(November 17, 2016 at 7:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: What debating is to be had with someone who will not listen?

Misplaced Optimism.

(November 17, 2016 at 7:57 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 7:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: What debating is to be had with someone who will not listen?

Misplaced Optimism.

Hopes aren't interactions.

(November 17, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: dumb ass READ THEIR NEW PLATFORM FROM THEIR WEB SITE!!!! IT HAS CHANGED!!!

Being Drich is the sign of a diseased mind.

(November 17, 2016 at 5:48 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Again, It sounds as though you are choosing to interpret the statement how you see fit.  
From one perspective you suggest they are anti democratic.
From another perspective it seems as though they might be calling for a more perfect Democracy and are asserting that a series of institutional undemocratic barriers causes the black community to be underrepresented in society today.  
Or you know maybe, like any activist group, they use the word demand loosely when creating a list of what they would like to see.

So with two/three/more competing ideas about what BLM really wants, we could of course send them an email and ask them to clarify their position.  Maybe all of our interpretations are wrong!  Or we could look at the rest of the page see what they say they want.  

For example they make a series of "demands" about voter registration.  Whether or not you think these are good ideas, the issue the are bringing up is specifically that current law disenfranchises their community.  These are specifically claims that the current process is undemocratic.  
So BLM makes a statement that summarizes their demands that is ambiguously undemocratic.
Then they say they want to improve democracy.
Then they have a series of demands that they explain should be met because if they are not, the democratic process itself is being undermined.

Sounds fishy.  I think you are suffering from confirmation bias.  You want BLM to be undemocratic so you work to prove, poorly, that they are undemocratic.

Inorder for you statement to be valid you have to cut out the "political power" mission statement out of the BLM manifesto.

Quote:We demand independent Black political power and Black self-determination in all areas of society.

This statement alone (and the fact you will not discuss their own words here) disavows any spin you are attempting to put of their methods of achieving a "better democracy." Because our democracy does not make any race specific provisions or guarantees of power to specific race.

That Is why they say in the second 1/2 of the Mission statement that the current system must be changed. Not made 'better' as you are trying to spin, but to change it where there is always a black political power base in the government.

Quote:We envision a remaking of the current U.S. political system in order to create a real democracy where Black people and all marginalized people can effectively exercise full political power.

Nothing here about improving what we have, only the repeal and replacement of our current system with what BLM considers to be a "real democracy" one that ensures "an independent black political power and black self determination." Despite how the current system would vote on these issues.

So your right, i do have a confirmation bias as my understanding of what BLM is trying to do is confirmed by their OWN MISSION STATEMENT!

How do you not understand that the body of this section on political power is seen as to how the mission statement is supposed to be achieved? It even says "This includes:" (your eye candy) but it is not limited to those things. Again The Mission statement is the rudder on this boat. Your eye candy statements are meant to bridge a gap from the radical positions they hold to your bleeding heart middle ground, they are like a map. However the mission statement steers the BLM boat, not the map. The map is just where they may or may not plot a course. Ultimately the mission statement is what determines where the boat actually goes. So again my 'views' are verified by what BLM says it wants to do

(November 17, 2016 at 8:39 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: dumb ass READ THEIR NEW PLATFORM FROM THEIR WEB SITE!!!! IT HAS CHANGED!!!

...And quotes from others, shows signs of an empty one.

~Drich~

(November 17, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: dumb ass READ THEIR NEW PLATFORM FROM THEIR WEB SITE!!!! IT HAS CHANGED!!!

It's not about police shootings anymore it is about establishing a political power base to change the US government into??? That is what this thread is about. IF they change the government what will it look like? Somalia?

Lol, I don't even know why I reply to you when you have the reading comprehension of a five year-old.

That's as Quixotic as it gets.

I mean you came here asking what BLM wants.  Now when given another perspective you just shake your head and say nope, I must be interpreting this correctly.

You haven't brought up new information, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over.  You haven't bothered to address new information as it comes to you.  Basically your argument boils down to:
I interpret statement X as anti democratic, therefore it must be anti democratic, therefore everything they say is anti Democratic.  

You haven't explained why the statement you keep quoting is anti-democratic.  
They want more political power to be held by black people.  That is what the statement you keep repeating boils down to.
They argue the current amount of power held by black people under represents the black community, and if voting were more democratic and less oligarchic, then that would be the case.  
That is a real point they are making.  And when you contextualize their demand for more power, their statement very clearly becomes anti-oligarchic.  If you are unwilling to contextualize what they say, and take everything they say at absolute face value, then the most direct quote they have involves "creating a more perfect democracy".  That is part of their "rudder" that you wanted to put into context.  Now that you are being asked to contextualize a statement you seem to think(it doesn't even by itself) supports your argument by looking beyond simply one statement made, you push back and say "No I don't need to do that, I already have my answer".

But that's completely antithetical to why you came here.  
The only sensible question you asked in the OP was:
"Now my question is, what exactly is BLM trying to change?"

Also you don't know what confirmation bias is.

(November 18, 2016 at 10:24 am)Drich Wrote: ...And quotes from others, shows signs of an empty one.

~Drich~

That's what we've been trying to tell you every time you pop out a bible quote.

(November 16, 2016 at 3:39 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: There's a reason why those empires are defunct, Drich ... but it's not the reason you posited in your OP.

Once again flaunting your ignorance of history.

By the way, colonialism finally ended in Sub-Saharan Africa in the 60s. Guess you need to brush up on your math, too, Squib.

1974 for Portugal (the two wars for independence in Mozambique and Angola were actually caused the fascist Salazar regime to fall) actually and 1980 for the UK (Zimbabwe). And what's actually happened is that western countries have fallen back to the British pre Scramble model of informal empire, where local dictators are propped up in a nominal show of independence.