Conservative values/principles

[Mountain Man]

I actually AM ignorant of what several of the BLM "founders" personally believe. I never looked into it and don't really care.

Seriously? You support and work with an organization without knowing or caring what its founders believe?



So let's take your Westboro Baptist Church example. Suppose the church ran a soup kitchen, and you learned that a Christian worked for and actively supported this ministry. You say, "How can you work there? Do you have any idea what the leaders of Westboro Baptist Church really believe?" and he responds, "I don't know, and I don't care. I'm just happy to serve homeless people." Would you really think that was an acceptable answer? I doubt it.

[carpedm9587]

That depends on what the "change" is and what the "reason" is.

Not in my experience. Most of the time - there is a knee-jerk reaction against change of any kind.

As for our Founding Fathers, they were not "liberals" in any sense of the word, not even in the tortured sense that you try to use it. They were, in fact, hardcore conservative thinkers who were not promoting a new ideal but were, in fact, demanding a return to one of the oldest ideals in history, primarily "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and the system of government they devised was based on the notion that these ancient ideals deserved to be aggressively protected from those who would attempt to suppress them.

You need to study the philosophers of the period more, MM. The principles they enshrined into the DOE and Constitution came from Locke, Hume, Voltaire, and several others that were writing in a time when the world was governed largely by monarchies and even the churches tended to have a monarchic structure. But then again - your rejection of the observation about what forward thinkers they were for their time is not a surprise: conservatives have long claimed the FFs for themselves and accused "liberals" of not respecting the FFs. You might be surprised to learn that many liberals - indeed, most of the ones I know - revere the FFs for their accomplishments. They also recognize that they were, after all, only men - and fairly young ones at that. The be-all and end-all of political thought does not rest with them.

[carpedm9587]

GOSH!!! Did you have to type that so BIG?

Couldn't help yourself!

You have an amazing sense of humor...

It was basically the hate-filled Phelps family loudly and clearly and universally denounced by Christianity. It's the "easy mark" for the uninformed to attempt to defend bad actions of their own.

The Westboro Baptist Church made themselves a target with their in-your-face words and actions, and were denounced for it. You don't hear a lot of denouncing of Yusra by the BLM leaders, AFAICT, because no one - outside of the right wing media and the Toronto BLM chapter - seems to know who she is or what she has said. Hard to denounce something you don't know exists.

[Cow Poke]

You have an amazing sense of humor...

Thanks, and you appreciate it, so that makes it more fun.

(are we ready to hug it out yet?)

The Westboro Baptist Church made themselves a target with their in-your-face words and actions, and were denounced for it.

Yes, yes they did. They spewed forth hatred and showed no love or mercy.

You don't hear a lot of denouncing of Yusra by the BLM leaders, AFAICT, because no one - outside of the right wing media and the Toronto BLM chapter - seems to know who she is or what she has said. Hard to denounce something you don't know exists.

I don't know who that is, but I know Garza! And you can't POSSIBLY attack BLM like you can Westboro because...

A) Wesboro was so OBVIOUSLY wrong, and they're white and anti-gay, and caught it from all sides
2) BLM is such a 'good slogan' and they're black.

[seer]

The emphasis on understanding historical dynamics by examining the materialist roots that underlay it - and the recognition that society tends to organize itself into classes.

And how do you change that except at the end of a gun? As Lenin found out. As far as I can see free markets have lifted more people out of poverty than another system. That is why former socialist countries like China and Vietnam are embracing capitalism like gang busters.

No - I am an advocate of property rights - so long as it is recognized that no property right is "absolute." As with all rights - when claimed in the context of a society - rights must be balanced.

Then you are not a very good Marxist, as a matter of fact you are not a Marxist at all - putting you at odds with the founders of BLM.

Why we have clearly debunked the meme of systemic police racism. There are other problems however.

[Mountain Man]

Not in my experience. Most of the time - there is a knee-jerk reaction against change of any kind.



