Black lives matter

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
28,612
Reaction score
7,148
Points
113
So besides the most obvious thing taken directly from their website that has now been removed what have they done.
Have they participated in marches, protests, rallies? Held conventions (virtual if needed)? Hosted discussion forums of experts?

Anything? In support and promotion of Marxism, as the correct ideology for this country?


Wouldn't those actions be thing that they would be doing, if they were a Marxist group that wanted to promote it?
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
853
Points
113
Well you must certainly accept that kids can succeed in spit of not having a nuclear family. Perhaps just that the likelihood is less? Because obviously there are many examples of it happening.
Yes people born into a single family home I would argue have a LESS likely hood of succeeding in life than those born into two family homes.
 


tikited

Me
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,720
Reaction score
2,411
Points
113
If this were true, their name would be something like "Americans For Marxism".

It's not possible to achieve a goal as ambitious and broad as installing Marxism as the ruling ideology for the country via an organization that is named for and advocates nothing of the sort.
The call themselves a Marxist group. They claim to be trained in the idiocy of Marxism. Not sure what you are on about but those are facts.
 





MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
1,754
Points
113
Other than some statements on the website, what actions has BLM taken in support of Marxism?
The call for the deconstruction of the nuclear family. The preaching of equity when they mean marxist destruction of the economy.
Are you entirely ignorant of Marx and what he actually wrote? Do you not realize how much he hated everything and wanted it destroyed. Are you too myopic to see that Communists have always looked for a great catch phrase behind which they can cover up the deconstruction of society?
BLM doesn't give a damn about Black lives that have been successful. In fact, those black lives are labeled Uncle Tom's and cultural misfits. Instead, they cling to those who want someone to blame so they can abdicate their own personal responsibility for their own lives. Hell, you don't even give a shit about Black lives, you just buy into the romance narrative BLM is pimping while you turn your nose on those less fortunate.
BLM has done jack shit.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
853
Points
113
Where do they say "BLM is a Marxist group, for the purpose of promoting Marxism"?


So? That doesn't mean BLM is a Marxist group.
Gee I wonder why BLM doesn’t say they are a Marxist group. Maybe just maybe they would get worse press coverage if they said that.

I am not saying they are or are not a Marxist group, but I do believe that some of the members are marxists or at least think they are Marxist. This is not Germany 1940 were you have to wear a sign on your clothes saying what political ideology you belong to. What I do believe is they want to change things in the US, which again may or may not be the right thing to do. I am all for hiring social workers and sending them to domestic disturbances, but damn sure bet you a cop should accompany them for everyone’s protection.
 



Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,069
Reaction score
4,869
Points
113
So besides the most obvious thing taken directly from their website that has now been removed what have they done.

How often did we hear from you dumb f, that what Trump says on twitter doesn't matter. Now a blurb on their website Really Matters....
ROTFLMAO

I don't care about the BLM organization, the protests weren't about the organization. Its insignificant.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
853
Points
113
How often did we hear from you dumb f, that what Trump says on twitter doesn't matter. Now a blurb on their website Really Matters....
ROTFLMAO

I don't care about the BLM organization, the protests weren't about the organization. Its insignificant.
Not from me I don’t search for Twitter things about trump. And I also believe trump is a pathological liar.
 


Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,085
Reaction score
4,248
Points
113
Just finished watching the "Crack" documentary on Netflix. Definitely illuminates some of the reasons why things are the way they are now between black people and police.

Also found out that Trump got his "MAGA" slogan from Reagan. Great role model.
The drug war has been a total disaster. But to pin it all on one president is a cop out. Obama had total control and didn’t touch it. Despite being a drug user. Lots of blame to go around.
 




Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
22,438
Reaction score
6,307
Points
113
How often did we hear from you dumb f, that what Trump says on twitter doesn't matter. Now a blurb on their website Really Matters....
ROTFLMAO

I don't care about the BLM organization, the protests weren't about the organization. Its insignificant.
So if I got this straight - today's argument from you lefties is that what BLM puts on their web-site doesn't mean anything about BLM. Also, just because their founders are Marxists and because they put Marxists statements on their web-site, doesn't mean anything in regards to BLM. Oh, and thinking so makes one a dumb f. We have officially moved into looney bird land here.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
22,438
Reaction score
6,307
Points
113
But he got your vote anyway?
This post sums you up so well. Besides being a dishonest hypocritical bigot - you are also extremely closed minded. He doesn't agree with you on one thing and off you go assuming you know everything about him.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,069
Reaction score
4,869
Points
113
So if I got this straight - today's argument from you lefties is that what BLM puts on their web-site doesn't mean anything about BLM. Also, just because their founders are Marxists and because they put Marxists statements on their web-site, doesn't mean anything in regards to BLM. Oh, and thinking so makes one a dumb f. We have officially moved into looney bird land here.

