BLM: Feeling a Little Uncomfortable?

[NCTraveler]

Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

So here we have to fairly well off white men who weren't shown the greatest level of respect. Two pretty well to do white men who have had their character questioned on message boards and all across the internet, somewhat undeservedly so.

This has brought a large group to now attack the BLM movement. Calling them things that every single black person has heard before. No different. BLM isn't behaving and are speaking out of place. This wasn't in their best interests.

The treatment of those two well to do white men is what happens to blacks every day they walk out their door. Judgments made on our character without ever knowing us. Assumptions made about us with nothing to back it up. Words unfairly thrown in our direction completely undeserved. Not being given a fair chance even though we have a track record as individuals of doing great things for society.

So don't mind me if I don't give one shit about how BLM has offended you. Or upset you. Or spoken out of line. Or disrupted "your guy."

OR MADE YOUR PREFERRED POLITICIAN FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE FOR AN HOUR.

BLM can speak for me over that of a politician any day of the week.

[TwilightGardener]

1. It was just a waste of everyone's time, sounds like.

[NCTraveler]

2. While I don't necessarily agree that is was a waste of time.

I can respect that comment.

If you have time, take a look at O'Malley after the event. I think that makes it worthwhile even if one takes nothing away from the event itself.

https://www.facebook.com/bluenationreview/videos/473565742825306/

Thanks.

[charlyvi]

3. Thank You.

I think a whole lot of folks are missing the point.

[Igel]

19. Or they've decided what was intended and ignored the author's intent.

I've been told that's not just okay, but the way it's supposed to be.

What the speaker says is immaterial. If somebody's offended, then it's the offense that matters and the only thing for the offender to do is apologize.

(And that's a lot of the problem in this entire "dialog." It's taking place with what some think of as two well-defined groups, but one side really doesn't see itself as a single group or "community." Instead, it wants to be even-handed, but meets with insistence on bias and favoritism that comes off as rank hypocrisy. Moreover, for one side there's one issue that must take preeminence; for the other side there can be other priorities. The result is insults, abuse, and nearly cries of treason. But certainly a "we're taking names and there will be a price to pay" sort of attitude for not acting in uniformed lockstep.)

I understand why #BLM did what it did. That doesn't mean I approve. Moreover, I think that the entire discussion is making what's a strong #2 issue for a lot of people just rankle because of the tactics employed.

[heaven05]

59. racial injustice has always been #2 and that an idealistic position

and as soon as the politician is elected, it is ALWAYS pushed even further down the priority list

[ananda]

4. Sometimes I wish we could just take back ...

... the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and transplant
it to America now.

It's been very painful to see the regression this country
has undergone since Nixon started separating the South
from its Democratic roots.

Why are we even having to ask that anyone's life matters?
This is just so wrong on so many levels.

Personally, I don't care if a politician is made to feel uncomfortable,
if that's what it takes to get civil rights back on the table.

However, these rights were fought for and won because Democratic
lawmakers listened to the noise of a whole movement, not because
they were personally attacked or embarrassed in order for activists
to make a public statement.

Also, if you really want to be fair about it as a matter of perspective --
where are all the well-deserved protests, attacks, and public humiliation
of all the Reep candidates that they need every damm day!

[jeff47]

22. This isn't a passive voice situation.

It's been very painful to see the regression this country has undergone since Nixon started separating the South from its Democratic roots.

Nixon and those after him had plenty of help from the Democratic party not fighting this.

And in some cases, actively helping it. For example, "welfare queen" imagery was used a lot to pass Clinton's "welfare reform".

We need to remember it was not only the Republican's doing. We have a lot of corruption to root out of our own party.

[ananda]

67. Okaayy

The words "passive voice" are strangely used in this context, but I get what you're saying.

And still you missed my point. Civil rights are gained and held through the exercise of civic duty by citizens in order to pressure people to do the right thing. In the sixties the Democrats did the right thing.

Once Nixon and Reagan were able to appeal to states rights and the racism of the south, that changed. When Reeps gained power, corporations and banks moved in to change the economic picture. Policies were enacted based on the interests of business and the economy, which in turn enabled corporations to gain almost complete control of the propaganda and messaging machine which has effectively changed the attitudes of politicians and the people they represent to reflect the demonization of welfare and minorities.

My point is that citizen activism on a large and persistent scale is once again needed. But this is not achieved by attacking and embarrassing your allies publicly. It is achieved by getting widespread attention and by embarrassing and publicly humiliating your enemies, in this case Republicans, not just corporate Dems. Sanders is not an enemy, but a great ally for economic egalitarianism and social justice.

