There is a huge difference between the simple concept that black lives matter and the official organization that is Black Lives Matter.

It's one of the biggest issues with postmodern thought; to avoid cultural dominance nothing is allowed universal meaning, it's all relative in any one of an infinite number of power hierarchies. "Socialism" is a great example. Ask 1000 people what it is and you would get 1000 different answers, any of which could be invalidated to shield the speaker from criticism using the oft spoken "that's not real Socialism".

So when someone says black lives matter, is it a literal statement? An idea? A loosely coupled movement? An organization? A philosophic doctrine? Yes, but also no.

I've always thought of BLM as an idea/recognition that some people choose to organize around. Some do it well, some don't.

Agreed, but it's too hard to whip up conservative snowflake fury against such a thing.

Your white boy read is true for your lived experience, but you should ask yourself why you get to define it at all and why you are restricting it to just that.

You define BLM constantly in your attempts to demonize it. What a ridiculous thing for you to say to someone.

Well, I suppose I could reframe it and say that out of the 5 possible definitions you suggested above, I think #1 and #2 are true, and they made lead to the 3 other possible definitions you suggested. Maybe that's the white boy way of looking at it, I don't know. To say it's an idea that can be taken in different directions is as broad a statement as one can make. I'm not one of the people defining further.

Yep, that's us.

I want to define it is as something like "the recognition of the unique history and experience of Black Americans, the injustice and struggles they continue to face, and the obligation of society to act to remedy them". From my white boy perspective that makes sense and is an honorable and just cause. My point was that just like "Antifa" and other leftist... words... the meaning is left intentionally nebulous so that it can used as a weapon or shield depending on the goals of the activist, meanwhile most people just sit there scared to speak for fear they would get accosted for using the wrong meaning. Same shit the red team does with "freedom".

I think your definition is an idea until you say “society has an obligation to act.” Which is a natural pathway. I just think “BLM” as it is (and as it began) is the idea. It is what you need to recognize before you act (or don’t). Democracy is also an idea, been around a long time, and has very different forms depending on how the particular group/nation decides to interpret the idea. Just my way of seeing it.

Everything I need to know about race I learned from Amber Ruffin. Trigger the snowflake apologists!

You're white, you don't actually know anything

That's why I didn't post a video of me.

That video was definitely made for you.

I'm not sure there was a single accurate sentence in that entire video other than the reciting of the Oregon state motto.


Most importantly, it fails to enact it's central premise which was explaining what CRT actually is.


And hopefully Amber knows this but Critical Theory is not the same as criticizing something, and CRT is not Critical Theory, but a postmodern reinterpretation of it.

Wikipedia: "Postmodern critical theory analyzes the fragmentation of cultural identities in order to challenge modernist-era constructs such as metanarratives, rationality, and universal truths, while politicizing social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings."

Communism is just the radical idea that we should share. Are you anti-sharing?

Amber Ruffin has her show behind a paywall. Only B's will ever see it, so it doesn't matter how accurate it is.

Way too many generalities in that video. Particularly in the final minute or so.

And just like Sam Bee … was that supposed to be funny? Drop the very sad attempts at humor and just earnestly say what you have to say.

Yup.


This is what CRT manifests as: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 1211008507


Please note this a major, peer-reviewed publication.

It’s a peer reviewed publication, but it’s not a major one. That journal has an impact factor of 0.5, meaning it is a niche publication with almost no impact or publishing audience.

Impact factor measures, among other things, how often research from a journal is cited or built on by other publications. For comparison, the Annual Review of Psychology as an impact factor of 10, the Journal of Applied Psychology has an impact factor of 5.8, and the New England Journal of Medicine has an impact factor of **74**.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but even r/science will close a thread discussing an article from a journal with an impact score of less than 1.5….three times the score this journal has. So if the journal of the american psychoanalytic association saw a major uptick in citations and follow-up research in related journals, they *might* eventually meet the criteria for discussion on Reddit.

It’s absolutely a terrible piece, for what it’s worth, and shouldn’t have been published anywhere.