|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 09 2015 15:42 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 14:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 09 2015 14:21 Yoav wrote:On August 09 2015 13:51 Deathstar wrote:
Why is Bernie being targetted by BLM? These "protestors" should go after Hillary who's probably going to be the nominee and can implement change. Why Bernie? Because they're not BLM. Seriously... famously unethical person in race against famously stand-up, even naive, guy, and all of a sudden protesters out of nowhere keeps disrupting his speeches saying he's a racist, despite his better racial record than anyone else in the race. I mean, yeah, maybe people in the movement are that stupid. But I doubt it. Ah, the classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I don't know why people hold "protest" groups in such high regard, no matter what their cause is. Once they get large enough, there will be plenty of idiots under the banner. And the longer they've existed for, the more their MOs will generally devolve into just being loud and disruptive. Partly because most have goals that will never be met in short time spans and they get collectively angrier about that, and partly because being loud and disruptive gets you a lot more attention than reaching out to the people who can assist your cause does. No, No True Scotsman would be if I were redefining BLM. My point was that the whole targeting Bernie thing is probably due to Hillary & Co., rather than an organic outgrowth of the movement. Yes, BLM people are defending them, since how can you not. And if this were happening to everybody, then, yeah, it would look less suspiscious. But the timing and targeting suggests something more directed. Are they literally paid Hillary Shills? Who knows. Could just be her having convinced a few people in the movement that Bernie is unelectable. Or maybe she offered jobs or favors, or who knows what. But I'm just not buying that BLM's entire movement of disruptive activists have decided that Bernie is the guy to go after, and she's obviously capable of this kind of thing and willing to do anything to win.
The same people funding Hillary also give money to BLM. Bernie isn't giving money to BLM. There's a strong chance this was expected otherwise funds would dry up.
I think the most important thing is to focus on the issues and not specific people. What happened early in the day was unfortunate but an expected part of growing a political revolution.
It won't always be pretty but, to me, what matters are the issues and electing someone who is going to address them.
|
If anyone is wondering why BLM continues to crash Bernie's speeches (today was not the first), I have the answer for you: George Soros.
Soros is a Jewish billionare who is currently funding BLM. You may notice how Hillary Clinton's speeches never get interrupted by BLM protestors like Bernie does. That's because Soros is supporting Hillary just like he supported Obama. She is the establishment candidate and he wants her to win. Soros has a long history of evil shit, more recently leaked emails between him and president Poroshenko suggesting that he wanted to escalate the war in ukraine by providing lethal weaponry. There are also leaked documents on the Internet proving that Soros hired people to riot at the ferguson protests.
|
On August 09 2015 15:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 15:42 Yoav wrote:On August 09 2015 14:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 09 2015 14:21 Yoav wrote:On August 09 2015 13:51 Deathstar wrote:
Why is Bernie being targetted by BLM? These "protestors" should go after Hillary who's probably going to be the nominee and can implement change. Why Bernie? Because they're not BLM. Seriously... famously unethical person in race against famously stand-up, even naive, guy, and all of a sudden protesters out of nowhere keeps disrupting his speeches saying he's a racist, despite his better racial record than anyone else in the race. I mean, yeah, maybe people in the movement are that stupid. But I doubt it. Ah, the classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I don't know why people hold "protest" groups in such high regard, no matter what their cause is. Once they get large enough, there will be plenty of idiots under the banner. And the longer they've existed for, the more their MOs will generally devolve into just being loud and disruptive. Partly because most have goals that will never be met in short time spans and they get collectively angrier about that, and partly because being loud and disruptive gets you a lot more attention than reaching out to the people who can assist your cause does. No, No True Scotsman would be if I were redefining BLM. My point was that the whole targeting Bernie thing is probably due to Hillary & Co., rather than an organic outgrowth of the movement. Yes, BLM people are defending them, since how can you not. And if this were happening to everybody, then, yeah, it would look less suspiscious. But the timing and targeting suggests something more directed. Are they literally paid Hillary Shills? Who knows. Could just be her having convinced a few people in the movement that Bernie is unelectable. Or maybe she offered jobs or favors, or who knows what. But I'm just not buying that BLM's entire movement of disruptive activists have decided that Bernie is the guy to go after, and she's obviously capable of this kind of thing and willing to do anything to win. The same people funding Hillary also give money to BLM. Bernie isn't giving money to BLM. There's a strong chance this was expected otherwise funds would dry up. I think the most important thing is to focus on the issues and not specific people. What happened early in the day was unfortunate but an expected part of growing a political revolution. It won't always be pretty but, to me, what matters are the issues and electing someone who is going to address them.
