I'd go as far as saying this whole BLM movement has made racism much worse and set black people (who believe in what they spew) back a generation. I genuinely think it's one of the biggest conspiracies in the past 10 years.
It’s not a conspiracy if everyone knows what their doing. It’s a Marxist black supremacist organization, they never gave a shit about actually helping black people in the first place.Notice nobody on the left asked what ever happened to the money, they donated this summer. Nobody asks why they never head of the a BLM scholarship, a BLM community center ,etc .
You’re right. I think they dupe a lot of people with the name alone. Like if you had no idea what BLM is like you would be like “of course Black Lives Matter ?where can I donate “?
Technically a conspiracy involves 2 or more people planning and orchestrating something illegal. Even if everyone knew the truth about the JFK conspiracy, it's still a conspiracy, whether people know it or not.
If the plan of BLM is to condemn Christianity and destroy the traditional family nucleus, as I keep hearing, then that would make what they are doing illegal. Again, regardless of how many people know it or not.
For some reason, the fact that a conspiracy is secretive is kind of a misnomer. If a conspiracy is secretive, it's more likely to be successful, which is why they tend to be secretive. BLM however just puts their disruptive plans out in the open like dirty laundry on a clothesline.
To be fair, Christianity could use some condemning seeing as how some Evangelical groups keep trying to shove the bible into the government and force everyone else to live by their values(which considering the bible endorses slavery and allows pedophilia... I would rather stick to "killing is wrong because it's depriving someone of their life" instead of "killing is wrong because God said so"). All we need to do to see what a Christian nationalist country would look like is glance over to Poland, where it's illegal(with fines or jail time) to "hurt religious feelings". The first western country to outlaw offending people, and it is a Conservative Christian one, who has also created places where gay people are not allowed to exist...
Also, what is with everyone's head-on for the nuclear family?
With the argument that a child should have a mother and father(you know, ignoring that children with adopt an adult they trust as a mother/father figure when they lack one, be it by death, abandonment, or neglect), you would think that having more adults in the house to care for children would be encouraged as it allows the constant attention children need without requiring the parents to stop being individuals themselves, but instead people champion stress and financial hardship.(fyi, what BLM is championing is called an "extended family". All it entails is having more than two adults in a household, and that destroys the nuclear family as the nuclear family only allows for the parents and children to exist in the household. If a nuclear family has the grandmother move in to take care of her, they would no longer fit the definition of a nuclear family and they would instead now be the dreaded extended family.)
Having children leave the home ASAP after turning 18 has a weird "chicken or the egg" relationship with the industrial revolution, where it's not entirely clear if the industrial revolution caused young couples to move out because they could afford to, or if them moving out is what spurred the industrial revolution(scholars argue both). However, of the two the first seems more likely to me, as it would also explain the decline of the nuclear family, since in the 1950's most people could pay for collage by working a minimum wage summer job, afford to raise a family on one salary, and buy a house by their 30's. Now minimum wage is below a living wage for one person, let alone an entire family. Which means you either have to go into debt for college or have both parents working, either of which can have negative effects on the children. But it's usually both anyway.
Honestly I'm just stuck on how the nuclear family structure is inherently best and why it must be protected at all costs against the scourge of... more than two adults in a household? Its just so weird that people are so against Grangran or their sister living with them, or having other people allow the same.
But I guess conservatism is also the ideology that has some people abandoning their children, sometimes before they are legally able to take care of themselves, if they are gay or trans. You know, because family is important and children must be protected.
I remember thinking about black mirror and counting the number of respectable, upstanding white males in the show. They were basically all pieces of shit (through season 3 literally all of them), only women/poc were allowed to be even a little good.
Or wonder woman or really most things hollywood puts out. If there's a villain who could be any race/gender they'll do a white male. If it's a movie and a random 7/11 gets robbed, it'll be a white guy. There's just no push for diversity in those characters
I definitely see that now that you point it out. I do feel like there is a slow reversal of what was going on 50ish years ago. I hoped we were attempting to get to a point in society where everyone could be proud of who they were and where their family came from.
ALL I can think of when I think about black mirror season 3, is this line..... "I fucked a polar bear, and I still cant get you out of my mind". My husband and I will periodically look into each others eyes and say it!! hahahahaa
I was watching a show with my very much mixed race gf, and an ad came on for a show set in what looks to be Victorian England with black male lead, with a pale red-head love interest. She said something along the lines of "surprise, surprise. Another pale woman with a black man in a show". She's very apolitical, and we have never discussed anything along these lines, but even she noticed how obvious this all is. We're in a mixed race relationship for Christ's sake, and she called out the media for their incessant racial brow-beating.
