"the movement."

[Edwardo Piet]

"Black" represents darkness, "darkness" represents an absence rather than a presence: therefore black people do not exist. Only extremely brown people.

"Extremely Brown Lives Matter" doesn't roll off the tongue so well though.

[Aristocatt]

Let's take this one step at a time.
Why do you think BLM is obviously anti-democratic?
"We envision a remaking of the current U.S. political system in order to create a real democracy" - Website you linked.

Click on political power tab and you get this:

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

See what happens when you put things back into context???

The term "real democracy" surplants the current system as it would insure: "independent Black political power and Black self-determination in all areas of society." even if a given community would not normally democratically elect to have an 'independent black political power structure.'

Doesn't seem anti-Democratic to want more representation.
Seems like your just jumping the gun.
So now read the whole page up and down.  
Re-contextualize what you just said and point to a specific anti-democratic policy.
Part of their argument on that page for having more political power(and where they most clearly express what you seem to think is anti-democratic) is that they are not being represented as much as they should be if America was a porperly functioning Democracy.  That's debatable sure, but their general point, if I understand correctly, is just that they want representation that they think they would have if Money/Gerrymandering/Institutional Racism were not there to distort the Democratic process.

The demands BLM makes in order to destroy Democracy:
An end to the criminalization of Black political activity including the immediate release of all political prisoners and an end to the repression of political parties.
Public financing of elections and the end of money controlling politics through ending super PACs and unchecked corporate donations.
Election protection, electoral expansion and the right to vote for all people including: full access, guarantees, and protections of the right to vote for all people through universal voter registration, automatic voter registration, pre-registration for 16-year-olds, same day voter registration, voting day holidays, Online Voter Registration (OVR), enfranchisement of formerly and presently incarcerated people, local and state resident voting for undocumented people, and a ban on any disenfranchisement laws.
Full access to technology including net neutrality and universal access to the internet without discrimination and full representation for all.
Protection and increased funding for Black institutions including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Black media and cultural, political and social formations.

[I_am_not_mafia]

history
/ˈhɪst(ə)ri/
noun: "the study of past events, particularly in human affairs."

Context context Context you dishonest b-hole!

My challenge in CONTEXT:

Can anyone give an example of a S-SA country that can be a shinning example. A country who's policies would gladly be adopted by the US or EU? a country known for it's tolerance, progressive thinking and economic strength? Again, Asians, Middle easterners, Whites, Native Americans, Indians all contribute in the way of strong societies who all have something to give/offer in the way of a common unity. Meaning we all befit some philosophy, some industry, some something that the rest of the world uses and benefits from in someway.

I quoted the entire context. You asked for something not expecting an answer. You were given 5 answers. You then pretended that you had asked for something else. I quoted you to show how you shifted the goalposts. Now you use the falback theist argument about taking out of context. Fact is you were caught being disingeuous.

[I_am_not_mafia]

#drichcannotdebate

[Drich]

Context context Context you dishonest b-hole!

My challenge in CONTEXT:

Can anyone give an example of a S-SA country that can be a shinning example. A country who's policies would gladly be adopted by the US or EU? a country known for it's tolerance, progressive thinking and economic strength? Again, Asians, Middle easterners, Whites, Native Americans, Indians all contribute in the way of strong societies who all have something to give/offer in the way of a common unity. Meaning we all befit some philosophy, some industry, some something that the rest of the world uses and benefits from in someway.

I quoted the entire context. You asked for something not expecting an answer. You were given 5 answers. You then pretended that you had asked for something else. I quoted you to show how you shifted the goalposts. Now you use the falback theist argument about taking out of context. Fact is you were caught being disingeuous.

R-E-A-D.... T-H-E.... O-P!!!!

YOU are the pretending I am asking for something else.

The OP sets the tome for the whole discussion. I purposely framed out the requirements for what I identified as a successful society and gave examples all over the world that have both modern and ancient examples. The point I was making was that S-SA did not have both modern and ancient examples.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and that's why americans who happen to black cant be expected to create or meaningfully contribute to a "proper society", why drich finds the notion implausible.  Because black.

[Drich]

Doesn't seem anti-Democratic to want more representation. Seems like your just jumping the gun.

holy crap dude seriously? It's not just repersentation they want. The following is literally the first sentence:

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

next

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.

This is not representation, this is a complete remake of the current political system that ensures "Black political power and black self determination.." EVEN IF the majority does not vote for it. That's the 'remake part.'

So now read the whole page up and down.  

You have to read the page in accordance to how it would effect change inorder to establish and maintain the two Political empowerment statement above.

You can't just read the rest of the page, and just ignore the primary stated objective, that is mornic. EVERYTHING Else on Page is How BLM suggests or is in support to how they are able to establish and maintain the primary objectives.

Re-contextualize what you just said and point to a specific anti-democratic policy.

IF You frame everything under the mission statement header, as you are supposed to do. Then everything on page becomes an anti democratic policy. Because again if the primary mission is to "demand independent Black political power and Black self-determination in all areas of society." Rather than Elect independent Black political power and Black self-determination in all areas of society. then the demand and all that follows become a non democratic policy, but rather authoritistic in nature.

Part of their argument on that page for having more political power(and where they most clearly express what you seem to think is anti-democratic) is that they are not being represented as much as they should be if America was a porperly functioning Democracy.  That's debatable sure, but their general point, if I understand correctly, is just that they want representation that they think they would have if Money/Gerrymandering/Institutional Racism were not there to distort the Democratic process.

Eye candy for bleeding hearts.
This action would indeed weaken the current power structure, effectively lowering the bar and making office more attainable for the average joe... However the problem is what makes anyone think this is just gong to allow a black only canidate to fill a political position? It's not. Which does not jive with the initial demand for black political power. Hence eye candy for a bleeding heart.

The demands BLM makes in order to destroy Democracy:
An end to the criminalization of Black political activity including the immediate release of all political prisoners and an end to the repression of political parties.
Public financing of elections and the end of money controlling politics through ending super PACs and unchecked corporate donations.
Election protection, electoral expansion and the right to vote for all people including: full access, guarantees, and protections of the right to vote for all people through universal voter registration, automatic voter registration, pre-registration for 16-year-olds, same day voter registration, voting day holidays, Online Voter Registration (OVR), enfranchisement of formerly and presently incarcerated people, local and state resident voting for undocumented people, and a ban on any disenfranchisement laws.
Full access to technology including net neutrality and universal access to the internet without discrimination and full representation for all.
Protection and increased funding for Black institutions including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Black media and cultural, political and social formations.

Those things do indeed destabilize a democracy if infact the people's majority have via due process elected to have said rules.

[Drich]

#drichcannotdebate

#ByMovingGoalPosts

[Aristocatt]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What debating is to be had with someone who will not listen?