Black Lives Matter (movement)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Death23 is Con. Resolution: This house would support the black lives matter movement.
in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities.
"The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense" (page 80)"The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV were in self-defense" (page 82)"this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed." (page 86)
Witness 101 made multiple statements to the media immediately following the incident that spawned the popular narrative that Wilson shot Brown execution-style as he held up his hands in surrender. [...] Witness 101 has a misdemeanor conviction for a crime of dishonesty likely admissible in federal court as impeachment evidence. As described above, material parts of Witness 101’s account are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence, internally inconsistent from one part of his account to the next, and inconsistent with other credible witness accounts that are corroborated by physical evidence. (Pages 44 & 47)
“We’ve committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive.”“Black Lives Matter is a movement to address and eradicate not only police brutality against black people, but the racism that inspires it.”
“We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.”“To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.”
- Black offenders get longer sentences than white for similar history and crimes. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing
- Black people are more likely to got to jail for drugs despite similar rates of usage. http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/vortex.pdf
- Black Americans are disproportionately affected by police shootings. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/05/28/police-shootings-black-americans-disproportionately-affected-infographic/#24e8b51459f7
Pro talks about "superior" and "inferior". Lets be clear, I didn't use those words and I wasn't talking about superior physical or mental traits, which is what those words typically refer to in a racial context. What I was talking about was the relative importance of black lives or anti-black racism versus all lives or other forms of racism. When it's racist police brutality against Hispanics, it doesn't matter to the BLM movement. Why not? Because the victim wasn't black.
The BLM is strongly ethnocentric, and this has not been denied by Pro. The BLM movement divides America on racial lines. If you're black, then black people are your community. If you're not black, then you're not part of that community and can never. It is pretty standard for people to value the members of their community above those who are outside their community. In other words, for the BLM movement, black lives matter more. White, Hispanic, and Asian lives matter less.
Breast cancer awareness advocacy is not comparable. It is a health issue. There isn't any blame. There isn't any racial or ethnic divisiveness. There is some gender division, but not really since men can get breast cancer. There is a slight divisiveness to it (why not raise testicular cancer awareness?) but men and women don't have a history of voting as political blocks or politically aligning themselves on the basis of sex. If awareness of breast cancer was being advocated by hardcore feminists who despised men, and it was being done because they valued men less and women more, then I suppose it could be divisive, but I just don't see that happening.
The words cited from BLM's page by Pro are just lip service. They only fight for black people. They claim that this is fighting for all people, perhaps to deflect allegations of ethnocentrism. But fighting only for blacks isn't fighting for everybody. Black is the priority for the BLM movement. If you're not black, then you don't matter to them.
Pro doesn't deny that the BLM movement uses false narratives. Pro simply changes the subject. The fact is that the BLM movement lies, and continues to lie. Facts and evidence don't matter and are trampled over.
Pro compares my argument to anti-maskers and COVID-19. This comparison is not accurate. COVID-19 is a big deal, and a high-impact issue that I specifically cited as significant. COVID-19 is a big issue because of the high number of deaths. (1,000 people a day-ish now?) Police brutality against black people is a relatively low-impact issue because of the low number of deaths (250ish per year-ish).
The reality is that black people dying at the hands of police simply doesn't have enough of an objective impact to justify the focus placed on it by the BLM movement. This is a misplaced priority, an undue focus, an overreaction, etc. Problems in policing are important and shouldn't be ignored, but they're not THAT important. Pro characterizing my position as "smaller issues should be ignored" is a straw-man argument. I didn't say that.
