7 ms·

How do you know those radical accounts aren't intentionally so, to discredit the movement? Equating the BLM movement with groupthink is actually groupthink.

throw_this_one 6y ago
Start with Shaun King, who is followed by millions. You can easily see the undertones on most of his posts.
- pstuart 6y ago
  Wikipedia has this: In June 2020, King tweeted that statues, murals, and stained glass windows depicting a white Jesus should be removed. "Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down," he tweeted. "They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been. Are you hurt by that assertion? Please show citations where actual "anti-white" comments are made. N.B. calling white people out on their shit is not "anti-white".
  - jariel 6y ago
    This is driving the problem if you're literally quoting blatantly 'anti-white' statements and then wondering where the 'anti-white' sentiment is. This language is certainly within the threshold of civility, he should be able to say such things without being 'cancelled' , but it's obviously 'anti white' and casually racist. He's antagonising to make a name for himself. This is the equivalent of Trump's 'Whuan Virus' rhetoric.
    - pstuart 6y ago
      It's not "anti-white". It's calling out a lie. If Jesus was real (and I'm in the camp that believes he wasn't), he wasn't white. I'm as white as they come and these statements don't threaten me. How was the statement I cited racist?
      - slowmovintarget 6y ago
        Jesus was real. There's documentation of his existence in letters between Roman governors. So he was at least an actual historical figure that was around back then. That being said, he would have been dark-skinned Middle Eastern, like everyone else in the region at the time.
        pstuart 6y ago
        Maybe there was a guy named Jesus around that time. But son of God? Only if you consider every man a son of God.
        slowmovintarget 6y ago
        I can only claim secular documentation for the former. :)
        jariel 6y ago
        I think you're missing the key dimensions of the issue here. Jesus is ultimately a metaphysical figure, his skin colour is irrelevant. Are you going to be the 'Young Stazi' going around from Church to Church with the Pantone cards making sure he's 'Pantone Lion 17-1330' and not a shade off? And will you do the same for the Buddha, who was almost assuredly 'Brown' (Indian sub-continent), and not 'East Asian' as often depicted? And what about all the Black and Asian Jesuses? You're going to take those down as well? We're gonna call out 1/2 the world as "RACIST!" now? And "That's a Lie." ... of all the concerns and 'evil lies' that people tell about Jesus and it's going to be his skin colour (?!?!) which, you're not even sure of? And maybe not, for example, the bit about 'turning water into wine'? It's Month Python crazy. Just FYI: - Jesus was probably a real person (Moses was not, Mohammed definitely was, Buddha probably was) , though obviously, if you're into 'historical' Jesus, he probably didn't turn water into wine. But the 'historical Jesus' isn't that interesting, it's the metaphorical/metaphysical person/creation that is the foundation of the Church and the Teacher. - His 'skin colour' was probably what see now in the Middle East and would have been identical to most Romans or Greek and would not have been seen as 'brown' as one would have to go to Ethopia/Nubia for that kind of thing even then. Jesus could have been fair skinned like many Greeks. In '19th century' terms people from the 'Middle East' are Caucasian - meaning 'White'. If a Lebanese citizen told you they identified as 'White' would you deny them that? The point being, the identification of Jesus as being 'White or Not' racially is not only missing the point, it's not even possible to define. - "But son of God? Only if you consider every man a son of God" once again, not even in the ballpark. For starters, not 'every man' was Abraham Lincoln, to start, and not every man started the the most influential and enduring social movement in world history. - Shawn King is an artist, making a name for himself. He's a rabble-rouser, getting his name spread around the world by making racist statements that others are only too willing to publish. Now - if Shawn wanted to say 'Hey, that White people depict their Lord as White, when he probably was not, might create a problematic perspective' and if Shawn also wanted to concede that this is actually common among religions and there's a universality to it, and wanted to have a discussion about this - that would be some intellectual rhetoric worth an evening on Charlie Rose if he wasn't cancelled. But he and his enablers at CNN are (painfully obviously) not interested in any discussion, rather, in attacking what they perceive to be 'White Culture' as the source of all of their problems. If Barack Obama, and avowed Christian and serious intellect, for example, wanted to talk about the issue of 'White depictions of Jesus' - now that would be fine, and he'd have the ear of half the nation. But Shawn needs to be cancelled because he has nothing to contribute but racist antagonising.
  - throw_this_one 6y ago
    So you're just taking one of his statements as the n=1 example that he's not racist? Just spend 5 mins perusing his Instagram, look at maybe 10 random posts and see the undertones.
    - pstuart 6y ago
      I don't do instagram. I perused his twitter and didn't see anything alarming. Again, calling out white people on their shit is not racist. Show me posts where he's issuing judgments of people solely on their skin color.
jariel 6y ago
"Equating the BLM movement with groupthink is actually groupthink." No, BLM one of the best examples of groupthink. I support BLM, specifically with respect to the notion of police violence against, specifically, Black people. But the BLM institution itself, is founded and driven by some ideologues with whom I disagree quite a lot. There are many public events and actions 'in the name of BLM' with which I disagree. The reason it's 'groupthink' and possibly oppressive, is because I'm not allowed to disagree with any of, without facing social consquence. To disagree with 'some' BLM issue, is to disagree with the the very notion of 'Black Lives Matter'. BLM is one of the most incidentally brilliant bits of communication in modern history - take a nominal, unassailable factual truth, like 'Black Lives Matter' - that nobody, but nobody can reasonably disagree with ... and then take that and do whatever you want 'in the name of BLM' - and you can pursue your agenda with vigour and aggression, knowing that you can smackdown anyone who disagrees with you with the moniker of 'racist'. The F1 had a race in which the drivers and teams 'knelt' before the start, but the CNN article was not in the affirmative 'some drivers support BLM' - no, it was in the negative: "Formula One drivers divided as several choose not to kneel in support of Black Lives Matter movement" [1]. No longer is this a movement which you get to support, but rather, if you do not support the movement, your actions will be made public and you will have to answer to them. This headline is pretty much on-point with respect to the nature of the article about 'The Prisoner' - though I should add, as having seen every episode in the original series, I disagree with the author's claim that it's about 'one kind of authority', I think the message is broader than that. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/motorsport/f1-austrian-grand-prix-drivers-kneel-and-stand-hamilton-bottas-spt-intl/index.html#:~:text=(CNN)%20The%20Formula%20One%20grid,the%20Black%20Lives%20Matter%20movement https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/motorsport/f1-austrian-grand-....
- pstuart 6y ago
  You're complaining about a CNN headline. That's on CNN (which I abhor), and is typical of media in trying to get clicks and attention. Nobody should be forced to take a knee, however, it is a simple gesture so it shouldn't be a big deal. Remember that this was originally done instead of standing and saluting the US flag, which is first class groupthink. A list of your disagreements with BLM would be interesting to see.
daveslash 6y ago
Similarly, how do you know those radical accounts aren't intentionally-so in order to divide us? I interpret your comment to suggest that there are U.S. based actors trying to discredit the BLM movement because they disagree with it. I suggest that, in addition, there may also be non U.S. based actors spewing purposefully radical content just to inflame tempers here. Honestly, I don't really know what to think of some of the radical content anymore... is it genuine? Is it malicious? I'm genuinely struggling to know what I think about most of the really radical content that I see online....
frogpelt 6y ago
Can they both be groupthink?
- pstuart 6y ago
  If "groupthink" is merely parroting what you're told without questioning it, no.

