Terraria Community Forums

ok

Funding an organisation does not make you the leader. Soros doesn't seem to have any intention of leading BLM, he merely funded them because he agreed with their views. He wanted a group of people to be able to continue in their ways, not his ways. I very much doubt having a mob of angry people at his command would do him any good. (cont)

If someone calls themselves a member of either BLM or feminism, which are movements based on ideals of equality, because they agree with that ideal, then yes, they are 'part of the group', even if they not agree with the means of the core group. (cont)

And yes, if these ideals are just an interpolation between the status quo and another ideal (in this case, superiority and/or dominance, which incidentally is what the Nazis believed as a whole and hence why they are not comparable to BLM or feminism), the people holding these ideals are still members of that group, and we call them extremists. (cont)

My main point however is that you can not simply generalise the morality of a group based on the actions of that subgroup, even if that subgroup is in the majority (by that logic, we could call Americans Democrats because a majority voted one into office). (cont)

There were several of peaceful demonstrations in the name of BLM. There were also several riots and cop homicides in the name of BLM. Both are different means to the same ideal, so both are members of the movement. We can't call BLM a hate group just as much as we can't call it a pacifist movement. But what I am trying to stress is that the 'hate' subgroup is indeed in the minority. (cont)

Now, calling these movements hate groups does spread polarisation. Its a cycle of self-reinforcing behaviour: someone feels discriminated, they do something bad in retaliation, and thus 'confirm' that the discrimination was justified, resulting in more bad behaviour and so on. (cont)

If you are calling BLM a hate group because of what you see done in their name, then yes, that's understandable, justifiable even (hence I don't think you are a racist or a sexist). But like I said, these subgroups are in the minority. Calling the entire group a hate group because of them only fuels that minority, until they are no longer the minority and inevitably, you end up being correct in the end.

On an unrelated note, should we take this to AS? Formatting a speech into 420 characters long posts is a bit of a bore.

Kaz, I'm gonna ignore most of what you said and focus on this:
>Funding an organisation does not make you the leader.
Have you no idea how business works? The only reason some business survive is because they are guided by those who fund them. If they lost that funding, they're done. BLM is under the whim of their funding.

A shame, considering I put a lot more effort in the rest of my speech, and I think I make some valid points. Oh well.

Regardless, you seem to forget that BLM is a movement, not a business. You can't get shares in BLM. You can't buy BLM products. You can't phone BLM Europe™ to sponsor their next upcoming demonstration.

BLM doesn't need funding. It's very happy with it, but doesn't need it.

Oh, you can believe it does need funding. The interest dies quick if there's no compensation, you see?
Also, it's an organization with the intent to ruin White/Black and Cop/Black relations big time. They never address BonB deaths, and only address ConB deaths, even though the shooting was justified.
They are all a tool, an organization, used by Soros.

Next, he's going to say that PETA is not an organization, or Greenpeace despite the fact they do recruitment, they're funded, they have funds to manage, etc.

PETA isn't an organization

It's a ing joke

Among other things, an organisation is both structured and managed. BLM is neither, it has no membership, no structured leadership, no management, no base of operations, none of that. PETA and Greenpeace do, and therefore (and amongst other reasons) are in fact organisations.

Also, I'm perfectly fine debating this subject, but sarcasm doesn't help you get your point across.

You forget that BLM has founders, and the leadership are by people who tell others where to meet via social media.

If it was honestly a movement, where's the outrage of Black on Black deaths huh? Why is it only Cops shooting down criminals, huh? A movement wouldn't ignore something so blatantly truthful.
This is an organization with the intent of killing racial relations.

Founders aren't limited to movements, and bias isn't limited to organisations. Your definitions of organisations and movements seem to be based on morality.

"BLM is not a movement because movements aren't subjective and/or immoral" simply isn't true. Your "if X then why Y?" argument can be simply rebuked by saying "because there's no reason Y can't follow out of X".

I never said BLM isn't a movement because it was subjective and/or immoral. I said it was an organization due to pushing a specific agenda under pay.
Don't put words in my mouth.

"If it was honestly a movement, where's the outrage of Black on Black deaths huh?"

I was just paraphrasing, slightly formulating your words differently isn't putting them in your mouth.

Also, that are not the only criteria of an organisation.

You don't have to fulfill all of the criteria to be something, Kazzy.

They are not movements- They might have been in 2012, but the meaning has all been but lost.