The existence of BLM is the indictment, along with the failure of "mainstream" Dems to outright condemn it. They are the basically Trump without a candidate.
|
Zzzzzzz and now the tankie/far-right shills are here as well. It's amazing how many colors Bernie supporters come in.
|
On August 09 2015 14:20 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 13:38 Shiragaku wrote:
As annoying as these protesters may be to some people, I am pretty irked when I hear Bernie supporters speaking to these issues and protesters as if they should bow down to Bernie for seemingly being on their side. The memories of the Paul fanboys lecturing racial minorities of how they should bow down to the great Paul because he also opposed excessive use of power. This kind of condescension is very similar to the sudden shift in attitude when the civil rights movement went from focusing on the barbaric South to the problems in the North which is where the real controversy started
I know some people here went "WTF, this guy marched with MLK and fought against segregation" but so did Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (to a small extent) This is so petty. Bernie is bar-none the strongest advocate for minorities and poor people among the presidential candidates. Bernie supporters must be loyal and euphoric about him because the alternative is Hillary, who's slated to be the nominee barring a miracle by the people (political revolution). Why bring him down? You say "seemingly on their side"... do you really think "seemingly" is the right word to describe Bernie on black people?
I am skeptical of identity politics but the reason I express so much skepticism towards Bernie's attitude regarding poverty is because minorities have a history of being left out of social and welfare reform programs in the US from the New Deal, the Great Society, and got hammered the most when Clinton made his reforms so is it a surprise that there is skepticism when Bernie is pretty much a repetition in the history of US populism? From what I can see, the history of black oppression and poverty in the US is not something that can simply be dismissed by saying "This is a guy who is against poverty and is against racism and made some comments condemning the police" because shit like this has been said before. Roosevelt, LBJ, and Bernie are not racists, but there are elements in the American structure that favor some more than others.
|
On August 09 2015 16:06 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 14:20 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 13:38 Shiragaku wrote:
As annoying as these protesters may be to some people, I am pretty irked when I hear Bernie supporters speaking to these issues and protesters as if they should bow down to Bernie for seemingly being on their side. The memories of the Paul fanboys lecturing racial minorities of how they should bow down to the great Paul because he also opposed excessive use of power. This kind of condescension is very similar to the sudden shift in attitude when the civil rights movement went from focusing on the barbaric South to the problems in the North which is where the real controversy started
I know some people here went "WTF, this guy marched with MLK and fought against segregation" but so did Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (to a small extent) This is so petty. Bernie is bar-none the strongest advocate for minorities and poor people among the presidential candidates. Bernie supporters must be loyal and euphoric about him because the alternative is Hillary, who's slated to be the nominee barring a miracle by the people (political revolution). Why bring him down? You say "seemingly on their side"... do you really think "seemingly" is the right word to describe Bernie on black people? I am skeptical of identity politics but the reason I express so much skepticism towards Bernie's attitude regarding poverty is because minorities have a history of being left out of social and welfare reform programs in the US from the New Deal, the Great Society, and got hammered the most when Clinton made his reforms so is it a surprise that there is skepticism when Bernie is pretty much a repetition in the history of US populism? From what I can see, the history of black oppression and poverty in the US is not something that can simply be dismissed by saying "This is a guy who is against poverty and is against racism and made some comments condemning the police" because shit like this has been said before. Roosevelt, LBJ, and Bernie are not racists, but there are elements in the American structure that favor some more than others.
fwiw Bernie literally marched with MLK Jr. He's consistently been a civil rights activist- both in politics and out- for 50 years.
|
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad.
|
On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad.
It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear.
It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on.
|
On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on.
Realize that you are basically relegating the decisionmaking abilities of BLM to that of purely reactionary animals, as though they lack the foresight to understand that Bernie is far and away the candidate that best serves their interests. But yes, I hope BLM continues to disrupt Bernie's campaign, solidifying either Hillary's or a Republican's bid for the presidency. Maybe then they'll be able to understand the consequences of their pathetically shortsighted actions.
|
On August 09 2015 15:10 LimpingGoat wrote:
They are true BLM, the Seattle chapter even released statement supporting their actions.
Do you have a link to this? I was under the impression that the official BLM page issued an apology for what happened, but I can't find it.
From what I've read, the two who interrupted Bernie's rally are from a local offshoot group (Marissa Johnson, one of the interrupters, is the media contact). What happened was unfortunate, but I think Bernie handled it well.
@GH - I caught what I could of that 15k attendee event on the periscope link last night. The event looked hype as hell.
|
On August 09 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. Realize that you are basically relegating the decisionmaking abilities of BLM to that of purely reactionary animals, as though they lack the foresight to understand that Bernie is far and away the candidate that best serves their interests. But yes, I hope BLM continues to disrupt Bernie's campaign, solidifying either Hillary's or a Republican's bid for the presidency. Maybe then they'll be able to understand the consequences of their pathetically shortsighted actions.