throw_this_one 6y ago

Start with Shaun King, who is followed by millions. You can easily see the undertones on most of his posts.

pstuart 6y ago
Wikipedia has this: In June 2020, King tweeted that statues, murals, and stained glass windows depicting a white Jesus should be removed. "Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down," he tweeted. "They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been. Are you hurt by that assertion? Please show citations where actual "anti-white" comments are made. N.B. calling white people out on their shit is not "anti-white".
- jariel 6y ago
  This is driving the problem if you're literally quoting blatantly 'anti-white' statements and then wondering where the 'anti-white' sentiment is. This language is certainly within the threshold of civility, he should be able to say such things without being 'cancelled' , but it's obviously 'anti white' and casually racist. He's antagonising to make a name for himself. This is the equivalent of Trump's 'Whuan Virus' rhetoric.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    It's not "anti-white". It's calling out a lie. If Jesus was real (and I'm in the camp that believes he wasn't), he wasn't white. I'm as white as they come and these statements don't threaten me. How was the statement I cited racist?
    - slowmovintarget 6y ago
      Jesus was real. There's documentation of his existence in letters between Roman governors. So he was at least an actual historical figure that was around back then. That being said, he would have been dark-skinned Middle Eastern, like everyone else in the region at the time.
      - pstuart 6y ago
        Maybe there was a guy named Jesus around that time. But son of God? Only if you consider every man a son of God.
        slowmovintarget 6y ago
        I can only claim secular documentation for the former. :)
        jariel 6y ago
        I think you're missing the key dimensions of the issue here. Jesus is ultimately a metaphysical figure, his skin colour is irrelevant. Are you going to be the 'Young Stazi' going around from Church to Church with the Pantone cards making sure he's 'Pantone Lion 17-1330' and not a shade off? And will you do the same for the Buddha, who was almost assuredly 'Brown' (Indian sub-continent), and not 'East Asian' as often depicted? And what about all the Black and Asian Jesuses? You're going to take those down as well? We're gonna call out 1/2 the world as "RACIST!" now? And "That's a Lie." ... of all the concerns and 'evil lies' that people tell about Jesus and it's going to be his skin colour (?!?!) which, you're not even sure of? And maybe not, for example, the bit about 'turning water into wine'? It's Month Python crazy. Just FYI: - Jesus was probably a real person (Moses was not, Mohammed definitely was, Buddha probably was) , though obviously, if you're into 'historical' Jesus, he probably didn't turn water into wine. But the 'historical Jesus' isn't that interesting, it's the metaphorical/metaphysical person/creation that is the foundation of the Church and the Teacher. - His 'skin colour' was probably what see now in the Middle East and would have been identical to most Romans or Greek and would not have been seen as 'brown' as one would have to go to Ethopia/Nubia for that kind of thing even then. Jesus could have been fair skinned like many Greeks. In '19th century' terms people from the 'Middle East' are Caucasian - meaning 'White'. If a Lebanese citizen told you they identified as 'White' would you deny them that? The point being, the identification of Jesus as being 'White or Not' racially is not only missing the point, it's not even possible to define. - "But son of God? Only if you consider every man a son of God" once again, not even in the ballpark. For starters, not 'every man' was Abraham Lincoln, to start, and not every man started the the most influential and enduring social movement in world history. - Shawn King is an artist, making a name for himself. He's a rabble-rouser, getting his name spread around the world by making racist statements that others are only too willing to publish. Now - if Shawn wanted to say 'Hey, that White people depict their Lord as White, when he probably was not, might create a problematic perspective' and if Shawn also wanted to concede that this is actually common among religions and there's a universality to it, and wanted to have a discussion about this - that would be some intellectual rhetoric worth an evening on Charlie Rose if he wasn't cancelled. But he and his enablers at CNN are (painfully obviously) not interested in any discussion, rather, in attacking what they perceive to be 'White Culture' as the source of all of their problems. If Barack Obama, and avowed Christian and serious intellect, for example, wanted to talk about the issue of 'White depictions of Jesus' - now that would be fine, and he'd have the ear of half the nation. But Shawn needs to be cancelled because he has nothing to contribute but racist antagonising.
- throw_this_one 6y ago
  So you're just taking one of his statements as the n=1 example that he's not racist? Just spend 5 mins perusing his Instagram, look at maybe 10 random posts and see the undertones.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    I don't do instagram. I perused his twitter and didn't see anything alarming. Again, calling out white people on their shit is not racist. Show me posts where he's issuing judgments of people solely on their skin color.