For instance, all the Reeps and the Clintons should be exposed and forced to speak and act on this issue publicly. Is that happening?

[jeff47]

69. And you missed mine.

Once Nixon and Reagan were able to appeal to states rights and the racism of the south, that changed.

And Democrats let it change. They even hopped on board when it was politically expedient.

For instance, all the Reeps and the Clintons should be exposed and forced to speak and act on this issue publicly. Is that happening?

A lot of us are trying.

And a lot of other people are desperately trying for it to not happen.

Fighting our own party makes the task far more difficult.

[ananda]

84. Weelll...

I heard you on the Clintons. Reread my post.

Also, all this crazy infighting does make the task more difficult, I agree.

The activists on behalf of BLM need a more thoughtful leader who knows how to pick the battles. Sanders is NOT that battle.

The Reeps, yes. The Clintons, yes. I think Hillary Clinton is now speaking to this, but I don't think divorcing BLM concerns from the economy is the answer, especially since that view implicitly buttresses her corporocratic connections.

[Shankapotomus]

5. So your solution to being treated like that

is to treat "two well to do white men" badly?

So the BLM to you means gaining enough power so you can ultimately treat "well to do white men" just as badly as you've been treated?

Is that the cause you want people's support for?

[NCTraveler]

7. Not shocked that is what you take away. Not shocked at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251461933

[Shankapotomus]

12. "Take away"?

You handed it to everyone on a silver platter.

"I don't give one shit…"

Your words, not mine.

[NCTraveler]

57. if the BLM has offended you.

You left a majority of the quote out. Wanted to fix that for you. When it is all there as I said it, and you attempt to use it as you did, it looks pretty bad on you. Using quotes out of context is pretty shady.

[heaven05]

62. from your response

you don't "give a shit" either about murder of unarmed black women, men and children.

[randys1]

55. Getting sickening around here. Thank you for the sanity

[geek tragedy]

13. You do Bernie zero favors with this hyper-defensive offal

So the BLM to you means gaining enough power so you can ultimately treat "well to do white men" just as badly as you've been treated?

When powerful white men start writing "If I die in police custody" maybe then we can talk.

That you think that black civil rights protestors are interested in nothing more than persecuting white men says a lot more about you than it does about them.

[heaven05]

61. you have no idea

of how you have no clue.

[zipplewrath]

6. Sounds like Code Pink

Every once and a while it can be an effective way to get some attention.

[Mojorabbit]

87. I was a member of code pink

I like this type of behavior but this was not the venue. It did get people talking but the test will be if it helps the cause or not . I am not sure it did. Time will tell.

[mopinko]

8. +1

i thought it was pretty awesome, myself.
and the fall out is sadly predictable.

[Daemonaquila]

9. Well said.

We all have our favorite politicians and issues. Our politicians have their favorite issues. And sadly, the character of our politicians often isn't measured by how they advocate for their favorite issues, but how they respond to issues not at the top of their personal lists, or even that make them uncomfortable, which are of extreme importance to many of the people they hope to lead.

I am tired of hearing about the "rudeness" of disrupting other people's day, or how it allegedly "doesn't accomplish anything" (unfortunately often a code phrase for "I'm upset about what _____ did, but I can't really criticize their reason for doing it so I'll instead attack them for being bad strategists, which is hard to measure objectively so somewhat immune to meaningful debate.&quot . If BLM activists felt that a politician has been silent, or even wrong, on an issue that's literally life or death, they have good reason to be a little "rude" and ask that politician to address it- publicly and loudly, if need be.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months and weeks.

[jwirr]

27. But Bernie has not ignored the issues and he has been the first to speak out on many of them. He

was speaking out on them at NN.

The issues BLM are trying to keep front and center since Ferguson MO are critical to change. If they are left to stagnate they will be forgotten. That justified what they are doing.

And I actually think they accomplished what they set out to accomplish. They brought attention back to the issue.

Now I am going to say something I know I am going to get slammed for: If this is going to happen at every point in the primary - how are we going to get a candidate elected for the Democratic Party as a nominee for president? If this is going to be the method of protest then it needs to be applied to all candidates not just these two. And if it is applied to all candidates - that is screaming them down so that they cannot even answer - what am I to base my vote on?

Many POC on this site are totally correct that the issue most be an issue in this campaign. They are also right to protest to keep the issue alive.

