>>119073656Clarification time for this entire thread
>TL;DR: BLM is largely a decentralized cause that a singular marxist group tries to have a monopoly on and the media on both sides fails to differentiateAt large,
>>119073696 is 100% right. The average joe referring to BLM is referring to the movement against police brutality at large. However there’s a certain issue that comes up here with the “Black Lives Matter Global Network” (GN for short for the rest of this post)
The Global Network is the group of “trained marxists” with the website stating the values you see in
>>119073618Though arguably the originators of the phrase, the movement has long since gone out of this group’s hands. Yet whenever you see a “Black Lives Matter activist” on media, they’re likely from the GN. Regardless of what their stance on the organization or movement at large, mainstream media almost always will refer to this group as “Black Lives Matter”
This then reverberates back to people learning about the GN’s agenda, which still acts like it has a monopoly on the larger movement, and more importantly, is largely the one that people donate to not fully knowing what it is (“Donated to Black Lives Matter” often refers to the GN).
This is where the tension starts because people naturally feel like they’ve been duped into supporting a movement made up of radicals. People who either don’t fully disagree with the GN or haven’t learned about it see people disavowing BLM and think they’re talking about the police brutality stuff
It’s honestly a vicious cycle driven by partisan politics and media failure to properly differentiate between the two
