4 ms·

I did read the article; where do you see anywhere in there $33 million being given to Black Lives Matters? The claim is specious.

gozur88 10y ago
No it isn't. The article just tries a little mental flimflam with "umbrella organizations". If you think about that for a minute it's just a no-true-Scotsman argument.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  Near as I can tell, Soros founded the Open Society Foundation (OSF) in 1993, and Soros is not involved in the day to day operations. The OSF, in turn, gave a grant to BLM. The way the washtimes puts it (and Limbaugh etc.), one might think Soros himself gave money directly to BLM, but that's not the case. There is more nuance and context that is relevant, and it is a distinction with a difference.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    So your contention is Soros founded OSF with a boatload of money but has no influence on where the money goes? I can get you a bridge for cheap. One thing I've found disturbing about this election is the extent to which Democrats can stare blatant corruption in the face and not see it.
- astazangasta 10y ago
  >Now, as The Daily Beast reported last week, “Black Lives Matter” is an umbrella term for a decentralized network of everything from blogs to in-person meet-ups—like movie nights or lectures—to protests to Facebook pages, making the task of pinpointing the number to $33 million impossible. This is the only use of the word "umbrella", here. It does not describe an "umbrella organization", a master control system. It describes the absence of central organization, an anarchist model of organizing, which, by the way, has been the favored method of organizing on the left for several decades. It is pointing out that it is impossible to give a grant to a group of people who lack central organizations. Some money might have gone to groups that are working on issues that BLM activists might care about - but $33 million has not been granted to BLM activists. If you believe otherwise, show us the list of grants.

gozur88 10y ago

No it isn't. The article just tries a little mental flimflam with "umbrella organizations". If you think about that for a minute it's just a no-true-Scotsman argument.

narrowrail 10y ago
Near as I can tell, Soros founded the Open Society Foundation (OSF) in 1993, and Soros is not involved in the day to day operations. The OSF, in turn, gave a grant to BLM. The way the washtimes puts it (and Limbaugh etc.), one might think Soros himself gave money directly to BLM, but that's not the case. There is more nuance and context that is relevant, and it is a distinction with a difference.
- gozur88 10y ago
  So your contention is Soros founded OSF with a boatload of money but has no influence on where the money goes? I can get you a bridge for cheap. One thing I've found disturbing about this election is the extent to which Democrats can stare blatant corruption in the face and not see it.
astazangasta 10y ago
>Now, as The Daily Beast reported last week, “Black Lives Matter” is an umbrella term for a decentralized network of everything from blogs to in-person meet-ups—like movie nights or lectures—to protests to Facebook pages, making the task of pinpointing the number to $33 million impossible. This is the only use of the word "umbrella", here. It does not describe an "umbrella organization", a master control system. It describes the absence of central organization, an anarchist model of organizing, which, by the way, has been the favored method of organizing on the left for several decades. It is pointing out that it is impossible to give a grant to a group of people who lack central organizations. Some money might have gone to groups that are working on issues that BLM activists might care about - but $33 million has not been granted to BLM activists. If you believe otherwise, show us the list of grants.