But please answer the question I am asking. We have one candidate who is well known and others who are working to get their message out there. How do the unknown candidates get known if we cannot hear their message? How do we make sure we get the best candidate as the nominee if we have nothing other than how they reacted to being protested to go on? How do the unknown candidates compete with the front runner if they are not allowed to speak? Are we even going to get to see the debates?

Here on DU that is not much of a problem because we know about the candidates already. Even in Iowa and New Hampshire this is not going to be the problem. But what about in other primaries? Do we really want a election where the candidate won because of who they are rather than what they think?

[stranger81]

91. We don't.

We shut up and vote for Hillary like we're told. Kapiche?

[mmonk]

10. No. Because Black lives do matter and something needs to be done.

Best way to go about it? Won't say because you will infer someone who doesn't understand is lecturing. I've spent a lot of energy on coalition building in order to affect real change. I suppose that can be both a strength and weakness.

[NCTraveler]

11. This would be funny if I didn't feel the sentiment was actually real. It can't be real.

"Best way to go about it? Won't say because you will infer someone who doesn't understand is lecturing."

My powers are strong. Very strong.

[mmonk]

14. I protest plenty. Doing it is fine. Can I have a different opinion? It's not like saying

you shouldn't. I'm used to protesting legislatures and governmental agencies and such until they get tired of seeing us and somehow address it.

[NCTraveler]

16. You have asked one question and the answer is amazingly simple.

Not sure why it was even asked.

"Can I have a different opinion?"

Yes, I have never said or insinuated anything differently?

"I protest plenty."

I never said or insinuated you didn't protest plenty.

These are assumptive statements your are making that can in no way be inferred unto me and my thoughts as you are attempting.

[mmonk]

32. My apologies.

I just didn't want you to take the opinion the wrong way. I have no problems with protesting Sanders. I think he is a big boy and can handle it and try and make his case. The only thing that bothered me were the call outs about Bernie and his supporters before hand as well as afterwards by NN and others. It made it seem like we were more of an assumed target rather than the making of a statement. I do not think Sanders is above criticism or anything.

[heaven05]

63. protest about what issues?

might I ask. They haven't addressed murder, loss of voting rights for hundreds of thousands. Loss of civil and human rights by hundreds of thousands. Change will only come about when the privileged realize what tools they are and that people are finally fed up enough to not have any use for dull, useless tools.

[mmonk]

68. I have marched on both of those issues.

Who was I protesting? Certainly not the underprivileged. I'm a member of Rev. Barber's Moral Monday movement. We're willingly getting arrested over these issues. I'm starting to gather it really doesn't matter what I say, I should STFU. Ok then.

[heaven05]

70. okay

[mmonk]

71. .

[KittyWampus]

15. Black protestors want to grab attention from Bernie's media bubble

the same way OWS, Codepink and every other group of protestors wants to or wanted to in the past.

And I am sure they will be trying to get facetime/attention from other Democratic candidates too (Hillary).

There is a thread in a protected forum where a writer points out that the Progressive Movement is now more heavily populated by people of color and women and those seeking gender equality than it is by whites.

The energetic center has shifted in the Progressive Movement.

There is a reason the Right has been working so hard to disenfranchise black people.

[6chars]

39. will this have any impact on results of election?

if not, then it's just theater and what you think will depend on how much you value courtesies of different aspects of the theater. if so, then it is a little more important.

[RobinA]

99. In The Progressive Movement

currently, whites and men are being shouted down when they don't toe the line. Kinda unProgessive if you ask me. However, this will either change or non-partyliners will go elsewhere. For better or worse, time will tell.

[cwydro]

17. I'm just wondering why they are not speaking to those in power NOW.

Why aren't they knocking on Loretta Lynch's door? Protesting when Obama speaks?

These candidates have no power now, but there are those that do. Fascinating.

[KittyWampus]

20. Because there is media following the primary candidates around

it's easier to get to the primary candidates.

Because there is an election looming on the horizon.

[cwydro]

21. Oh, I see.

Mm.

[jeff47]

23. Yes, it's not like Obama's every single movement is reported widely.... (nt)

[KittyWampus]

25. how easy is it for multiple BLM protestors to get into Netroots

as opposed to an Obama venue?

[jeff47]

28. Depends on the venue. Some are easy, some are impossible.

You don't need dozens to get attention at an Obama venue. Look at the coverage a small number of Code Pink people got.

[cstanleytech]

41. Why not focus it on the Republicans venue though?

After all they are the party who atm has majority control over the Senate and House and they are the party which in states they control have pushed for voter ID laws and gerrymandered the hell out of the districts with the goal of lessening the voting power of black voters.