Not at all, I can give you some media if you're actually interested in understanding why what you're saying is why we'll lose, and how what BLM is doing is not what you think it is.
Catch is it's at least an hour worth of listening. I'd even help you along because that's where I disagree the most with some factions of BLM. But I guarantee Democrats and liberals alike will lose en masse if they don't learn why this is happening.
|
On August 09 2015 22:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. Realize that you are basically relegating the decisionmaking abilities of BLM to that of purely reactionary animals, as though they lack the foresight to understand that Bernie is far and away the candidate that best serves their interests. But yes, I hope BLM continues to disrupt Bernie's campaign, solidifying either Hillary's or a Republican's bid for the presidency. Maybe then they'll be able to understand the consequences of their pathetically shortsighted actions. Not at all, I can give you some media if you're actually interested in understanding why what you're saying is why we'll lose, and how what BLM is doing is not what you think it is. Catch is it's at least an hour worth of listening. I'd even help you along because that's where I disagree the most with some factions of BLM. But I guarantee Democrats and liberals alike will lose en masse if they don't learn why this is happening.
This is public spectacle politics; if what you are doing cannot be explained in 10 minutes or less, the idea will not gain traction. That's just how it works. Accordingly, playing sleight of hand with mysterious reasons as to why BLM's brinksmanship is the only path to a Sanders presidency is both unproductive and an indication that you represent the same belligerence that went into these campaign disruptions. Like someone else said, it is incredibly difficult to avoid invoking the stereotype of the angry black person when the most popular, most liberal candidate in recent years gets his grassroots campaign events shutdown by black women who can't even give their cause any sort of substantive character past repeating a hashtag line. Add in a "well you've gotta appease these people or else you lose" line of reasoning for good measure. Bang, you've now basically put a figurative gun to the head of white liberals who would otherwise be best situated to better the plight of minorities. Yeah, that's great.
Nevertheless, this is a great reminder that I chose appropriately when I decided to attempt to give effect to my politics through the law rather than electoral politics.
|
They are without a doubt a form of black lives matter. You can claim that they are an "offshoot" all you want, but they are the natural evolution of the movement. Black lives matter, black voices matter, and if you're white you can either nod your head every time a black person says something stupid or you can fuck off.
White liberals haven't done enough? BLM hasn't done shit, because they don't have a goal, a strategy, or an endgame. Their leaders are the Anita Sarkeesians, the Ted Cruz's of black rights. They make money talking shit without any intention or without any capability of doing anything productive.
|
On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not).
This has literally nothing to do with political correctness.
|
On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on.
That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people.
I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah.
And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around.
|
On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around.
The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me."
And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow.
|
On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness.
If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem.
|
On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem.
PC has gone too far at times but is it really that big of a problem? Considering anyone who gets shit for saying something non-pc has about just as many supporters as critics?
|
On August 10 2015 01:55 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 01:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 00:03 kwizach wrote:On August 09 2015 10:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 09 2015 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So they disrupt the one candidate who marched with MLK, protested segregated housing? There were a lot of people debating "PC" earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement is a perfect example of why PC has nothing to do with respect or being an asshole. Those people are clearly assholes and/or not showing respect, but calling them on it is not PC, but what they are doing is PC. Moreover, if you point to stats/etc that don't back up their and/or contradict their movement, that is also not PC. That its a one way street is a hallmark of PC-ness. I'd contrast that with something like "Gamergate" (which I don't know much about substantively), where media basically wholeheartedly accepted the narrative of one side, and probably due to ignorance of the internet, basically smeared the whole movement due to a few Twitter threats and a doxxing. Things that happen to people like Thorin, Liquid112, etc all the time, and they take steps to avoid it (which these victims did not, and possibly intentionally did not). This has literally nothing to do with political correctness. If that it what you think, then it's clear why many people on the left don't think political correctness is a problem. PC has gone too far at times but is it really that big of a problem? Considering anyone who gets shit for saying something non-pc has about just as many supporters as critics?
If you investigated, at all, its effect on deterring important social science studies from even being conducted, you would not say this.
|
On August 10 2015 00:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around. The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me." And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow.
Black lives matter is intentionally divisive because the movement is designed to drain money from black people while making them feel good about themselves. It assumes that there are large swathes of people who don't think black people should be allowed to live. With that assumption, anyone who drinks the koolaid is taught to limit any discussion by non-black people to "I 100% agree with you" or you say that they think that black lives don't matter. It is the exact same tactic used by the radical pro-Israel lobby, where if you say anything remotely critical about Israel's actions or policies they will basically yell STOP HOLOCAUSTING US. This is designed to shut down any discussion while making the core membership feel good, and this is the exact same tactic that BLM uses. It IS divisive and it IS stupid. It's the difference between Malcolm X and MLK Jr. Hopefully I don't have to remind you who got the feet moving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