- Applicants with white sounding names were 50 percent more likely to get called for an interview than people black sounding names despite having similar resumes
- Black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a call back or job offer
- Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. have donated upwards of $100m to support black businesses, organizations, schools, etc: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/companies-donating-black-lives-matter/
- Democrats restructured their national platform to include issues such as criminal justice reform: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/26/12291274/democratic-convention-police-violence-mothers-of-the-movement
- Helped incite the release of four U.S. DOJ reports that confirm the widespread presence of police corruption in Baltimore, Chicago, Ferguson, and Cleveland: https://www.mhpbooks.com/out-today-federal-reports-on-police-killings/
- Inspired more than 7,500 BLM demonstrations between May and August of 2020, 93% of which were peaceful: https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/
Black Lives Matter has shed light on the racism that exists in many areas of society, and most specifically within the law enforcement/legal system. In pushing these issues into mainstream discourse, BLM has inspired positive change within political platforms, media, and many large organizations/businesses.
BLM is a diverse movement, not a divisive one. We have seen the diversity within the many different types of people who have shown up to protests, and other events. We have seen the BLM movement show up for victims of police brutality who are not black, and we have seen them pay honor to public figures who are not black.
If you wonder why BLM prioritizes certain issues within the black community, it’s because they choose issues that had not yet been highlighted/prioritized by other large political groups/organizations. They choose issues that are underrepresented in mainstream politics. The focus on victims of police violence is to reveal a legal system that has routinely treated black people (both innocent and non-innocent) poorly when compared to their white equivalents, and not just in the case of when a victim dies, but across the legal system.
In my arguments, I provided studies, data, and other evidence to support these views. I believe I was able to show the necessity behind the BLM movement, as well as the value in supporting the movement.
Thank you to all who took the time to read this debate.
A Forfeit would in-arguably lead to the PRO winning, but there was an entire debate before hand, only letting out one round, let's explore it shall we?
Arguments:
Round 1:
Con starts with a argument that's central points are as follows: BLM is ethnocentric movement, BLM will spread false information, and that BLM is a relatively small impact issues by comparing death statistics. The sources are promising, but a notably cherry picking of data is apparent, given sources later provided by PRO
Pro noticeably does not provide a case, instead critiquing Con's case. Pro does indeed respond to every point in Con's initial case, providing sufficient sources and reasoning to rebut these claims.
Overall I'd agree with some of the voter's below that Con would have been much more convincing had they provided clear definitions of the terms being used, and clarified the BoP for all parties sooner in. Pro was convincing, but it is true they would have had a much better start had they provided a constructive and not just a rebuttal.
Round 2:
Con starts out by correctly mentioning that Pro has not fulfilled their BoP; however, the straw man that follow is not nearly as correct. Not only are their no sources provided for any of the claims within the beginning of the argument, but some of their "points" are simply repeated gs from Round 1. Not to mention that half of Con's rebuttal's are simply a dismissal without proper evidence.
Pro does provide a case to support BLM, short and to the point, and well-sourced. This time Pro elaborates on a point that Con simply dismissed in their round, to most every point that Con brought up actually. Correcting some factually incorrect claims that Con had made, with sourcing abundant in their argument.
Overall- this is the last round of the debate, and as such, I'll critique it as such. Last we left off, Con provided very little sources, simply dismisses several arguments without evidence, and every one of Con's comparison's dismantled by Pro.
Bonus: Pro further summarizes, why they have fulfilled their burden, and ties up some loose ends that the round had left off at.
Sources: While Con does provide sources, they are relatively lightly spread throughout their first argument, and nearly nonexistent in their second. This is compared to Pro who provides a source for nearly every point argued.
Conduct: Lack of sourcing on Con's part, Forfeit on last round, etc
Con spread disinformation and commited libel regarding BLM, Pro put the right-wing bigot in his/her place and schooled him/her.
Con says utter nonsense like that BLM is ethnocentric and after all these false claims uses a link that doesn't even support this lie. The usage of sources is so incomparably different in skill level and reliability that I'm not sure I need to say more. Pro uses a variety of solid sources such as USCC.Gov, Forbes.Com and JusticePolicy.Org, each to slam home raised points as valid.
Con literally has 0 contentions that are true, literally. Just a series of disinformation and lies that Pro rips to shreds systematically slamming home the points of unfair sentencing, wrongful conviction and much more for black people and explains how it's the poor (who are majority black) and the biases against black people that are why BLM focuses on blacks, not the actual race being itself the focus.
