(08-27-2020, 06:20 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote:

(08-27-2020, 09:14 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: There's two sides to BLM, the civil rights side and the radical political side. Unfortunately it's difficult to distinguish between the two because they won't formally organize to present a unified position and face accountability. So now we have this nebulous entity which is attempting to achieve positive change but doesn't have the credible authority to categorically denounce those who perform heinous acts in their name.

If BLM won't make the attempt to officially organize and codify their position, they can't be accepted as legitimate.

If any org upholding rights of African Americans should be supported by any person or corporation, it should be the NAACP, who effected change with non violence protest. Not the BLM thugs, who are more about Nation of Islam tactics than Dr. MLK and peaceful resistance.  That said, you are right on in your assessment, but its prob too far gone for BLM.  They need to rebrand.

You might want to revisit the civil rights movement and the role physical disobedience against the forces that be played in it. At the time white politicians and clergyman called MLK "too aggressive" and "too dangerous" as he openly courted confrontation. There's also a clear change in philosophy from early MLK to later years MLK. 

effective protests are not "peaceful"

---