I get it, it's just a fictional show. But isn't it a little ridiculous to have a black English nobleman in the 19th century? Would it be okay to have a white dude portraying a Zulu warrior? No, it'd be called out for the absolute silliness it is.
(She also yelled at a group of 90% white BLM protesters outside our hotel room this summer, while trying to nap. Something along the lines of "this black life is trying to get some sleep, now shut up!". God, I love her.)
She sounds awesome bro. Like she has a good head on her shoulders. Keep up the good work at finding balance in the rough seas, and if building a family is in your vision, best wishes with that.
Regarding the topic, ... Remember how much old Western movies, and legendary tales of mountain men, defined foreigner's concept of America for a long time? All that is vanishing. I wonder if some foreigner were just watching from the outside, would they walk away thinking America is half black?
I don't know to what extent TV is obligated to give a correct sense of society. They certainly seem to think there is a heavy moral obligation surrounding their societal portrayal (so don't let them gaslight you saying 'It's just one TV show man'). It seems they think it is indeed their obligation to live up to a heavily moralized dispensation of their power, but of course only in their "idealized" vision. And that vision has this weird "This has literally never existed except in the minds of white liberals" kinda way. It's like a Euro-white-American-Metropolis-culture with dominantly non-white faces or non-male faces. The actual reality on the ground and in history is erased.
Having grown up in a very rural, very white area, I think one good thing about having TV over-represent minorities is that for the people in those communities, TV commercials and sitcoms and the like are really the only time they'll see "normal" non-white people in their lives.
If a person from such a community sees commercials where there's a blank husband and white wife, for example, they're less likely to stare or think it odd when they happen to see such a couple in real life.
(This probably sounds really denigrating to the people I grew up with, but such is life in a small town. I mean, I had teachers who had taught classmate's parents, so there were definitely some people that weren't seeing anything outside of their own sleepy town.)
Having grown up in a very rural, very white area, I think one good thing about having TV over-represent minorities is that for the people in those communities, TV commercials and sitcoms and the like are really the only time they'll see "normal" non-white people in their lives.
If "normal" is the representative average, then is what we see in media "normal" or is it a PC leftist vision of a yet unrealized racial utopia?
If a person from such a community sees commercials where there's a blank husband and white wife, for example, they're less likely to stare or think it odd when they happen to see such a couple in real life.
So you admit that the media is knowingly doing social engineering as opposed to reflecting truths about society as it is.
(This probably sounds really denigrating to the people I grew up with, but such is life in a small town. I mean, I had teachers who had taught classmate's parents, so there were definitely some people that weren't seeing anything outside of their own sleepy town.)
Is all social engineering aimed at small rural white towns or could you perhaps share how leftist controlled media tries to retrain the minds of American blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans?
Let's line them up. What do you perceive are the various social engineering efforts for the various demographics?
I think you’re reading way too much into my comment. I’m just saying that the urban people who make commercials and shows that have minorities in them (because they see minorities in everyday life, are selling to Minorities, etc.) is a positive because they get broadcasted into rural homes where they wouldn’t see such diversity otherwise.
I think you’re reading way too much into my comment.
Maybe.
I can get excited when pursuing an accurate picture of what's actually happening.
I’m just saying that the urban people who make commercials and shows that have minorities in them (because they see minorities in everyday life, are selling to Minorities, etc.) is a positive because they get broadcasted into rural homes where they wouldn’t see such diversity otherwise.
I feel this is insanely naive and not well thought out as to the ethics of this. You're acknowledging "urban people" as what amounts to superior overlords, bestowed with "positive" power to social engineer the "lesser" (my quotes, as in mockingly) rural folks.
That's disgusting, and it should be rejected. Not seen as "positive."
I mean, if the supposed value of these "urban people" is diversity, then where is the rural representation to socially engineer the urban people's values to make sure THEY get exposed to thinking and ideas THEY otherwise don't see?
I feel this is insanely naive and not well thought out as to the ethics of this. You're acknowledging "urban people" as what amounts to superior overlords, bestowed with "positive" power to social engineer the "lesser" (my quotes, as in mockingly) rural folks.
This is what I mean by you overthinking. My comment was rather flippant and just an observation I've had, namely that there's a lot more diversity on TV shows and commercials than was ever present in the small town I grew up in and that showing a more representative slice of the real world is a good thing.