In fact the strongest paragraph for me was this:
"The reality is that black people dying at the hands of police simply doesn't have enough of an objective impact to justify the focus placed on it by the BLM movement. This is a misplaced priority, an undue focus, an overreaction, etc. Problems in policing are important and shouldn't be ignored, but they're not THAT important. Pro characterizing my position as "smaller issues should be ignored" is a straw-man argument. I didn't say that."
This encapsulates the way Pro could have retorted each and every one of Con's vile lies about the great movement that is BLM.
Conduct for pure lies based on bigotry from Con, as well as a Round 3 forfeit. Con intentionally misrepresents Pro's case and the importance of police abuse, which further justifies the loss of Conduct point.
Important and timely subject, well argued with strong engagement on both sides. Good debate.
CON's most important mistake was failure to define terms and BoP. This VOTER is confident that given if CON had refined the field of play and defined a few essential terms, CON's argument would prove far more persuasive. Since Burden of Proof was not defined, this VOTER applies the default- INSTIGATOR bears to burden.
R1
CON: BLM ethno-centric/ethno-supremacist, divisive
focus on black people implies less worth , integration with non-black
*cites short term harms to community trust
PRO counters focus on black oppression need not imply supremacy or exclusion
*cites BLM mission statement (not a very persuasive source on arg)
BLM promotes false narratives
*cites Michael Brown w/ good evidence
*cites Trayvon Martin w/out evidence (what BLM false narratives?)
PRO counters with stats vs. anecdote. BLM getting some facts wrong re: some specific case does not prove false narrative more convincingly than USFG stats.
(best arg of debate, PRO wins this arg)
BLM distracts from bigger problems
*cites black murder rates
*coronavirus
*2.8 mil dead in 2018 (how does less distraction improve this stat?)
PRO concedes smaller issue but argues that racist govt. violence is part of larger continuum and that BLM is multi-issue movement.
(push, PRO's counter is weak but CON's appeal to worse problems (Fallacy of Relative Privation) is a classic non-persuader for this VOTER)
R2
CON doubles and triples down on BLM only cares about Black issues
*cites no evidence
self-*contradicts by arguing that it is "standard for people to value insiders above outsiders" If BLM is exhibiting pretty standard stuff than what is CON's complaint?
*CON's claim is so absolute (if you're not black then you're not part of BLM) that PRO's two examples of protesting Hispanic deaths effectively counter.
CON loses cred built in R1 here.
CON drops False Narrative "big picture" args.
PRO wisely concedes anecdotal falsehoods and expands big picture with local and Fed findings of racist conduct, justifying BLM's concerns in the big picture.
PRO wins false narrative arguments. Demonstrating that an organization persists in at least one false narrative does not justify non-support. Name some large org that does not collectively persist in at least one false narrative- religions, govts, fraternal orders, etc.
PRO effectively shows that BLM is more than just some falsehoods from Ferguson.
PRO effectively shuts down the "bigger problems" argument by opening several affirmative arguments documenting the impacts of racism on the black community and the positive national impacts inspired by BLM protests.
CON undermines his "bigger problems" argument further by bringing up the national response to George Floyd's death. Clearly, much of the nation agreed with BLM's concerns and priorities this summer.
PRO really pulled ahead in R2 and unfortunately CON forfeited R3- assuring that
ARGUMENTS go to PRO
PRO clearly had the edge in SOURCES but not sufficient to warrant PRO
CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeit
CON gives the slightly predictable argument that BLM is a strongly ethnocentric movement. CON argues that instead we should abandon racial identities entirely. He also gives the more strong argument that BLM spreads false propaganda to further its cause, an inherently harmful endeavor. Finally, CON argues that BLM distracts from more important issues, like black on black violence.
