|
Post by 411500 on Aug 6, 2020 14:34:07 GMT -8
wetrodentia - - you wrote: "Regarding BLM the organization, it's an anti-American communist front. Period. It's not debatable. All you have to do is look at their website... Among many of its goals is the desire to dissolve the nuclear family - mission already accomplished."
I always try to learn from others, so help me out, please. I just read the BLM website. I can't find where it indicates they are an anti-American communist front. Can you let me know where it says that? Same with "the desire to dissolve the nuclear family.." - Can you help me with that?
Assuming, you mean what you say, and say what you mean - please explain why you said what you said. What you said is pretty simple and straight-forward. So simple, straight-forward answers are fine. Thanks. GO BEAVS !!
|
|
|
Post by jefframp on Aug 6, 2020 15:15:51 GMT -8
I used to own land in Central Oregon that abutted property run by the BLM. Does that make me a lefty?
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Aug 6, 2020 16:33:45 GMT -8
Fun, come to the site to read about basketball and there are to opposing sides kicking each other in the nuts.
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Aug 6, 2020 16:36:35 GMT -8
I used to own land in Central Oregon that abutted property run by the BLM. Does that make me a lefty? If the left shoe fits...
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Aug 6, 2020 17:32:25 GMT -8
I know very little about Senator Loeffler, but "Black Lives Matter" is 2 different things - a simple statement, as you pointed out, and an organization. What I know about the Senator's comments is that she was addressing the league's blanket support of the organization, without in any way disparaging the sentiment behind the statement. She has a point in that some of the founders of the organization are reputed to have a Marxist background. The league's statement in support implied (to my understanding) that all individuals connected with the league (players, coaches, administrators, trainers ...) support the organization. That would be doing a disservice to those who don't agree with all the myriad numbers of political positions the organization has taken and will take going forward. For example, the organization will no doubt be endorsing candidates this November. It might already have announced positions (I have no clue if they have) on things like reparations or defunding the police. You will readily see that supporting the statement and supporting the organization are 2 very different things. Sports leagues do not do endorsement deals with political parties. There is no Democratic Party Staples Center, no Rose Bowl game presented by the GOP, and no, "Libertarian, the official political philosophy of Major League Baseball." Senator Loeffler is right to point out that the league's endorsements on the political side of things should be limited to clearly defined and specific rights and freedoms, and should never go to organizations where leadership changes can result in drastic changes in policies and procedures. (Those old enough might recall that happening with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the Black Panther Party back in the 60's.) The league dedicated their season to the movement, not the organization. www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/sports/basketball/kelly-loeffler-atlanta-dream-protests.html“ Senator Kelly Loeffler, Republican of Georgia, is a co-owner of the Atlanta Dream and has been vocally criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement and the league’s embrace of it.” The leagues statement said they were dedicating the season to social justice and the games would honor the Black Lives Matter movement. In that context, I would view the word 'movement' as a synonym for 'organization'. The movement, if you will, is social justice, and I don't think the Senator said anything questioning that, did she? Note the capital letters in Black Lives Matter, making it an organization as written out. One supports the progressive cause (no caps), which might lead one to support the Progressive Party, if there were one. Somebody asked about the dismantling of the nuclear family. It's right there on the BLM website. They advocate for more of an "It Takes a Village" approach it seems. Once again, this illustrates the vast difference between supporting a cause (social justice) rather than an organization (BLM). The organization's scope might well go beyond what is basic to the cause, as is the case here.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 6, 2020 18:39:05 GMT -8
The leagues statement said they were dedicating the season to social justice and the games would honor the Black Lives Matter movement. In that context, I would view the word 'movement' as a synonym for 'organization'. The movement, if you will, is social justice, and I don't think the Senator said anything questioning that, did she? Note the capital letters in Black Lives Matter, making it an organization as written out. One supports the progressive cause (no caps), which might lead one to support the Progressive Party, if there were one. Somebody asked about the dismantling of the nuclear family. It's right there on the BLM website. They advocate for more of an "It Takes a Village" approach it seems. Once again, this illustrates the vast difference between supporting a cause (social justice) rather than an organization (BLM). The organization's scope might well go beyond what is basic to the cause, as is the case here. A lot of folks supported the goals and accomplishments of the greater "Labor Movement" without necessarily being on board with say, the Teamsters. Just like I can have positive relationship to Christianity without supporting frauds like Jerry Falwell Jr. or Jim Bakker. Movement vs Organization. They're not the same.