You need to study the philosophers of the period more, MM. The principles they enshrined into the DOE and Constitution came from Locke, Hume, Voltaire, and several others that were writing in a time when the world was governed largely by monarchies and even the churches tended to have a monarchic structure. But then again - your rejection of the observation about what forward thinkers they were for their time is not a surprise: conservatives have long claimed the FFs for themselves and accused "liberals" of not respecting the FFs. You might be surprised to learn that many liberals - indeed, most of the ones I know - revere the FFs for their accomplishments. They also recognize that they were, after all, only men - and fairly young ones at that. The be-all and end-all of political thought does not rest with them.

Those ideas did not begin with Locke, Hume, Voltaire, etc., the ideas are thousands of years older than that, being found in the very earliest Jewish writings in what today is known as the Old Testament. The Founding Fathers were considered radical thinkers not because they came up with a new idea but because they rejected the status quo of their time which was monarchic governments that suppressed personal liberty, and demanded a return to orthodox religion (this is where the term "American exceptionalism" comes from, because the US government was an exception to how the rest of world operated). They drew their inspiration for self-governance, ultimately, from scripture, which is about as ancient an ideal as you can get. It's notable that today's liberals want to kick the Bible to the curb and embrace new ideas that are, in fact, contrary to the beliefs of our Founding Fathers.

[carpedm9587]

That is right, hand wave...

If you think it is otherwise, find me one person who is actually defending Yusra on the national scale. As best I can tell - no one knows she exists - except you guys and maybe some folks in Toronto. Trust me, the BLM folks don't read the right-wing media outlets.

Of course now that they know they categorically denounce her - right. And I'm sure the leadership knows her she is the founder of BLM Toronto after all.

You can assume anything you wish. I don't think "silence" tells you much of anything.

Well of course if you have less crime you may need less police, unless the level of police is what is keep the crime down. But of course we all know what is going to happen. Ya want to bet?

I don't know what YOU think is going to happen - but I think very little is going to happen. The systems being discussed are deeply entrenched with significant political and social power. Until there is a change in political leadership, and people willing to challenge the system, things will remain status-quo. I'm hoping this next round of elections will begin that change process.

Well in China they just execute you. And they are a police state (a real one).

There is no support I can find for a belief that the number of people that China executes/incarcerates is higher than our rate. We are the most jail-happy nation on earth.

We simply have more violent crime in this country than in most western countries. And the poor minorities are the ones committing the bulk of violent crimes - percentage wise.

That crime is related to poverty is a well-established fact. And that fact provides an avenue to reducing crime, if we choose to take it.

[carpedm9587]

Liberals are saying they want to replace police officers with social workers to handle "non-violent" calls, but as any police officer will tell you, it's not uncommon for a non-violent situation to suddenly and unexpectedly turn violent, and then what will a social worker do?

Such a suggestion is a "patch" on a flawed system - at best.

[carpedm9587]

That was on the website that you linked, the main website. And if they are that politically naive God help us if they ever gain any real power...

Which is exactly why so many of us have been seriously concerned about the political neophyte currently occupying the oval office

If the shoe fits...

It seems to. You guys continually toss out the "isms" as if you were warning people of the imminent arrival of the boogeyman. I'm not frightened by "isms." They are merely labels used to an entire school of thought or even group of people can be dismissed with a hand wave. They are largely pointless.

[carpedm9587]

Just curious, can you cite 3 examples of where Marxism has addressed this with positive results?

No, I can't. As far as I can tell - every attempt to take Marx's concepts and apply them in a "living experiment" has failed, often with disastrous results.

But the Marxist roots of the BLM founders largely appears to be an issue you and others on the right like to make hay out of. The term "marxism" or the name "Marx" or even the core principles of "marxism" have never surfaced in any of my encounters with anyone within BLM. And there is little of the core BLM beliefs, as represented on the national website, that specifically aligns with marxism. Indeed, the same list of "we believe" could be associated with pretty much any economic/political "ism," AFAICT.

What the actual people involved with the movement - at least the ones I have met and worked/talked with want is an opportunity to live, work, and love on a level playing field - one where their black skin is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, MLKs quote could be correctly rewritten as follows:

The ultimate weakness of racism is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning racism for racism multiplies racism, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

It is what we see in Yusra: the racism she experiences/experienced in her life seems to have created that same racism in herself. Affirmative action is a racist response to racism. Sometimes - in our anger - we respond to injustice by perpetrating injustices of our own. It isn't right - but it is human.

