@Ghost Rider
In your original post you wrote, "They riled the western world up but
many black voices are questioning the very nature of what white people got behind now. Much the same as
many black voices are questioning the element of having George Floyd as the catalyst for what happened....Just one example of
black voices on the matter..."
Given you kept saying "many black voices" I responded with a poll saying support is 80% among black people for BLM and you respond with new poll that--uh, well--says exactly what I said: that support for BLM is about 80% in the black community.
View attachment 158374
You then try to be clever by saying something snarky like
"Makes me laugh that I was waiting for someone to come along and disagree with this" but you were the one suggesting support for BLM was eroding in the black community and the poll you referred me to does not indicate this.
The difference between BLM and BLMGN is absolutely important, as only the latter has been accused of misusing funds. It is in fact the key issue with respect to your claim of grift, as most BLM groups do local protests independent of the latter group. It is quite literally saying the civil rights movement is corrupt because an organization called "Civil rights movement global network" has some dubious characters running it. This is not grasping at straws.
Imagine if someone here said all animal ethics organizations are grifters, based on a few dubious leaders at PETA. This is what you are saying, and it is simply not true.
What I suspect is that you didn't know the difference between BLM and BLMGN. The article in the UK about the Bristol women only further proves my point. In fact, in a largely decentralized organization, there will always be people trying to take advantage of others, as it appears what a 20-something-year-old did in Bristol. This happened with the trucker convoy in Canada and is quite likely happening with some Ukraine charities. There are low-level scammers everywhere. Does this make all Ukraine charities a scam?
Here's what all this means to other people on this forum: some charities attract dubious characters, and this is more likely to happen in decentralized organizations than centralized ones. Nothing political about that--if some people misused funds directed toward a charitable organization, they should be punished if found guilty.
Here's what it means to you: the entire movement is a grift and you go to painful great lengths to find black people on video clips who agree with your point. You've brought it up no less than six times in this thread.
This is fine...there is no issue: you and those in the videos can say that the entire BLM movement is a grift and try to claim that those who disagree with you are being political. This is not a particularly defensible claim, nor accurate one, but you're welcome to it.
As to Pastor Brooks, there is no question, that the movement has a lot of sloganeering (it's easier to place a sign in your lawn saying "Black Lives Matter" then to go work at an soup kitchen in an impoverished black neighborhood), but he neglects to point out the massive consciousness-raising effect this organization and slogan has had on communities across the USA. This was, in fact, the original goal of the movement: get communities that traditionally don't think about injustices specifically directed to African-Americans to start now thinking about this issue. On that front it was a massive success, simply massive. In fact, I can't think of a more successful movement in terms of raising awareness on a given issue that was originally born from a hashtag on twitter. There has been a huge and active reorganization across government, business, and education due to the issues raised by BLM. For example, it has prompted a rethink of hiring practices/promotion and other workplace issues, as well as spurred numerous research into bias in police shootings.
And Pastor Brooks is also
being political when he sits atop a roof with a former vice chairman of the Michigan Republican party and the CEO of the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel (not exactly an a-political organization), and quotes an individual from the Hoover Institution (a center-right organization) in an article written for FOX News by the daughter of the person he is quoting. So politics on all sides.
This is fine...there is no issue: you and those in the videos can say that the entire BLM movement is a grift and try to claim that those who disagree with you are being political. This is not a particularly defensible claim, nor accurate one, but you're welcome to it.
As to Pastor Brooks, there is no question, that the movement has a lot of sloganeering (it's easier to place a sign in your lawn saying "Black Lives Matter" then to go work at an soup kitchen in a black neighborhood), but he neglects to point out the massive consciousness-raising effect this organization and slogan has had on communities across the USA. This was, in fact, the original goal of the movement: get communities that traditionally don't think about injustices specifically directed to African-Americans to start now thinking about this issue. On that front it was a massive success, simply massive. In fact, I can't think of a more successful movement in terms of raising awareness on a given issue that was originally born from a hashtag on twitter. There has been a huge and active reorganization across government, business, and education due to the issues raised by BLM. For example, it has prompted a rethink of hiring practices/promotion and other workplace issues, as well as spurred numerous research into bias in police shootings.
And Pastor Brooks is also being political when he sits atop a roof with a former vice chairman of the Michigan Republican party and the CEO of the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel (not exactly an a-political organization), and quotes an individual from the Hoover Institution (a center-right organization) in an article written for FOX News by the daughter of the person he is quoting. So politics on all sides.
www.nbcnews.com