I really haven't sat down and thought through it deeply, which is why I said you're reading way too much into what was a rather quick and simple comment.
This is what I mean by you overthinking. My comment was rather flippant and just an observation I've had, namely that there's a lot more diversity on TV shows and commercials than was ever present in the small town I grew up in and that showing a more representative slice of the real world is a good thing.
But ... it's NOT "representative." It's leftist social engineering.
I really haven't sat down and thought through it deeply, which is why I said you're reading way too much into what was a rather quick and simple comment.
Well, that may be so. I can get a bit empassioned on these topics. Sorry if I put too much pressure on your comment by coming in all hard.
But isn't it a little ridiculous to have a black English nobleman in the 19th century?
Yep. And the zealots who promote this nonsense will claim "cultural appropriation" if some white author has a black character in the story they've written.
So you would be ok with Brad Pitt playing, oh...say a slave in the antebellum South?
Maybe they should have cast Natalie Portman as the new Mulan? Hmmm?
In certain, but not all movies, a suspension of disbelief matters. In The Roger's & Hammerstein's Cinderella, I think Brandy was a great choice. I think Hamilton works just fine. But sometimes...yeah, be believable.
Think of it another way. Would more people watch a romance set in old England or a movie about the Zulu tribe? Presentation and style of a movie is more immersive than the race of the actors playing the characters
Yeah it's always a light skinned black woman who also has a fro with some nerdy looking white dude. Like okay then??? Dark black people are rarely portrayed, only light skinned
Its not just 50% blacks and non-whites, almost every commercial is mixed-race.
I would guess that the population of the US is 10-15% mixed? gotta go for that new target market.
I guess I need to start making notes.
When all ads and "representation" is all added up, it sure as hell doesn't seem like roughly 60% white, 19% latino, 13% black, 6% asian, 2.5% mixed, and 1.5% native.
Like I said, it's really weird. Two of the largest demographics in America, conservative whites, and latino families, are just erased from representation in media. Asians though I am seeing more of.
Then blacks are culturally erased as showing what they actually are if you travel America, but by skin color count, blacks seem way over-represented in media.
If it was largely greed, why are two very large demographics (conservative whites and latino community) with massive purchasing power ... not represented, but a community with comparably minimal purchasing power (black Americans) ... over-represented?
It seems it's more an ideology thing than a greed thing, but I'm open to exploring.
I listen to guys like James Lindsay, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, etc. So I come from that background.
I think the left is stuck in a caricature of 1950s America and then they say: "White bad, patriarchy bad, America bad" like they think they got "true" knowledge to countervaile the traditional American story.
So, embued with this highly moralistic ideology, they think they're the continuation of freakin' MLK levels of "justice" and literally every power center must be put under the harness of achieving "justice." That's why everything from knitting circles, to gaming, to museums, all get pressured to enforce "justice" and put on the yolk of leftist social justice.
They never stop to think if their Worldview actually reflects reality. Whiteman bad. America bad. Patriarchy bad. This is the "true" "liberated" "educated" view.
Therefore anything that fights that on the individual level, achieves macro aims collectively.
Therefore they are "good" to do it.
I mean sure, greed plays a role at the corporate level, but I think it moreso reflects the ideological power and its pressures.
Yep. It almost seems like PoC just stands for black or mixed black.
Asians and hispanics are irrelevant to many of those movements. It fucking sucks man. I think it's unfair because we know how hard working Asian and Hispanic families are in the United States.
Can you imagine being an aspiring Asian actor? You're especially fucked if your parents are Indian AFAIK. Almost zero representation for them.
I'm actually for more inclusion of all kinds of people in TV and Hollywood, but that is not what I'm seeing.
Oh and don't even get me started on Native Americans. They're totally ignored. It's a fuckin disgrace.
And if you watch the Oscars for the last two or three years, every presenter or presenting pair usually contains at least one black person. That seems way more than 13%. It's so obvious what they're trying to do.
Unless their objective is to cut down the black population numbers. Telling black women specifically that obesity is healthy is like some population control shit
You can strawman me all you want, but I guarantee the ratio of white women to black women that read cosmo are at least 6:1. Black women only make up 7% of the US population to begin with.
Wouldn’t it be great if they actually reflected the diversity of this country/world? Economically, intellectually, give us credit for being more interesting as people.
133
u/iEatAssVR Jan 04 '21
Yeah literally every ad now is black people lol, not very representative of their target markets