[carpedm9587]

Seriously? You support and work with an organization without knowing or caring what its founders believe?

I work with people, MM. I could give a fig about "founders." The founders all brought their own agendas to the organization. Some have since moved on. What the organization is and does is what matters to me - not who founded it or what they thought.

So let's take your Westboro Baptist Church example. Suppose the church ran a soup kitchen, and you learned that a Christian worked for and actively supported this ministry. You say, "How can you work there? Do you have any idea what the leaders of Westboro Baptist Church really believe?" and he responds, "I don't know, and I don't care. I'm just happy to serve homeless people." Would you really think that was an acceptable answer? I doubt it.

If what they were doing was serving soup to homeless people - no problem.
If what they were doing was joining in the picketing and promoting the views of the founders - big problem.

I work with the local chapter and sometimes with chapters in other cities. I have never encountered a belief within the organization I did not agree with. I have not encountered a belief posted on their national website that I was not sympathetic to. If I was ever required to compromise my ethics in order to work with them, or if the official organization began to espouse views I found ethically problematic, my association with them would end.

[Cow Poke]

No, I can't. As far as I can tell - every attempt to take Marx's concepts and apply them in a "living experiment" has failed, often with disastrous results.

But the Marxist roots of the BLM founders largely appears to be an issue you and others on the right like to make hay out of.....

I'll try to come back to the rest of this, but it's the social services (black) people I'm dealing with that are concerned about the motivation behind BLM.

Going to lunch with my sweetie!

[seer]

It seems to. You guys continually toss out the "isms" as if you were warning people of the imminent arrival of the boogeyman. I'm not frightened by "isms." They are merely labels used to an entire school of thought or even group of people can be dismissed with a hand wave. They are largely pointless.

Of course you are not, you are willing to embrace Marxism which is deeply anti-american since our system is grounded in personal property rights and individual rights.

[carpedm9587]

Thanks, and you appreciate it, so that makes it more fun.

(are we ready to hug it out yet?)

I never "hug it out" with Christian Texan Rednecks

Yes, yes they did. They spewed forth hatred and showed no love or mercy.

I don't know who that is, but I know Garza! And you can't POSSIBLY attack BLM like you can Westboro because...

A) Wesboro was so OBVIOUSLY wrong, and they're white and anti-gay, and caught it from all sides
2) BLM is such a 'good slogan' and they're black.

I'm not sure what to do with this. Personally, I can't "attack" BLM as a group because I agree with them. I can and do "attack" individual voices that either claim allegiance to BLM, or are even members in a leadership position within BLM, when I think they are stepping over the line. Yusra's comments, for example, were clearly racist, and clearly inappropriate. She strikes me as a young, angry, naive, black woman who is responding to racial injustice with racial injustice of her own. Fortunately, that is not the spirit of the BLM I know and have come to appreciate. Unfortunately, her words are picked up by the right and cited as emblematic of the entire organization.

There is a significant anti-BLM reaction from many on the right. It seems to be especially true of anyone in law enforcement. Given the anti-law enforcement message BLM regularly puts out, I can understand that. I think it would be a natural response for anyone to react to someone that is "anti" whoever/whatever you are. But the issues they raise are real ones - and they need to be addressed. There IS a systemic problem in U.S. police forces that is pretty universal. I absolutely accept that it is not all police who are racist. And I don't even think it is most of them. But there are a significant number of bad apples - and there is a systemic "closing of the ranks" when one of these bad apples acts out. I sincerely doubt that any of the police who were involved with Floyd's death or any of the other deaths that have come to light in the past couple months are going to be convicted. The "system" will protect them. That is a problem.

[seer]

I work with people, MM. I could give a fig about "founders." The founders all brought their own agendas to the organization. Some have since moved on. What the organization is and does is what matters to me - not who founded it or what they thought.

Even if they are using black lives as a wedge issue to disguise the ulterior motive of pushing Marxism?