Look on Instagram with the BLM stuff. There are tons of radical accounts that just post whatever in a cool infographic, and then it gets shared on peoples stories. And it's actually pretty anti-white and racist itself.
Here is a BLM supporting moniker:
"BLMACAB white people are a disease" [1]
Literally that's their title/moniker, it's not even a Tweet, it's in every Tweet!
Now if that's not racist, then what is?
And how does Twitter not consider that 'hate speech'?
How has this not been flagged?
And how are advertisers not concerned about such language on Twitter, but they are of Facebook?
Obviously, it's not the same thing as racism 'in the other direction' due to issues of power etc. but it's still racist.
This is common in Twitter.
I watched the 'Prisoner' series as a kid on re-runs, it's absolutely amazing. I'll never forget it, it's like nothing else.
That said, I do think the author of the piece is a tiny bit one-sided on it, I don't think it's about the kind of progressive-groupthink, I think it's pointed a little bit more broadly. Many classical, orthodox societies obviously have degrees of pushing social conformity etc..
Equating the BLM movement with groupthink is actually groupthink.
In June 2020, King tweeted that statues, murals, and stained glass windows depicting a white Jesus should be removed. "Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down," he tweeted. "They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been.
Are you hurt by that assertion? Please show citations where actual "anti-white" comments are made. N.B. calling white people out on their shit is not "anti-white".
Just spend 5 mins perusing his Instagram, look at maybe 10 random posts and see the undertones.
Again, calling out white people on their shit is not racist. Show me posts where he's issuing judgments of people solely on their skin color.
This language is certainly within the threshold of civility, he should be able to say such things without being 'cancelled' , but it's obviously 'anti white' and casually racist. He's antagonising to make a name for himself. This is the equivalent of Trump's 'Whuan Virus' rhetoric.
I'm as white as they come and these statements don't threaten me.
How was the statement I cited racist?
That being said, he would have been dark-skinned Middle Eastern, like everyone else in the region at the time.
Jesus is ultimately a metaphysical figure, his skin colour is irrelevant.
Are you going to be the 'Young Stazi' going around from Church to Church with the Pantone cards making sure he's 'Pantone Lion 17-1330' and not a shade off?
And will you do the same for the Buddha, who was almost assuredly 'Brown' (Indian sub-continent), and not 'East Asian' as often depicted?
And what about all the Black and Asian Jesuses? You're going to take those down as well?
We're gonna call out 1/2 the world as "RACIST!" now?
And "That's a Lie." ... of all the concerns and 'evil lies' that people tell about Jesus and it's going to be his skin colour (?!?!) which, you're not even sure of? And maybe not, for example, the bit about 'turning water into wine'?
It's Month Python crazy.
Just FYI:
- Jesus was probably a real person (Moses was not, Mohammed definitely was, Buddha probably was) , though obviously, if you're into 'historical' Jesus, he probably didn't turn water into wine. But the 'historical Jesus' isn't that interesting, it's the metaphorical/metaphysical person/creation that is the foundation of the Church and the Teacher.
- His 'skin colour' was probably what see now in the Middle East and would have been identical to most Romans or Greek and would not have been seen as 'brown' as one would have to go to Ethopia/Nubia for that kind of thing even then. Jesus could have been fair skinned like many Greeks. In '19th century' terms people from the 'Middle East' are Caucasian - meaning 'White'. If a Lebanese citizen told you they identified as 'White' would you deny them that? The point being, the identification of Jesus as being 'White or Not' racially is not only missing the point, it's not even possible to define.
- "But son of God? Only if you consider every man a son of God" once again, not even in the ballpark. For starters, not 'every man' was Abraham Lincoln, to start, and not every man started the the most influential and enduring social movement in world history.
- Shawn King is an artist, making a name for himself. He's a rabble-rouser, getting his name spread around the world by making racist statements that others are only too willing to publish.
Now - if Shawn wanted to say 'Hey, that White people depict their Lord as White, when he probably was not, might create a problematic perspective' and if Shawn also wanted to concede that this is actually common among religions and there's a universality to it, and wanted to have a discussion about this - that would be some intellectual rhetoric worth an evening on Charlie Rose if he wasn't cancelled.
But he and his enablers at CNN are (painfully obviously) not interested in any discussion, rather, in attacking what they perceive to be 'White Culture' as the source of all of their problems.
If Barack Obama, and avowed Christian and serious intellect, for example, wanted to talk about the issue of 'White depictions of Jesus' - now that would be fine, and he'd have the ear of half the nation. But Shawn needs to be cancelled because he has nothing to contribute but racist antagonising.
You're taking a single statement and making hay with it. All you've convinced me of is that you have a white fragility problem.
No, BLM one of the best examples of groupthink.
I support BLM, specifically with respect to the notion of police violence against, specifically, Black people.
But the BLM institution itself, is founded and driven by some ideologues with whom I disagree quite a lot.