I am saying they are just pulling out something stupid because they hate Blacks demanding equality.

But whatever...
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
58,006
Reaction score
13,721
Points
113
This post sums you up so well. Besides being a dishonest hypocritical bigot - you are also extremely closed minded. He doesn't agree with you on one thing and off you go assuming you know everything about him.
Ah, I'm a bigot now too, eh? How so? Asking someone if they voted for Trump is racist? Or are you just spewing out insults incoherently?

I asked a question, he answered it. And Mr. Neutral Not a Trumpster has to stick his nose in and lead with his chin. Fraud. Mind your own business.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
58,006
Reaction score
13,721
Points
113
I am saying they are just pulling out something stupid because they hate Blacks demanding equality.

But whatever...
This. 98% of the people who support BLM don't know anything about the founders or what some statement on their website said. Neither is relevant to what those people are saying. But the Fellas need a reason to thumb their nose at them and ignore it.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
22,438
Reaction score
6,307
Points
113
Ah, I'm a bigot now too, eh? How so?

I asked a question, he answered it. And Mr. Neutral Not a Trumpster has to stick his nose in and lead with his chin. Fraud. Mind your own business.
What does this have to do with Trump? You continue to prove my point. You truly are a loser Howie.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

No one on this site uses more sterotypes and assumptions toward others based on age, race, or political belief.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
58,006
Reaction score
13,721
Points
113
What does this have to do with Trump? You continue to prove my point. You truly are a loser Howie.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

No one on this site uses more sterotypes and assumptions toward others based on age, race, or political belief.
This thread is 71 pages long and your thread policing if something was off-topic? Fraud.

It's racist to oppose Trumpster cultists? This is what you're going with? Fraud.

Most people on this board are straight forward with what they believe whether you agree with it or not. Then there's you, the biggest fraud by a mile.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
22,438
Reaction score
6,307
Points
113
This thread is 71 pages long and your thread policing if something was off-topic? Fraud.

It's racist to oppose Trumpster cultists? This is what you're going with? Fraud.
Sure Howie - I'm the fraud. I didn't mention anything about being off-topic and I didn't talk about Trump or "oppossing Trump cultists" once.... but you just keep shifting. Dishonest to the core.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
1,754
Points
113
The history of Marxism is awful, which is why the Marxist group, BLM is awful.

'There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated,' wrote Marx in 1848, 'and that way is revolutionary terror'.

Here is Marx a year later, addressing his conservative adversaries: 'We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you,' he writes. 'When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.'

The truth is that Marx's vision was inherently violent. How could it be otherwise? How, without bloodshed, would you get your revolution? How would you abolish private property?

Here is a crucial distinction between Marxism — which is often called a 'political religion' — and genuine religions.

Christianity, for example, abjures violence and Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek.

But Marxism is violent by definition. If Marxists turned the other cheek, they would never get their revolution.

The other difference is that most religions venerate the individual.

In Judaism and Christianity, the wellsprings of mainstream Western politics, individual life is sacred, because man is made in God's image.

But, for Marxists, the individual is irrelevant. Man is merely the servant of history. All that matters is the collective, the grand sweep.

And if that means some people — Russian landowners, Chinese merchants, Cambodian teachers, Cuban dissidents — end up in mass graves, prison camps or psychiatric hospitals, that is just their tough luck.

This sort of thinking strikes me as obscene.

Yet, thanks to the sheer force of Marx's intellect, it has attracted some very clever people.

But, in their hubris, Marx's followers cast aside not only history and tradition, but tens of millions of lives.

In the name of progress, they slaughtered men, women and children like animals in an abattoir.

And in almost every corner of the Earth, mass graves testify to the diabolical power of Marx's vision.

His ideas belong where they began: behind the doors of the library, in the rarefied world of pure theory, but not in the real world, where people get hurt.

 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
952
Points
113
It's racist to oppose Trumpster cultists? This is what you're going with? Fraud.
No, it's racist for you to paint every issue as a black vs white issue. More than anyone on the board, you choose to highlight the differences between blacks and whites, projecting racism in everyone who disagrees with your point of view. I can't imagine a more racist person here. EVERYTHING to you is about race. It's gotta be a cold dark world in which you live to think so less of your fellow man.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,069
Reaction score
4,869
Points
113
The history of Marxism is awful, which is why the Marxist group, BLM is awful.