jariel 6y ago

"Equating the BLM movement with groupthink is actually groupthink." No, BLM one of the best examples of groupthink. I support BLM, specifically with respect to the notion of police violence against, specifically, Black people. But the BLM institution itself, is founded and driven by some ideologues with whom I disagree quite a lot. There are many public events and actions 'in the name of BLM' with which I disagree. The reason it's 'groupthink' and possibly oppressive, is because I'm not allowed to disagree with any of, without facing social consquence. To disagree with 'some' BLM issue, is to disagree with the the very notion of 'Black Lives Matter'. BLM is one of the most incidentally brilliant bits of communication in modern history - take a nominal, unassailable factual truth, like 'Black Lives Matter' - that nobody, but nobody can reasonably disagree with ... and then take that and do whatever you want 'in the name of BLM' - and you can pursue your agenda with vigour and aggression, knowing that you can smackdown anyone who disagrees with you with the moniker of 'racist'. The F1 had a race in which the drivers and teams 'knelt' before the start, but the CNN article was not in the affirmative 'some drivers support BLM' - no, it was in the negative: "Formula One drivers divided as several choose not to kneel in support of Black Lives Matter movement" [1]. No longer is this a movement which you get to support, but rather, if you do not support the movement, your actions will be made public and you will have to answer to them. This headline is pretty much on-point with respect to the nature of the article about 'The Prisoner' - though I should add, as having seen every episode in the original series, I disagree with the author's claim that it's about 'one kind of authority', I think the message is broader than that. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/motorsport/f1-austrian-grand-prix-drivers-kneel-and-stand-hamilton-bottas-spt-intl/index.html#:~:text=(CNN)%20The%20Formula%20One%20grid,the%20Black%20Lives%20Matter%20movement https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/motorsport/f1-austrian-grand-....

pstuart 6y ago
You're complaining about a CNN headline. That's on CNN (which I abhor), and is typical of media in trying to get clicks and attention. Nobody should be forced to take a knee, however, it is a simple gesture so it shouldn't be a big deal. Remember that this was originally done instead of standing and saluting the US flag, which is first class groupthink. A list of your disagreements with BLM would be interesting to see.

daveslash 6y ago

Similarly, how do you know those radical accounts aren't intentionally-so in order to divide us? I interpret your comment to suggest that there are U.S. based actors trying to discredit the BLM movement because they disagree with it. I suggest that, in addition, there may also be non U.S. based actors spewing purposefully radical content just to inflame tempers here. Honestly, I don't really know what to think of some of the radical content anymore... is it genuine? Is it malicious? I'm genuinely struggling to know what I think about most of the really radical content that I see online....

frogpelt 6y ago

Can they both be groupthink?

pstuart 6y ago
If "groupthink" is merely parroting what you're told without questioning it, no.