I thought he might be more knowledgeable on the subject since he cares enough to defend them at length and also because he is a marxist (at least I think he is and has admitted to being one; he can correct me if that is not the case); seems like he would be a guy who might know. But I did not attribute.  

What are you talking about? How is that a response to my question? Seriously, could you be more vague about what your issues actually are? Again, what about the statement from BLM is marxist? And why should that bother anyone? You know what, NM, because you're just going to throughout some faux-intellectual bullshit all while saying nothing. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

21 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I do not remember the anti-Chinese discussion you are referring to.  Which thread was that on, or what was the general topic?  Also, I have no idea what you are talking about with not believing black Christian capitalists being western.  It seems like the typical empty headed accusation of racism.  But maybe you mean something else. 

 

 ok

To be fair, your arguments against Chinese culture were seemingly based on a belief in Christian superiority. So I thought you were more into that type of bigotry at the time rather than racism.  But then I also gave that a pass because you really had no knowledge of Chinese culture at all. It began on a religious thread.

But now you went out and found a narrow issue because you don't want to support equality for people who are predominately Christian, capitalist, and have been part of American culture since its founding.  If you don't want me to read between the lines, then don't write between them.

By the way, Marx is Western as well.

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[elfenix 34,171]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Alright y’all got some shit to handle in Austin.

 

protect and perv

[bad_teammate 13,132]

50 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

It's not of any interest if they just happen to be marxist.  It is of interest if it is the ideological basis used to structure the organization and its goals or if they use the organization to promote marxism.  I would have a problem with that if it is the case, because I am antima.  I don't think you would have a problem with it, though.   

What does it mean, specifically, to "promote marxism"?

Quote

I asked because I thought he might be more knowledgeable on the subject since he cares enough to defend them at length and also because he is a marxist (at least I think he is and has admitted to being one; he can correct me if that is not the case); seems like he would be a guy who might know. But I did not attribute.  

Tell me what you think a "Marxist" is and I'll happily tell you whether or not it fits me. I'm not dodging, I genuinely don't know what you are talking about.

I think we need to have an extremely regulated private market economy. I think we need to have hard wealth caps (no one should have over $50M either in cash or total equity). I think every government loan or grant to business should come with public ownership shares managed by a democratically-accountable fund similar to the PUF. I think everyone should be guaranteed healthcare, food, and a place to live regardless of ability (or even willingness) to work. I think people should be allowed to own private property. I think people should be allowed to own rental property with massively restrictive regulations (I believe I would be up against the wall for this belief in The Revolution).

Am I a Marxist? I don't know what you mean by it. Please tell me.

See? I can talk about specific things. Please join me.

Quote

Are you antiwe?  

I have no idea what you mean by "antiwe". You're a huge fan of just creating vague labels with zero specifics.

Ask and answer specific questions so we can have meaningful dialogue.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

So it is just the typical empty headed accusation of racism.  Thought you might have something more.  

Do you have any idea of what was actually said in the discussion on China?  Thread title, link, anything? I know it might seem crazy, but I think it might be possible you may not be giving it an accurate representation.  

 

I get that you're trying to justify it to yourself.  You don't support the black lives matter movement, which is essentially about ending police brutality and offering equal opportunity for black people, because there are a handful of Marxists.  Sure.

As for the other thread, its on the old board, I believe, but could have been a very early surly post.  It was a CR thread that turned to existential discussion and got moved to the DT board.  And again, you offered little on China because you knew nothing of the culture, or any other non-Western culture, so I can see why you fail to remember it.  But while you were displaying zero knowledge of any other culture, you continued to argue that all good things springs from Western culture which sprung from God and vice versa, and no other cultures had ever done shit.  But now you are also throwing Marx, a Westerner himself, and black people under the bus in support of "Western" cultural superiority.  

But I'm also open to believing that you really just want everyone to be forced into church again, and that church should be the "community," even though your arguments here don't really align with that goal. 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,277]

Donald Trump is pretty anti-west. I mean, I can't think of anybody further from enlightenment ideas about politics, the post-war liberal consensus, and basic concepts of virtue than he is. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,106]

I don't know why y'all keep letting yourselves get dragged into circular discussions with AoC.  He loves him some merry go rounds and he loves to make them go round and round.  Hopefully those of you that hopped on at least got the ones that go up and down and not the lame ones that just sit there doing nothing.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

40 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Do you know the fundamental principles of the social, economic, and political philosophy of Karl Marx as outlined in the Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy, the Communist Manifest, and Das Kapital?  Do you generally agree with those principles?  Would you say that they generally align with your own? 