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Aug 6, 2020 19:30:06 GMT -8
The leagues statement said they were dedicating the season to social justice and the games would honor the Black Lives Matter movement. In that context, I would view the word 'movement' as a synonym for 'organization'. The movement, if you will, is social justice, and I don't think the Senator said anything questioning that, did she? Note the capital letters in Black Lives Matter, making it an organization as written out. One supports the progressive cause (no caps), which might lead one to support the Progressive Party, if there were one. Somebody asked about the dismantling of the nuclear family. It's right there on the BLM website. They advocate for more of an "It Takes a Village" approach it seems. Once again, this illustrates the vast difference between supporting a cause (social justice) rather than an organization (BLM). The organization's scope might well go beyond what is basic to the cause, as is the case here. A lot of folks supported the goals and accomplishments of the greater "Labor Movement" without necessarily being on board with say, the Teamsters. Just like I can have positive relationship to Christianity without supporting frauds like Jerry Falwell Jr. or Jim Bakker. Movement vs Organization. They're not the same. Precisely what I was saying; well put! Social justice is a movement, Black Lives Matter an organization; they're not the same.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 6, 2020 20:20:46 GMT -8
A lot of folks supported the goals and accomplishments of the greater "Labor Movement" without necessarily being on board with say, the Teamsters. Just like I can have positive relationship to Christianity without supporting frauds like Jerry Falwell Jr. or Jim Bakker. Movement vs Organization. They're not the same. Precisely what I was saying; well put! Social justice is a movement, Black Lives Matter an organization; they're not the same. Maybe to you. Not to me. To me it means precisely what those three words say.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 6, 2020 21:23:49 GMT -8
Anyone who thinks the simple declaration “Black Lives Matter” is something sinister, as Ms Loeffler does, qualifies as a clueless nut-job in my book. If you agree with Loeffler I can’t help you. And I’d bet as an intelligent, educated and aware young woman, Mikayla doesn’t see that simple declaration as threatening or sinister either. I know very little about Senator Loeffler, but "Black Lives Matter" is 2 different things - a simple statement, as you pointed out, and an organization. What I know about the Senator's comments is that she was addressing the league's blanket support of the organization, without in any way disparaging the sentiment behind the statement. She has a point in that some of the founders of the organization are reputed to have a Marxist background. The league's statement in support implied (to my understanding) that all individuals connected with the league (players, coaches, administrators, trainers ...) support the organization. That would be doing a disservice to those who don't agree with all the myriad numbers of political positions the organization has taken and will take going forward. For example, the organization will no doubt be endorsing candidates this November. It might already have announced positions (I have no clue if they have) on things like reparations or defunding the police. You will readily see that supporting the statement and supporting the organization are 2 very different things. Sports leagues do not do endorsement deals with political parties. There is no Democratic Party Staples Center, no Rose Bowl game presented by the GOP, and no, "Libertarian, the official political philosophy of Major League Baseball." Senator Loeffler is right to point out that the league's endorsements on the political side of things should be limited to clearly defined and specific rights and freedoms, and should never go to organizations where leadership changes can result in drastic changes in policies and procedures. (Those old enough might recall that happening with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the Black Panther Party back in the 60's.) lol Marxist lol
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 6, 2020 21:27:11 GMT -8
lol "lefties" lol
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Aug 6, 2020 22:47:57 GMT -8
Precisely what I was saying; well put! Social justice is a movement, Black Lives Matter an organization; they're not the same. Maybe to you. Not to me. To me it means precisely what those three words say. Three words can be a slogan, a mantra, a simple statement, or a name. Used as any of the first three, they mean exactly what they say - absolutely nothing less, absolutely nothing more. When they become the name of an entity, however, many more words get added to the mix, many more thoughts branch out from that initial concept. That's hardly unique to this organization; it's pretty much a universal. You start out as a grassroots association which develops followers and loose knit chapters in other towns and cities, and suddenly you're a national thing - like Occupy Wall Street was. Then, either you ultimately