Five

They are my own words, though a large section was copy and pasted from a similar comment I made a month ago, which may explain the unusual tone. Explaining ideas outside the political center take more work, and I try and save labor where I can.

I do care about the Democratic Party, the same way I care about the Republican Party. Regardless of my membership, their policies and actions have a significant effect on my life.

Ironically the Republican primary system allows their party to be highjacked by the far right, while the 'Democratic' system of super-delegates was specifically designed after the events of 1968 to prevent the left from accumulating similar influence. This is one in a long line of anti-democratic laws and institutions that have fueled the rise of fascism in America, and deserves criticism.

I disagree with that characterization.

put a hold on the infighting for all of three months and then we can start applying pressure in constructive ways that ensure this never happens again.

I'm not a Democrat or any other kind of party member, and BLM is not an organization of Democrats. This isn't an issue of party discipline, its a tried and true tactic for political change.

In the 1960s black people were much more actively discriminated against on a systemic level, practically prevented from voting in many of the states in the southern United States. The president at the time was the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, and was facing the much more racist Republican challenger Barry Goldwater. While the black vote was suppressed in the south, there was a significant voting block in the north of black people and their allies whose main issue was civil rights. Civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, met several times with LBJ, who coaxed them to tone down the direct action protests and criticism until after the election, as he claimed to we willing to negotiate with them once the threat to his power was diminished. Instead, civil rights protests increased. The leaders, probably correctly, determined that once the election was over, they would have less leverage. Even though losing the election meant having an enemy in the white house, having a 'friend' who continued to delay essential concessions did not further their cause. People were actively being murdered by the 'Jim Crow' apartheid regime, and delays and half-measures were not sufficient.

Thanks to the pressure of millions of people engaged in direct action and open criticism of the president, the Civil Rights Act was passed before the 1964 election. LBJ won by a landslide due to the popularity of the legislation, but suffered the severe political consequences Democrats were trying to avoid through their strategy of placation and delay. The 1964 election was the last where Democrats got the majority of the white vote, and electing politicians in the southern states became much more difficult for their party. Democrats will continue to ignore criticism unless there are real political consequences to their actions. If you're curious what historical role your rhetoric plays, look up Martin Luther King Jr.'s letter from Birmingham Jail:

I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was "well timed" according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "wait." It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never."

I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; ...who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Black Lives Matter is the spiritual successor to King's legacy, and have been fighting with direct action against the policies that Donald Trump champions since before he was first elected. They're not going to throw up their hands and give up if Trump suspends elections, and I hope you won't either.

The only error is that someone else didn't post it in a more timely manner. I admire Black Lives Matter, and I enjoy signal boosting their voices. I think they have good ideas, the kind that deserve to be discussed in forums full of thinking people. The message from this statement is timeless, and I think you might benefit from reading it.

You can prevent this from happening in the future by following BLM's media accounts and posting their relevant statements before I do.

The fact that the article hadn't already been posted in the last 3 weeks I think is a failing of the entire Threadiverse. I'm happy I could rectify it, but I'm also disappointed we didn't get an opportunity to discuss it sooner. We should all step up our game.

I'm a leftist with a long history of supporting healthy discussion on the Threadiverse, @millie; you can easily review it by reading my post and comment history. And I'm disappointed you would assume bad faith when we just had a similar interaction last month, when you were accusing people who criticized this same weakness in the Democratic party of being bad faith actors. This was back when the defense was being used to prop up Joe Biden as the candidate after the debate that revealed his mental decline. I had hoped you might gain more appreciation of the value of dissent from that event.

Do you think it was a mistake to listen to dissent and for Joe Biden to step down?

Which is it?

Both. I didn't see the date, and also I like to pretend that the left is diverse and is capable of criticizing the Democratic party.

Is there a method where BLM could publicly raise concerns about the Democrats' process that you wouldn't characterize as 'the left fighting the left'?

Dave M. Van Zandt has no academic media literacy qualifications. He's not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.

How absurd is it that a Reuters report on the Black Lives Matter statement would get reported as "Least Biased" but the source of the article, the actual statement by BLM unfiltered by corporate media bias, is marked as medium credible and mixed factually? This bot is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking Dave Van Zandt seriously.

Via Reddit

That's the sanitized version. They re-worded it to hide their endorsement of the redefinition of antisemitism.

The recent version:

This previous version was available while the IDF was engaged in the genocide of Palestinians:

I keep saying "them/they/their" but it's not really a group. It's mostly one guy, Dave M. Van Zandt, who has no academic media literacy qualifications. He's not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.

The irony is that he admits that his system for judging 'bias' is pseudoscience, but at the same time claims that MBFC's purpose is to debunk pseudoscience. He appears to have no idea what science is. His methods are not public, repeatable, or by his own admission falsifiable.

News from the left-leaning journalists should not be categorized with the same qualifiers as AI-generated Russian fake news sites. LGBT advocacy and lobbying organizations that have no economic intersectionality are not "Left" -- LGBT sexual identities are not inherently political. CNN is a corporate news network, not a socialist organization. It's pretty obvious the deeply flawed simplification of the political spectrum to a continuum is based on an American moderate Republican capitalist's narrow understanding of politics, and Van Zandt admits as much:

He is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking this charlatan seriously.

If you don't have the freedom to cover your face at a political protest, the country you are protesting in is not free.