You are referencing quite a bit of material. A ton of what Marx says is cogent and on-point. His analysis of the ultimate destructiveness and isolation of capitalist economies is spot-on.

So let's say I'm a Marxist and that BLM was founded by Marxists, cool, let's just stipulate that... what now? What are the next steps in this logical process?

Axiom of Choice: A mile wide and an inch deep

[workswithseed 2,035]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You are referencing quite a bit of material. A ton of what Marx says is cogent and on-point. His analysis of the ultimate destructiveness and isolation of capitalist economies is spot-on.

So let's say I'm a Marxist and that BLM was founded by Marxists, cool, let's just stipulate that... what now? What are the next steps in this logical process?

Axiom of Choice: A mile wide and an inch deep

You aren't already?

[GRHorn 105]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

This whole "BLM is Marxist" angle is just another talking point distributed among Trumpkins

It’s true though, at least the founders are. People might as well know who/what they’re supporting. 
 

Edited July 7, 2020 by GRHorn

[JimmyJames 12,271]

37 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

It’s true though, at least the founders are. People might as well know who/what they’re supporting. 
 

Well since you said it I know that’s false. Good to know.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

If someone said, "The founders of BLM are all anti-Muslim" then I could understand the problem there because there are many black Muslims in America and an underlying bias or hatred against a race or religious affiliation would be counter to the message of improving the lives of black people. Anti-Muslim bias could manifest in some nasty ways that would lead to the suffering of black Muslims.

Can anyone here do the same regarding the Marxism of BLM's founders?

I'll give you a sentence starter:
BLM's founders being Marxist is bad for black people because....

(If your answer is actually about white people then lol)

[GRHorn 105]

On 7/3/2020 at 2:31 PM, GRHorn said:

 

 

 

 

Here you go. The whole interview. Her response about her ideology is at about 7:00. For some reason I can’t embed it now from YouTube so this is my old post. You’re welcome @JimmyJames

[Serak The Preparer 3,424]

19 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I do not think BLM is trying to disrupt the nuclear family.  If I had to guess I would say the majority of those involved with the movement probably do not care about this issue one way or the other as it really has nothing to do with their fundamental tenets.  This is my point.  Why would a group organized around the idea that there is a gap in the normative claim that black lives matter (i.e. black lives ought to matter) and the descriptive claim that black lives matter (i.e. black lives do not seem to matter in modern society based on the way they are treated) make such statements on an ideological divide in which one’s views either way are neither necessary nor sufficient for acceptance of the BLM fundamental tenets?

 

On 7/6/2020 at 10:49 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

Ok but none of that is disruption of the nuclear family.  It would be needed and welcomed support in most cases.  Advocating extended family support and broader community support is not at all against or a disruption of the nuclear family and in fact would make it more stable.  

 

7 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Well the claim that the BLM organization wants to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" is clearly antiwe. 

Since you are more knowledgeable on the tenets & goals of the BLM organization, do you know if any of the founders or primary organizers were marxist?  Does the group currently have goals that would be categorized as marxist?   

Sorry for not responding earlier, work is crazy right now, but how do you square the first sentence of the first post with the statements in the others? You (and others referenced in my earlier post, who are not exactly paragons of reasoning) keep posting claims that BLM wants to disrupt the nuclear family. If you don't think they are, why are you saying so?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,277]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

You are referencing quite a bit of material. A ton of what Marx says is cogent and on-point. His analysis of the ultimate destructiveness and isolation of capitalist economies is spot-on.

So let's say I'm a Marxist and that BLM was founded by Marxists, cool, let's just stipulate that... what now? What are the next steps in this logical process?

Axiom of Choice: A mile wide and an inch deep

Marx’s analysis of how power works and the Marxian approach to history is trenchant and penetrating. The Marxist approach to economics and structural solutions is like Ayn Rand level bullshit. He’s a lot like Ayn Rand, except smarter and with less government welfare. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26,277]

PS Ayn Rand was even dumber than Karl Marx. 

[gmr548 16,491]

Lol y'all responding to axiom of choice