The video below shows two conservative black women in red rain ponchos. The one lady who does most of the talking is giving an impassioned speech to whom I can only guess is a white liberal woman about what being black means to her.
Among many of the effectual points and statements that the woman in the red poncho makes is that the Democratic Party founded the KKK. The Republican party is the party of the blacks. And that BLM was hijacked by groups that don't know anything about black culture.
She goes on to ask: "How did Black Lives Matter turn into something about LGBTQ when blacks really don't support that?" She points out that: "we're conservative, we're really not about that. Not only that, we don't support abortion." She goes on to say: "We're not about feminism. Black women marry their husbands and respect their husbands."
Now, this is tricky terrain because when individuals start to speak about groups and cultures, there is a tendency to make hasty generalizations. And if you believe that culture, groups, organizations, and gangs of peoples exist. When speaking to the various traits of any of these entities, it's almost impossible to do so without making generalizations.
So bare in mind, no matter who you are, if you pay consideration to an entity collective, there is a strong chance that you will define its traits according to your subjective lens and personal experience with members of said entity. And sometimes when entities become so uniform in their ways, hasty generalizations can apply generally, but perhaps not uniformly among all of a group's members.
A good example is shown below. The video shows a handful of BLM folks in CHAZ attempt to protect a peaceful protester who is carrying a U.S. flag in an area that is generally hostile to that symbol. And it just goes to show that not all BLM participants or Social Justice Warriors agree with the violence committed by others in their respective groups.
A few BLM & CHAZ occupants try to protect a peaceful protester.
So it begs the question if you don't want to fall victim to committing a logical fallacy, how do people call out the wrongs of groups who have made a horrible name for themselves? At some point, is it the responsibility of an individual to split from a group after they've shown their true colors?
I remember when I faced a similar dilemma in the days of Ron Paul. His tea party got hijacked by neocons, and I was in denial about it for the longest time. I was in complete shock that a whole movement could get hijacked and found it hard to detach myself from the original name even after it became tainted. I just thought, well, that's the fake tea party, not the real one.
Individuals and groups of individuals are tricky business, and this is because groups almost end up becoming individuals in their own right. They end up looking like the totality of all the actions of everyone involved. Yet, the problem with news many times is that if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead. When there are pain and blood involved, we have to focus our attention on it to stop the problem in its tracks. And this can apply to our human bodies as well as it can to violence in groups.
Anywho, this post is mainly food for thought. I don't know if it's wise to judge a group by the collective content of its character when you know that a group is composed of individuals who may have a wide variety of differing beliefs. What say you, on the topic? Feel free to sound off in the comment section below. I would, however, like to leave you with one last video by Samantha Mason that I found particularly enlightening.
In One Red Pill Video Samantha Mason Exposes the BLM Agenda.
Delegate [100|200|300|500|1K] to @informationwar!☑