There are many public events and actions 'in the name of BLM' with which I disagree.
The reason it's 'groupthink' and possibly oppressive, is because I'm not allowed to disagree with any of, without facing social consquence.
To disagree with 'some' BLM issue, is to disagree with the the very notion of 'Black Lives Matter'.
BLM is one of the most incidentally brilliant bits of communication in modern history - take a nominal, unassailable factual truth, like 'Black Lives Matter' - that nobody, but nobody can reasonably disagree with ... and then take that and do whatever you want 'in the name of BLM' - and you can pursue your agenda with vigour and aggression, knowing that you can smackdown anyone who disagrees with you with the moniker of 'racist'.
The F1 had a race in which the drivers and teams 'knelt' before the start, but the CNN article was not in the affirmative 'some drivers support BLM' - no, it was in the negative: "Formula One drivers divided as several choose not to kneel in support of Black Lives Matter movement" [1].
No longer is this a movement which you get to support, but rather, if you do not support the movement, your actions will be made public and you will have to answer to them.
This headline is pretty much on-point with respect to the nature of the article about 'The Prisoner' - though I should add, as having seen every episode in the original series, I disagree with the author's claim that it's about 'one kind of authority', I think the message is broader than that.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/motorsport/f1-austrian-grand-....
Nobody should be forced to take a knee, however, it is a simple gesture so it shouldn't be a big deal. Remember that this was originally done instead of standing and saluting the US flag, which is first class groupthink.
A list of your disagreements with BLM would be interesting to see.
These words in a different context could be a little scary though and it kind of makes my point: "Hey, don't you care about Black People, then Bend the Knee and support the cause, it's only a 'small gesture' if you don't do it, people will question you'.
CNN doesn't just write 'a headline' - they write 'all of their headlines' to very aggressively promote the narratives that interest them. Much like some other news outlets, they are incredibly influential.
The F1 drivers who did not 'kneel' were forced to 'explain themselves' in a public statement.
FYI BLM's founders are Marxists, and I disagree quite a lot with Marxism, so that's for starters. BLM is demanding 'reparations', another thing I disagree with. [1] I disagree with the notion that 'police brutality' is mostly a racial issue, as the science seems to indicate that cops in the US are generally more aggressive across the board - and while it's slightly tilted worse for Black people, the 'racial' aspect to BLM makes us miss the 'bigger problem' which is that it's mostly a general issue.
I disagree deeply, and actually find offensive, Colin Kaps' statement that 'July 4th is a celebration of White Supremacy'.
A very 'big issue' with which I disagree, absent from their rhetoric is the fact that there is a lot violence within the Black community in the US, far in excess of anything else in any other group, or any other civilised country. The #1 cause of death for Black men up to the age of 44 is 'violence other Black men' [2] (this is from the CDC, remember the group we're trying to get more attention due to pandemic), about 8 000 black people are killed in violence every year. Case and point, 5 days after the police murdered Freddie Grey ... in Chicago there was >150 people involved in shootings, 105 shot, and 15 killed.[3] This is really sad and tragic, and yet, nobody seems to care. Essentially, people claim to care deeply about 'Black Lives' and yet are seemingly unconcerned about the actual, tangible and terrible things happening daily, while focusing on issue of policing which I believe is periphery to the situation to the point that if we could solve the problem of 'mass violence' and deplorable poverty in such communities (very hard to do!), then the issue of policing would mostly go away.
Some general things I do support are 'decarceration' and more investment in the community.
So I notionally support BLM, and wish there was a lot more effort on the issue towards the real things that materially matter, I actually believe the BLM movement specifically with respect to policing is a side-show, the ugly problems are more complicated.
By the way, I think this is the majority view. Have a look at this Pew data [4], it's really interesting and it shows that most ethnic groups (White/Black/Asian) are actually pretty similar and consistent in their support for direct intervention into the community, and a lot less so for 'protests' for example. Very few people seem to think that protests matter.
I would not participate in any BLM related activities after Colin Kap's statement about July 4th being a 'Celebration of White Supremacy' - I find that offensive and I would be wary of any organisation to which I belong, asking me to do so.
What's not quite mentioned in the article, or even evident in the 'Prisoner' series ... is that many things that these systems want to project (maybe civility, responsibility, getting along etc.) are not bad at all. They're quite good things, so it's easy for people promoting these systems to get caught up in the easy nature of the ideology.
And finally - to your point - nationalism is definitely a form of groupthink. I don't think for a second anyone should have to 'stand' for the national anthem. If someone wants to sit in the locker room, or 'not participate' this is 100% fine, and a perfect example of true non-conformity because it's not antagonistic either. And surely, Nationalism 'getting out of hand' is way more scary than any kind of BLM activity that I might disagree with.
[1] https://populardemocracy.org/news/publications/freedom-thriv...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2017/all-races-ori...
[3] https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/20/21297470/chicag...
[3] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/06/12/amid-protests-maj...