[heaven05]

66. The creepublican

will NEVER give a shit about minorities, women, blacks and browns except the "special" sub groups they try to woo in that brown section. Why should any minority waste their time with die hard racists? To hell with creepublicans. Why hasn't the Democratic power structure gone after those examples of yours? They have been cowering in the corner of a very dark place since 2000 and the ass whipping Bush gave them by just taking the presidency from them and getting just a whine out of us. SCOTUS or not, just a whine.

[cstanleytech]

73. Have you even seen what the voter turnout for this country is? Mexico even beats us.

You want want the democrats in office to help and change things and address more of problems? Then work to get more people to actually vote when it matters because if they dont then all the bitching and whining in the world isnt going to change shit.

[heaven05]

76. I've worked in some capacity

Last edited Tue Jul 21, 2015, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

or another, phones, voter registration, door to door in every election since Nixon and Atwater. Saw the immediate push back to civil and voting rights by the privileged reactionaries on the left and right. How does that stack up vs bitching and whining? I will stand against, not vote against, any democrat that is a creepublican in democrats clothing or that is not addressing the needs of POC. I know what I've done for the democratic party in this corrupt political system. Had no other choice. Bitching and whining is not an option with me, never has been. I think #Black Lives Matter has brought the dross to the surface around here and I'm glad to be one of the scoopers.

[cstanleytech]

78. So your calling the democrats corrupt?

[heaven05]

79. No, good try. Not slick at all

the political system in the country is corrupted by money. You can't deal with that fact, tough.

[cstanleytech]

80. So I am trying to be slick and your not saying they are corrupt just the system is corrupt?......ok.

[heaven05]

81. okay and like times before

I'm done with you trying to be slick. I said what I said, deal with it, if not, like I also said, Tough.

[cwydro]

74. Lol.

Of course not.

[heaven05]

64. Not the point

usual diverting to another subject to try and steer people away from the point. Berni, HRC, O'malley are going to have to satisfy a huge segment of the base to get the nomination. Simple as that.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. Perhaps they saw what happened to the undocumented trans woman who interrupted Obama last

month and decided to stick to more friendly terrain?
"A transgender woman who interrupted President Obama during Wednesday's White House East Room reception to mark LGBT Pride month was quickly dispatched by a stern, then jovial commander in chief, who told the immigration demonstrator, “You’re in my house” and “shame on you.”.....
Obama did engage with Gutiérrez before she was escorted out. “No, no, no, no. Listen, you’re in my house,” Obama told her, wagging his finger. “You’re not going to get a good response from me by interrupting me like this.”

As Gutiérrez continued to shout "not one more" and "stop the deportations," the president became visibly irritated. “Shame on you," said Obama. "You shouldn’t be doing this.”
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/06/24/obama-scolds-white-house-heckler-shame-you


All things considered, the Net Roots Nation activists got a much nicer reception for their efforts than do LGBT activists who interrupt Obama. They were given the stage, the mic and all the time there was to give. That trans woman got 'Shame on you' and the bum's rush.

[HooptieWagon]

106. The protesters mouthpiece...

Was on a BLM panel discussion that very morning. Also on the panel was Rep Hank Johnson, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. He would be such a person who could make an immediate difference. He wasn't screamed at when he spoke, either. But then he's a declared Hillary supporter.

This pretty much dispels the notion that BLM needed speaking time. They had a whole program dedicated to them. Their later disruption was all about grandstanding, getting their faces on camera, and hurting the old white guy candidate who responded to the invite.

[jeff47]

18. It's not about discomfort. It's about learning about your target before you attack.

Of the 3 main Democratic candidates, Sanders and O'Malley are the ones who have added much of BLM's issues to their stump speech, and have released specific plans about what they want to do to address them.

So why shout over them and not shout over candidates who have not? Why continue the meme that "they only care about white liberals" when there's plenty of concrete actions demonstrating that this is not true?

"Well, it's the candidate's fault they didn't hear about it". Not when they are shouting down the candidate, or couldn't be bothered to do even the most trivial background research. In Sanders's case, he literally talked about it the day before...and in June...And in 1991 when "tough on crime" was ascendant...and in lots and lots of other situations. In O'Malley's case, he has made a big point of his conversion from his "tough on crime" stance as Baltimore's mayor.

The point of activists like BLM is not to shout. It's to get their issues into the political discussion. Sometimes, that requires shouting. It does not always require shouting. And it does not require shouting at anyone and everyone.

Shout at NN for the lack of any sessions about criminal justice reform and other issues BLM wants to focus on. Because NN completely ignored them it in favor of sessions on Latinos and immigration reform. NN made that decision all by themselves.