Aristocracy gets to powerful and Blood will run. It is why Trump got elected and why Bernie would have had a better chance than Hillary to beat Trump the first time.

You think without a more fair society, that you will be able to control which way the mob goes? Hate to break it to you, YOU WON'T.

We just get extreme risk of veering sharply one way or the other. I wish more people gave a shit about a stable country.
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
1,118
Points
113
Agree.

I also don't think it is bad to have two parents, by any means. And it may indeed improve the child's chances.

I just don't think there should be any kind of judgement, scorn, "look down upon", or what have you for kids in non-nuclear families. They have the same potential to be every bit as successful, in my opinion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930824/

Capture.JPG

I mean, I suppose it depends on your definition of "success". This is just one study, obviously. But from a cursory search of other articles/studies, I couldn't find a single one that claimed there was no effect on the children of single parent households. I don't think anybody would say that if you're in a single parent household that 100% of the time your life will be worse than those that have two parents. You can be in a two parent household where one or both parents are complete ass clowns and pretty much set you up for failure. I mean, wasn't Obama basically raised by one parent? And he became the president. So it's not impossible, just a lot less likely. If you're going by averages and likelihoods, it's not even close.

Compare the "medium conflict two parent household" with the "single parent household" above. The high school dropout rate is 3x higher. the no college rate is 75% higher, the early sex and early cohabitation is 2x higher. Having their own children out of wedlock is 3x higher, and union disruption is 50% higher. Oddly enough, about the only thing higher for two parent households is the binge drinking. This also tells you how the cycle is much more likely to repeat itself (in early sex, early cohabitation, non-marital fertility numbers). This is also independent of socioeconomic status. If they were to layer that in as well, the numbers I'm sure would get even more damning.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
28,612
Reaction score
7,148
Points
113
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930824/

View attachment 11695

I mean, I suppose it depends on your definition of "success". This is just one study, obviously. But from a cursory search of other articles/studies, I couldn't find a single one that claimed there was no effect on the children of single parent households. I don't think anybody would say that if you're in a single parent household that 100% of the time your life will be worse than those that have two parents. You can be in a two parent household where one or both parents are complete ass clowns and pretty much set you up for failure. I mean, wasn't Obama basically raised by one parent? And he became the president. So it's not impossible, just a lot less likely. If you're going by averages and likelihoods, it's not even close.

Compare the "medium conflict two parent household" with the "single parent household" above. The high school dropout rate is 3x higher. the no college rate is 75% higher, the early sex and early cohabitation is 2x higher. Having their own children out of wedlock is 3x higher, and union disruption is 50% higher. Oddly enough, about the only thing higher for two parent households is the binge drinking. This also tells you how the cycle is much more likely to repeat itself (in early sex, early cohabitation, non-marital fertility numbers). This is also independent of socioeconomic status. If they were to layer that in as well, the numbers I'm sure would get even more damning.
Thanks for the cited numbers and the response.

The main problem I have with it is this: prove to me that all the negative things you're talking about aren't actually caused by lower income, rather than only having one parent.

Very difficult to decouple such factors and thus prove that any single factor is mostly responsible for negative outcomes.


Now if it was changed to "single parent households who are well below average household income, are more likely to result in negative life outcomes for the children", then I'd be more likely to support that idea.
 

golfing18now

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
994
Points
113
Thanks for the cited numbers and the response.

The main problem I have with it is this: prove to me that all the negative things you're talking about aren't actually caused by lower income, rather than only having one parent.

Very difficult to decouple such factors and thus prove that any single factor is mostly responsible for negative outcomes.


Now if it was changed to "single parent households who are well below average household income, are more likely to result in negative life outcomes for the children", then I'd be more likely to support that idea.

You are absolutely correct to point out the difficulty in isolating one factor from another. It is very difficult to normalize any statistical analysis to remove other inputs.

Could you also make a similar case for blacks and police interactions? Isn't it far more likely for black individuals to have a bad police encounter in a poor, high crime area?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
28,612
Reaction score
7,148
Points
113
Could you also make a similar case for blacks and police interactions? Isn't it far more likely for black individuals to have a bad police encounter in a poor, high crime area?
You can almost always make the case that it is difficult to tease apart the individual contribution of each, separate factor, when mixtures of factors are the usual circumstance. It's a bane of analysis in most things.

Without knowing any better off the top of my head, I would guess that the likelihood of having a bad police encounter does not correlate with the income level or crime level of the area you're stopped. But I could easily be wrong.

Rather, and guessing this maybe what you're thinking, is that there are just more total encounters in such places. So there would be, of course, more total bad encounters. But the chances have to do with the ratios of those, not just the total.
 




Top Bottom