Since its inception, BLM has caused a lot of controversies. While it has its share of supporters, it also has its share of detractors.

To discuss the criticisms behind the movement, Shermichael and Antonia interview Democrat Strategist and Johns Hopkins University Professor, Wendy Osefo, Ph.D., and Pastor Darrell Scott, senior pastor of New Spirit Revival Center and CEO of the National Diversity Coalition for Trump and the author of the upcoming book, “Nothing to Lose.”

Subscribe to Bulletproof with Antonia Okafor in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Published in: Politics

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 5 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Wish this kind of (real) dialogue was going on in the US instead of the 24-hour media driven shouting and irrationality. Thanks for doing your part to help.

    • #1
  2. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I appreciate the honesty of Prof. Osefo, explaining the meaning of Black Lives Matter.  “They don’t want to accept the premise that America is racist.”  She’s right.  I don’t want to accept that premise, because I think that it is not true.  This is my entire objection to the movement, and even the words.

    It does seem to me that the hosts agree with this position, which is disappointing to me.

    I did like some of what Pastor Scott said.  Pastor Scott and the hosts seem to think that there are a lot of people who don’t think that black lives matter (lower case).  I wonder who they’re talking about. 

    Pastor Scott made a point about which I disagree, criticizing the heavier penalties for crack than powder cocaine, and suggesting that the cause of this was racism.  But then he said: “There’s no addiction like that doggone crack addiction.”  I think that this is the reason for the heavier sentences, which — if I understand the crime bill correctly — were championed by the Congressional Black Caucus.

    I was impressed by Pastor Scott’s compassion, humility, and desire to help people overcome bad decisions including drug addiction.

    I did manage to listen to the entire podcast, which was a bit tough for me.

    • #2
  3. M. Brandon Godbey Member
    M. Brandon Godbey
    @Brandon

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I appreciate the honesty of Prof. Osefo, explaining the meaning of Black Lives Matter. “They don’t want to accept the premise that America is racist.” She’s right. I don’t want to accept that premise, because I think that it is not true. This is my entire objection to the movement, and even the words.

    It does seem to me that the hosts agree with this position, which is disappointing to me.

     

    Dr. Osefo’s presentation of both BLM and conservative dissent to BLM was iffy at best.  Her descriptions of why conservatives object to BLM (the quasi-Marxist organization) are largely straw men mixed with the occasional “assuming the sale”, pretending that her point has been made when it has not.  Her defense of BLM is a classic Mott-and-Bailey fallacy.  She attempts to lump BLM (the political organization) in with “black lives matter” (the general sentiment that black lives are just as important as all other lives).  The two are not remotely the same.  Yet, if you follow Dr. Osefo’s “argument”, we are to believe that in order to care about the lives of black people we must also endorse the postmodernist, pseudo-Marxist notion that the nuclear family must be eliminated.  This is, of course, preposterous.  Once can clearly endorse one without the other. 

    As for the hosts, it seems that Ms. Okafor and Mr. Singleton are taking the Dave Rubin approach to interviewing guests.  Stop, listen, and allow them to completely articulate their point of view without much in the way of pushback.  I have no objections to this form of conversation, as long as the rules are the same for all guests.  

    • #3
  4. Hank Rhody, Badgeless Bandito Contributor
    Hank Rhody, Badgeless Bandito
    @HankRhody

    “But when we look at all black lives, are all of them in danger? No. So let’s talk about the ones that are in danger”…

    I don’t see how that indicates we shouldn’t be talking about abortion, or black cops killed on the beat.

    If you’re having problems with people understanding a simple phrase like “Black lives matter”, then maybe you should limit it’s meaning to the meaning of the phrase and not a whole bunch of implications about how this is a racist country and how we’d have to sign on to a leftist organization associated with that phrase and all these other things.

    • #4
  5. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane Oyen
    @DuaneOyen

    I had great appreciation for Pastor Scott, with one significant question.  I understand and agree with the idea that the rigidity of the 3 strikes approach locking up non-dangerous people is dumb.  But what I wish someone would explain to me is: What should a police officer do in a Michael Floyd situation when a) a crime is committed (passing a counterfeit money at a small, not-wealthy, neighborhood store), b) the suspect is intoxicated, c) the suspect is physically imposing, and d) resists arrest?

    Obviously, no police officer should behave as Chauvin did and he deserves what is coming to him.  But Pastor Scott seemed to imply that Floyd should have been simply let go if he resisted, not exactly a good incentive structure in a world of moral hazards.   The advocates of eliminating police don’t offer a lot of useful ideas.

    • #5