fade away, as the Occupy movement did, or somebody organizes you. You develop a written statement of core beliefs and objectives, you put all that on a website, and you list your leadership so that the media can turn to specific people who speak for the organization. That is what BLM has morphed into, and you pretty much have to do that if you're going to have any staying power. Nothing at all wrong with that. I applaud them for what they've accomplished. But as such organizations grow, they invariably take positions further afield from the initial premise. In this instance, for example, BLM (as I read their stuff) seems to favor strictly black communities and culture in which the community takes the place of the nuclear family. If that's what people want to do, I don't care. That wouldn't be my choice, so I wouldn't support the idea, but, then again, they wouldn't support mine either. The WNBA, however, didn't just limit their support to the three word statement, which is certainly worthy of support. They jumped in full bore to honor Black Lives Matter, the organization. That organization will become more and more political with each passing day. The replacement of the nuclear family concept is certainly not one that all WNBA players will agree with (can you envision any of our recent OSU players agreeing with it?), but now the league has included them in its support of it. As BLM continues to expand its message, certainly other ideas will be put forward that many connected with the league will find themselves in disagreement with. The league supporting the furtherance of social justice in general is fine; tieing in with a political organization is a mistake. I think that's what the Senator was trying to convey.
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Aug 6, 2020 23:46:19 GMT -8
Maybe to you. Not to me. To me it means precisely what those three words say. Three words can be a slogan, a mantra, a simple statement, or a name. Used as any of the first three, they mean exactly what they say - absolutely nothing less, absolutely nothing more. When they become the name of an entity, however, many more words get added to the mix, many more thoughts branch out from that initial concept. That's hardly unique to this organization; it's pretty much a universal. You start out as a grassroots association which develops followers and loose knit chapters in other towns and cities, and suddenly you're a national thing - like Occupy Wall Street was. Then, either you ultimately fade away, as the Occupy movement did, or somebody organizes you. You develop a written statement of core beliefs and objectives, you put all that on a website, and you list your leadership so that the media can turn to specific people who speak for the organization. That is what BLM has morphed into, and you pretty much have to do that if you're going to have any staying power. Nothing at all wrong with that. I applaud them for what they've accomplished. But as such organizations grow, they invariably take positions further afield from the initial premise. In this instance, for example, BLM (as I read their stuff) seems to favor strictly black communities and culture in which the community takes the place of the nuclear family. If that's what people want to do, I don't care. That wouldn't be my choice, so I wouldn't support the idea, but, then again, they wouldn't support mine either. The WNBA, however, didn't just limit their support to the three word statement, which is certainly worthy of support. They jumped in full bore to honor Black Lives Matter, the organization. That organization will become more and more political with each passing day. The replacement of the nuclear family concept is certainly not one that all WNBA players will agree with (can you envision any of our recent OSU players agreeing with it?), but now the league has included them in its support of it. As BLM continues to expand its message, certainly other ideas will be put forward that many connected with the league will find themselves in disagreement with. The league supporting the furtherance of social justice in general is fine; tieing in with a political organization is a mistake. I think that's what the Senator was trying to convey. Yeah, I don't think that was what the Senator was trying to convey. From the BLM website "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable." I don't see anything about replacing the nuclear family. By the way, I had to think a while to remember anyone who fits the traditional family concept these days.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 7, 2020 7:17:37 GMT -8
I can't imagine Mikayla wearing a "Vote Warnock" shirt to the court. I don't know if she saw something in the organization (WNBA) that she didn't like, but she was wise to step away at this moment until they can rediscover that the game is about the game. Going back to the start. Wasn't this a very silly post to begin with? Assuming how an OSU player who did not make a WNBA team would be acting if she had made a team. Based on, what? Pleasantries you exchanged with her during some fan/player interaction? You assume she shares your political views. I'm not making those assumptions - I'm saying we have no way of knowing.
|
|