Subsidized Community Organizers marked the one year anniversary of Mike Brown attacking a cop and getting shot to death by shouting down a speech by a grumpy old white man, shooting each other, suggesting that white people needed to die, blocking traffic, and chanting obscenely on TV.
Remember when the media told us that electing Barack Obama would heal the country’s racial wounds?
In considering the #BlackLivesMatter and #Ferguson movement, the question that comes to mind is “What is the point?” What are these activists really trying to accomplish? Raise awareness? OK, done, you can go away now.
Is there some concrete objective they are working toward? It seems to be more about the protests themselves than achieving anything through the medium of protest.
Gay marriage activists had a defined objective; legalized gay marriage shoved down America’s throat. And they achieved it.
Does anyone have any clue what #BlackLivesMatter is out to accomplish, aside from making life measurably worse for blacks in the inner city?
Update: Evil Otto has the best answer, the only point is gratification of the left-winger’s narcissist ego.
It’s THEATER, meant to make them feel that they’re part of a struggle, standing up to the forces of evil when all they’re really doing is pissing off commuters.
And what it did for [a left-wing friend] was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.