[geek tragedy]

24. "The point of activists like BLM is ... to get their issues into the political discussion."

Seems to have worked.

[jeff47]

29. Not when those candidates were already discussing it. (nt)

[geek tragedy]

42. discussing it to whose liking? nt

[jeff47]

44. Well, considering BLM claims they don't discuss it at all

I have no idea if the actual discussion meets their requirements. BLM would have to actually listen to what the candidates had already said on their issues.

[geek tragedy]

49. So, safe to say the BLM advocates do not feel that the candidates have done/said enough

to demonstrate their commitment to addressing these concerns?

[jeff47]

51. No, because we also have really shitty media.

Given we have really shitty media, there's no way to tell at this point if the message is the issue, or the media only talking economics is the issue.

A response of "This here isn't good enough" would give us an answer. A response of "Why didn't I hear this before?" would tell us another.

[geek tragedy]

56. the media is a problem every candidate has to work around.

unless he drastically improves his standing amongst Latinos and African-Americans, his candidacy will be over on Super Tuesday. That's not an assessment of right and wrong, it's math.

That's not going to happen unless things change at the campaign.

He has a very limited time to get things going in the right direction.

[KittyWampus]

26. I'd say BLM did get their issue into the political discussion.

So they accomplished their goal.

[jeff47]

30. Except these candidates were already discussing it.

They didn't get any more candidates to talk about it.

[NCTraveler]

96. You have put out a complex and contradictory set of rules....

that no one could meet, or everyone could meet. You have simply laid it out as a case by case basis judged by you. Literally, contradictory.

"The point of activists like BLM is not to shout. It's to get their issues into the political discussion. Sometimes, that requires shouting. It does not always require shouting. And it does not require shouting at anyone and everyone."

Yet you clearly state their goal.

"It's to get their issues into the political discussion."

They have clearly achieved the goal you claim they should obtain. Why the issue with them on one end while stating they are accomplishing their goal on the other. Not really a question. The answer from you is obvious.

[jeff47]

107. No, they haven't achieved their goal.

"It's to get their issues into the political discussion."

They have clearly achieved the goal you claim they should obtain.

No, they have not achieved that goal. Because the people they attacked were already talking about it.

They need more people and more candidates talking about it. Going after the ones that already were is not getting anyone new to talk about it.

[Stellar]

31. If Obama hadn't won that 65% of Black women in 2008 or 2012...

there would be no Democrat is the Whitehouse today. The truth is that these women will be needed again. And they should stop insulting the Black Lives Matter movement and telling them sit down and shut up. Every issue is not just a bread and butter issue, we are fighting for the lives of our family and neighbors first and foremost.

If they are as smart as they appear to be, they should hire a few of them and put them on their staff, that way they could incorporate some of their movement into their speech.

[HooptieWagon]

33. Burning an ally strikes me like...

...burning a neighborhood grocery store. While it may provide an immediate release of pent-up anger, it provides nothing towards a solution. The opposite, in fact. Wouldn't building a coalition be more productive than destroying one?

[cstanleytech]

45. Thats assuming the goal isnt to destroy any potential coalition from building, you would

have able to follow the money to be sure that wasnt the goal though which is just about impossible to do even with a court order.

[RobinA]

100. Yes, But

I don't think we're at the coalition building stage right now. Suggestions that coalition might be more effective than a firefight are met with a slapdown (see this and other similar threads). A year from now this will either be last year's news or (we can only hope) a coalition, but it will have to play out before we know.

[HFRN]

34. If I were a republican operative, I would funnel money to BLM

(I'm not saying they ARE doing it), I'm saying that if I were hypothetically, in that role, I'd consider that action, to fan the flames of one faction (of the other party) to personally attack another faction (of the other party) that has been sympathetic to them

divide and conquer

and they're getting it for free (probably)

[NCTraveler]

48. And they would gladly take the money. I hope it is given.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~cali

[LittleBlue]

35. Utter idiocy to attack someone who agrees with you

BLM made themselves a joke. They're hurting their own cause immeasurably while people who don't agree that blm get a good laugh at our infighting.

If white supremacists had been in charge of BLM, they'd have struggled to concoct a stunt more damaging than this. Support them all you want, but you just lost a lot of supporters.

[HFRN]

36. it's almost like a 'false flag' on one's self

which isn't all that bright

[LittleBlue]

38. Agreed

A random police department in bumfuck nowhere, USA has a woman die in custody. There is a local government involved, state and feds. So who does BLM attack? The presidential candidate who is pushing the most pro black policies in the entire field.


