Why not ask them what they have tangibly done for black LGBT? If BLM for example, is a black LGBT organization, what have they done for black LGBT specifically? Do they not think reparations for them is the best thing that can happen to solve their problems? And if it is good for them, isn't it good for all of FBA?
It seems to me that if black LGBT can be used against black people as a whole, the reverse is also true. If the CBC wants to close the LGBT wealth gap, should they not be asked what they want to do to close the wealth gap between white LGBT and black LGBT?
Of course, the answer to these questions is nothing. They have not done nor do they want to do anything for black LGBT specifically. Why? Because it opens the door to conversation about doing things specifically for black people as a whole. This appears to me to be an easy way to expose them to black LGBT and drive the conversation back to FBA as a whole. The path of least resistance, "yes and" instead of "no".
Reminds me of the famous Kamala Harris interview: "… I'm going to do something that's only gonna benefit black people, no." In the same breath, she says "Any policy that benefits black people, benefits all of society."
So by her own logic, Reparations for FBA benefits all of society. She's not trying to but logically, she is saying she's not going to do anything that only benefits black people because it's literally impossible. Using her own words, it is illogical for her to not be for Reparations. She is defeated by her own words.
I think that's typical, Obama did the same thing in some interview I saw: he made a case in the negative regarding tangibles for black people but his conclusion was completely illogical if anything he presented to come to his conclusion was taken into account. And nobody said anything. He, just like her, said something that made absolutely no sense and the interviewer just moved on.
Even critics don't point it out. Kamala just made the case FOR Reparations but no one ever points that out when they bring up this clip.
This seems unrelated (maybe) to the original topic, but it points to the same thing: I believe in our resistance, we sometimes overlook inroads to our point the opposition themselves have made for us. We overlook the "anything they say (or do) can be used against them."
It seems to me that if black LGBT can be used against black people as a whole, the reverse is also true. If the CBC wants to close the LGBT wealth gap, should they not be asked what they want to do to close the wealth gap between white LGBT and black LGBT?
Of course, the answer to these questions is nothing. They have not done nor do they want to do anything for black LGBT specifically. Why? Because it opens the door to conversation about doing things specifically for black people as a whole. This appears to me to be an easy way to expose them to black LGBT and drive the conversation back to FBA as a whole. The path of least resistance, "yes and" instead of "no".
Reminds me of the famous Kamala Harris interview: "… I'm going to do something that's only gonna benefit black people, no." In the same breath, she says "Any policy that benefits black people, benefits all of society."
So by her own logic, Reparations for FBA benefits all of society. She's not trying to but logically, she is saying she's not going to do anything that only benefits black people because it's literally impossible. Using her own words, it is illogical for her to not be for Reparations. She is defeated by her own words.
I think that's typical, Obama did the same thing in some interview I saw: he made a case in the negative regarding tangibles for black people but his conclusion was completely illogical if anything he presented to come to his conclusion was taken into account. And nobody said anything. He, just like her, said something that made absolutely no sense and the interviewer just moved on.
Even critics don't point it out. Kamala just made the case FOR Reparations but no one ever points that out when they bring up this clip.
This seems unrelated (maybe) to the original topic, but it points to the same thing: I believe in our resistance, we sometimes overlook inroads to our point the opposition themselves have made for us. We overlook the "anything they say (or do) can be used against them."
