For one thing, white people don't like to listen to black people, especially about racial issues....
Not you specifically, but white people in general don't like to listen to black people.
Not every last person in that race, but yes, in general, white people don't like to listen to black people talk about racism.
Ask yourself, “What’s wrong with this progression?”
Why might any audience not like to be lectured on prejudice? Could prejudice and hypocrisy on the part of the speaker, any speaker, play a part there?
Sanders had already told them to shush
Maybe I missed it in the video you provided. At what time index specifically does Sanders ‘shush’ those disrupting the event?
That's what they themselves say, and they have a very good explanation for it, too. There's nothing incredible about it.
I don’t see what’s so hard about admitting that one’s movement has been co-opted. Any movement worth co-opting has been. Often to lower depths than cowardly provocations like this Swiftboating of Sanders. I may’ve thought Oscar Grant protesters shutting down the Port, BART and freeways in Oakland was misguided, and alienating to a mass public that needs to get to work, but at least that was powerful. BLM protest operations like heckling Sunday-morning brunch places in Berkeley, now that, on the other hand, is cowardice. Back-rationalizing attacks on Sanders, or piecing together some explanation for why teams should harass Cal kids with their visiting grandparents, that’s nonsense. There’s no higher purpose served, unless it’s to discredit the movement and galvanize the opposition, and more likely to knock down Sanders.
A conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation" than two people working alone. At minimum, you have to add a third person, the person paying them.
That’s to your working definition of a conspiracy, which is not the only possible conspiracy. Nor is a conspiracy all that hard to suss out given what’s known of these events, if you give it half a try. It bothers me to see people portrayed as anti-Democratic-Party by reason of association with Glen Ford and Black Agenda Report, but a pop-up sham is a pop-up sham whatever astroturfed links are on their half-baked quickie FaceCrook page.
You would prefer to believe that this was a tactic well-rooted in strategy by the movement. That takes a great deal of faith. More than I think is warranted. In fact, I’d like to suggest you consider the possibility, very seriously, that a leaderless, credential-less, mass popular movement will necessarily be co-opted and directed to ends sought by its opponents. Why would BLM be any different?
Ask yourself, “What’s wrong with this progression?”
Why might any audience not like to be lectured on prejudice? Could prejudice and hypocrisy on the part of the speaker, any speaker, play a part there?
Maybe I missed it in the video you provided. At what time index specifically does Sanders ‘shush’ those disrupting the event?
I don’t see what’s so hard about admitting that one’s movement has been co-opted. Any movement worth co-opting has been. Often to lower depths than cowardly provocations like this Swiftboating of Sanders. I may’ve thought Oscar Grant protesters shutting down the Port, BART and freeways in Oakland was misguided, and alienating to a mass public that needs to get to work, but at least that was powerful. BLM protest operations like heckling Sunday-morning brunch places in Berkeley, now that, on the other hand, is cowardice. Back-rationalizing attacks on Sanders, or piecing together some explanation for why teams should harass Cal kids with their visiting grandparents, that’s nonsense. There’s no higher purpose served, unless it’s to discredit the movement and galvanize the opposition, and more likely to knock down Sanders.
That’s to your working definition of a conspiracy, which is not the only possible conspiracy. Nor is a conspiracy all that hard to suss out given what’s known of these events, if you give it half a try. It bothers me to see people portrayed as anti-Democratic-Party by reason of association with Glen Ford and Black Agenda Report, but a pop-up sham is a pop-up sham whatever astroturfed links are on their half-baked quickie FaceCrook page.
You would prefer to believe that this was a tactic well-rooted in strategy by the movement. That takes a great deal of faith. More than I think is warranted. In fact, I’d like to suggest you consider the possibility, very seriously, that a leaderless, credential-less, mass popular movement will necessarily be co-opted and directed to ends sought by its opponents. Why would BLM be any different?