Madness.

[heaven05]

72. They weren't "supporters" in the first place

who do you think you're fooling?

[LittleBlue]

82. You're in serious denial

1) Do something dumb to alienate allies
2) Rather than face the consequences, pretend they were never allies


Keep it up and give the actual racists a good laugh. After all, your enemies aren't racists, they're actually liberals who agree with you. It's teh socialists shooting up black churches doncha know.

[heaven05]

83. So I have to fear

Last edited Tue Jul 21, 2015, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

losing allies I never had. That would be dumb. Rather than face the consequence of white privilege used by my enemies/"allies" to perpetuate and worsen racism I should fear the consequence of pointing that out. That would be dumb. A racist, privileged white racist who revered the confederate way of life and their racist flag killed the Mother/Emanuel 9, not a socialist. They are also hanging people of color in jail, still choking POC to death who are unarmed and unresisting. don't you know? probably not. Some of the allies I've seen crawl out of the woodwork since Sandra Bland was murdered and #Black Lives Matter anger surfaced, I CAN do without, yes.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. You have always understood the extreme politics of the disenfranchised and the fact that making

political figures and processes uncomfortable is part of the point of disruptive political actions. This stands out on DU because until this latest event, DU as a whole has been stridently and absolutely against any form of disruptive politics, interrupting of speeches or heckling. Dead set against it.

So I do think our community here has to fess up and face up to the fact that we have some here who are currently saying they support interruptions as a political tactic who used to say things like this:
"I would only offer that anybody who thinks the way to get ANYONE to do ANYTHING is to heckle ANYONE is a complete and utter fool."
That's a very absolute view. With CAPS. Anyone who heckles is a complete and utter fool. Yet that poster today is very supportive of heckling and derisive of those who oppose it. That might not be bigotry but it sure is not being an honest broker. That person was very against this tactic when used by gay people or ANYONE but now is very for this tactic. That crap, that needs to be addressed.

In a thread about Michelle Obama being interrupted by an activist I was told this: 'gay people have plenty of rights, there is only one right you don't have'.
Dan Choi was attacked endlessly on DU by Obama fans for daring to speak out to Obama.

So for the same people who wailed that gay folks should not do this and not do that and we need to respect our allies and not disturb their events to carry on as if they are supporters of such actions in general is disgusting. Obama should get some big free pass on all things? It was wrong to confront him but very right to confront Bernie? Obama was actually against equality at the time. We were objecting to things Obama was saying and doing. And we were harshly criticized for it, each and ever time it happened.

Code Pink has also been vilified on DU for doing similar things.

I just have a great deal of trouble with double standards and hypocrites.

You have always stood with the activists. Most others on DU never have until this weekend and to me that matters.

[NCTraveler]

53. I am not big on the attacks on Sanders in this area.

I made an op about some of the language he used recently and that has been it as far as negative. I think the guy is flat out great. I have undergone some personal changes over the last ten years. One has to do with things like this. Code Pink and posters here actually played a large role in that. I had made some pretty discouraging remarks about them. A person here told me why my points were all mute. They did so in an educational manner. After reading their words I realized how petty I was being. Not just with Code Pink, but in my thought process across multiple areas. Every now and then my old self rears it's ugly head. It happened during Snowdens release, who I now consider to be a protestor and activist. The way I was viewing things was extremely shallow.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. You posted in support of LGBT protesters who have interrupted political events, which most on DU

criticized very strongly. I get what they are doing because I've done it. If I was in their group I'd have my own suggestions, but I'm not. But people on DU who have said that anyone who heckles anyone, at anytime for any reason are complete fools who are now saying that those who don't instantly support these hecklers is a hypocrite.

This event has to be seen in context, these were not the first disruptions of political events, there are other groups and other interrupted politicians to look at.

Just last month, an undocumented trans woman interrupted Obama at a WH speech with a message about deportation of trans people. She was ejected from the event while Obama said 'Shame on you' to a trans woman 'Shame. You are in MY house.'

Fact is, she was rude, because the tactic of interrupting a speech is in fact rude. That's part of the point. But, if one person's rude can be answered with 'shame on you, this is my house' then another person's rude can not be presented as some instantly recognizable and accepted communications form.

Martin and Bernie handed the stage and the mic to those demonstrators. Obama said 'Shame on you'. Which is in fact 'better'? Was Obama utterly out of line? No. But he sure did not hand the mic to the protesters.
If you disrupt an event, anything that happens after is a wild card. I have seen people beaten, arrested, ejected and publicly shamed by powerful speakers for asking for justice in the wrong way.

It's very hard for me to look at what happened this weekend as a poor reception for the protesters who were allowed to do as they pleased, unlike at the WH, unlike at Michelle's events, unlike anyplace LGBT people do that same sort of political tactic.

If it is acceptable for Obama to say 'Shame on you, shame' to those who disrupt over very valid concerns, then it is hard to see O'Malley and Sanders as having been anything short of miraculously kind and inviting to the protesters.

[NCTraveler]

105. Wonderful reply that leaves me with thoughts to ponder. That is always appreciated.

I don't see the problem with the weekend to be as big as it is being made out to be, at least as it is addressed on du. Well, not even sure I see the problem as far as individuals are concerned. The problems systemically engrained into federal, state and local governments. The problem is in households all across the country. Shame on you is never better and at first glance seems outright disgusting. Sanders and O'Malley did well. I really like that O'Malley continued with an interview. He was clearly shaken in no way. I highly doubt Sanders was either. He really has a career of putting himself out there unscripted. This isn't the first time he has been in this position, normally over different topics. I think they will do the same thing I am doing here. Look at what happened and think about it in honest. That is not as easy as it sounds. I think both of these men possess that depth.

What I can no longer do is attack the protestor who are even remotely aligned with me. I have also expanded what my own definition of a protestor is. The trans person you mentioned above, where the hell can she go at this point. So many are simply feeling helpless. I don't mind the shouting and actually think they are shouting at the right people. Obama, Hillary, Sanders and O'Malley. These are agents of possible change at the top. If they(politicians) "pander" to select groups, they should represent such groups. When they don't necessarily do it, or change isn't really happening, then they need go after them. Change is not happening in certain areas where it needs to happen. That makes them all fair game. Responses of politicians is what will speak volumes with respect to the disruptions.

Not big on my use of the word pander above. It conveys the message I want so I put it in quotes as I am not going for the exact definition of the word. I think both of these candidates have shown they aren't pandering. It still enforced my point.

[brentspeak]

40. Bravely said by the anonymous internet poster. n/t

[NCTraveler]

47. I appreciate the compliment.

But nothing about it is brave. I don't see how it could be. I see no reflection of the concept of bravery on my part in the op. Very interesting thought that you find it to be brave. I could read my op a hundred times and not come out with brave on my part. The concept itself wouldn't even enter my mind. Once again, thanks for the compliment even if misplaced.

[Betty Karlson]

43. I still hope both politicians will treat this as a moment of epiphany

and work to reassure PoC that they are proud to stand with them, and will work to relieve (some of) the stress that minorities have to go through.

It would be a good start for all candidates and their campaigns to stop casting aspersions about other candidates' commitment to the lives of PoC. ALL Democratic candidates agree on the plights of women, LGBT and PoC. Agreeing there is a united front on those issues would take away some of the stress of those who feel marginalised and wonder if anyone has their backs.

[MisterP]

46. 1. because there's a sudden and massive "Sanders isn't listening to Black people" meme & 2. because

that meme is about this guy

(and 3. a lot of the conversation is actually drifting from BLM just as people start increasingly insisting it's an attack on all BLM/African America)

[whereisjustice]

50. Why isn't this in the primary group? Some people use it others ignore it. Why?

[mmonk]

54. Probably because the issue is a national one

and the BLM movement isn't a politician.

[randys1]

52. I lurve this post (reference from Annie Hall) love

[heaven05]

58. The anger over Sandra Bland's murder, #Black Lives Matter and o'malley-sanders

has brought to the surface, lots of people who have hidden their real feelings about racial injustice in this country with honey coated affirmations by the privileged on this board of them having complete and total sympathy for the brutal treatment and executions of black people recently. Now to the reality. Many of the whiners and criers of being offended by #Black Lives Matter are just saying, STFU and be quiet. Be patient. Be calm, Yes, oh yes were understand about Sandra Bland, the MotherEmanuel 9, but STFU about it and you black people get back in your place. You have no right to disrupt "fairly well off white men" in such a manner as to make them and us uncomfortable with the truth. Say her name!!!!!!!!!!. I agree 1000% percent.

[awoke_in_2003]

60. K&R. nt

[jtuck004]

65. I mostly agree with you, and I think it was a positive for Bernie.

I think it perhaps helped BLM define what might or might not be effective, brought them new folks as you said, etc., so a net positive for them. I think it could have had more of an impact, but it's early - they need to be able to learn just like everyone else.

The people who are decrying their actions should try living a day in their shoes. I say that because, frankly, if they really did, a few of them wouldn't make it through till morning.

Which is kinda the point.

We need to make racism less powerful, and until white folks quit hating people are going to keep trying to find new ways.

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. Thank You!

[YOHABLO]

77. I think "BLM" group were targeting the wrong people. These candidates have open ears and hearts.

[uponit7771]

88. Then what's up with the responses? I'm thinking they would have already meat

... With BLM leaders et al.

That was my impression until I read that some meetings with BLM leaders were cancelled ..

All the people campaigning should have a take on such a grass roots civil rights movement by now

[nilesobek]

85. I watched the video twice and

my impression is that it was bungled badly by Sanders who should have engaged the protesters head on.

But I don't think they were ready for this which might even be more revealing. That other guy in the video, not Sanders, looks like a deer in the headlights. My general suspicion would be: If the black people being slain by police is an issue on the very forefront of the Sanders campaign, then why such an awkward, clumsy and mistimed response?

Nothing against Sanders but that video is certainly not his finest moments. I've heard his record is good on civil rights though everyday more stories and videos of lives taken make it a little more urgent seeing as people are dying.

[freshwest]

86. Thanks, NCT. Being Dissed is nothing compared to Being Dead. Patience wearing thin. n/t

[SlipperySlope]

89. Nevermind...

Last edited Wed Jul 22, 2015, 01:14 AM - Edit history (1)

(deleted)

[WorseBeforeBetter]

90. Not in the least.

And don't mind that I don't mind that you don't give one shit.

Attacking allies seems to me to be an idiotic strategy, but go for it. And throw all the Twitter tantrums you like, just because you don't like a certain presidential candidate's online supporters. Knock yourselves out. We'll see how far it gets you.

[NCTraveler]

97. O'Maley is my guy.

I don't see this as the huge negative that Sanders supporters do. Maybe it's because O'Malley stuck around and stayed composed enough to do an excellent interview afterward. I don't think this was a negative on Sanders either. Allies is an interesting word. Allies in congress for decades and AA's are being gunned down in the streets. These are the exact people BLM needs to be addressing. The ones who might be willing to work for positive change. Please tell me which candidate I don't like. At this point I rank them in order as O'Malley, Clinton, Sanders. Each one is great for the country and party. Seems you are talking about that which you do not know. Speaking about that to which you do not know makes your whole point mute. Regardless, keep yelling it from the rooftops. One day you will realize that rich white men don't need your voice and unfettered support as much as you think they do.

[Zorra]

92. No, I'm just sad. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

93. Uncomfortable? Hell no. Why?

Bernie Sanders can handle himself. And as for me, well, I have no worries whatsoever. I have every sort of privilege that's been mentioned on this site in the last six months, all with no discomfort. You?

[Blue_In_AK]

94. Never mind.

[bravenak]

95. Yes!

[Herman4747]

98. You know, when some people see "BLM" they're going to think of:

Bureau of Land Management. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html
Please do consider spelling things out.

[mmonk]

104. LOL. Some will I suppose.

[ZX86]

102. BLM needs to keep it's "Eyes on the Prize".

Offending, upsetting, disrupting, and making someone uncomfortable for an hour is not the prize. Any social justice organization should have clear policy goals. Unfocused rage waste time, resources, and good will with allies and potential allies. What does BLM want? Federal law mandating body cameras? Federal training of law enforcement? Civilian review boards? Special prosecutors for police abuse?

You need to have specific, meaningful, and realistically obtainable demands and give opportunity to those receiving demands to respond. Protesting loud, rude, and offensively is a tactic best used sparingly and not be considered a goal in and of itself.

One thing that always bothered me was the post 60's Civil Rights era where B and C list activists and politicians whether addressing small crowds or talking to a local reporter go into a MLK cadence of "Mountain Top" speech on every issue. Doesn't matter whether discussing police abuse or school cafeteria lunch menu. MLK didn't use his loud preaching style everywhere he went and to everybody he talked to. In interviews he came across as soft spoken, reasonable, and intelligent. He knew when to speak like a firebrand and when respectful dialogue is the best tactic.

[Vinca]

108. The whole incident reminded me of a toddler pitching a fit.

We're all adults here. Why not sit down and have a discussion and come up with a plan of action that will mean something? What made the incident so ridiculous is that both of those candidates are supporters when it comes to BLM. It's not like this was a demonstration at a GOP event or a KKK get together or a meeting of the local Police Benevolent Association. In the end, the most adverse publicity seems to have come from the tactic which was both rude and obnoxious.