PRO gives the tried and true response that "BLM does not imply no other lives matter." PRO responds to the false propaganda argument by saying that the core message of BLM is the empowerment of mistreated black people, even if they are not 100% accurate on every case. I feel like this response ignores the core issue CON brings up, which is that misinformation hurts people. Still, it at least demonstrates there is a systematic issue to be addressed. PRO has a very solid response to CON's distraction point: "I disagree with the logic that because a larger issue exists, that smaller issues should be ignored. This is the same argument that anti-maskers use to downplay the severity of COVID19. Indeed, BLM has a section of their website devoted to COVID19 resources: https://blacklivesmatter.com/covid-19-resources/"
From here on out CON basically rehashes his R1 arguments with some disproportionate focus on the weaker citations from PRO.
PRO finally gets around to responding to the core contention with Michael Brown. PRO introduces more positive points.
VERDICT:
Look, I'm writing this as someone who generally has very little good to say about BLM... but CON, you've got to come with a more organized case than that. It felt more like a forum rant than anything. PRO, good job picking apart his arguments. My one piece of advice is to really contend that core issue of misinformation instead of just outweighing it.
Conduct to PRO for forfeit.
Regarding: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2294-black-lives-matter-movement?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=3
This is outside the window in which votes may be taken down, but your vote was highly questionable due to the level of bias you immediately indicated. A first line like: "Con spread disinformation and commited libel regarding BLM, Pro put the right-wing bigot in his/her place and schooled him/her." is never a good sign when a real debate occurred.
At a glance, everyone agrees pro lost. However, in the spreadsheet I use to help handle debate reports, one of the common ways a vote gets removed has this ready line available for insert: "The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content."
In future, please try to fairly weight a side even if you fundamentally disagree with it.
Regarding #12...
It was reported, but your conduct toward the 3 other votes suggests you're not trying to engage in voter manipulation or in any way alter the outcome.
If it were to have been at everyone who voted against you, I would need to caution you, as is, I am unclear why your comment was reported (the CoC stopped having the insult rule awhile ago now).
They are dividing and conquering by making you oppose a movement that is against them while thinking you are against them.
That is real dividing and conquering, LOL.
There are ways to go about pushing for change without indulging racial tribalism and lies. Divisiveness results from both. There are real consequences to that. The ruling class uses racial identities to divide and conquer the american proletariat. At least, that's what I see. If it didn't have these problems, I probably would support it.
, while the problem may be significant, it's not as big of a problem as the movement makes it out to be. In other words, my sense is that the movement represents an undue focus on the issue, plausibly caused by widespread emotional responses to stories of alleged incidents of police brutality.
I think that is the crux of the debatable point, right there. The personal experience of a smallish minority is at odds with national statistics. I am a gay man who is old enough to have experienced a fair amount of police brutality back when brutalizing gays was considered normal law and order across America. I live an old black neighborhood and have witnessed corrupt police brutality against my black friends and neighbors on many occasions. I have witnessed police shooting an unarmed black man for being startled when they woke him in his car. They emptied their guns, reloaded, emptied their gun, reloaded, emptied their guns again. A 14 year old girl in my neighborhood was shot 10 times by police because she had stolen a car and mixed up the brakes and accelerator. Three or four unarmed black men have ben shot by police in my neighborhood in my time living here and the neighbors report that it is much, much better than it used to be. One time, a cop drew his gun on me because he was digging through my trash can and I shone a flashlight on him thinking he was a hobo. So when BLM says stop killing us, I know first hand that they speak from a place of genuine fear and personal grief. I know what is like to be afraid of the police and I know that BLM is brave- the student standing alone before the tanks at Tiananmen.
I have also lived in rural farmlands and ultra white suburbs and so I know that my experience is not shared by large portions of America, who mostly get to see the "protect and serve" side of policing. I have also seen incredible acts of police kindness generosity and courage- sometimes by the same officers I've seen doing corrupt and racist shit. I understand why that majority is skeptical, having little analog experience with violence and only seeing the kind and generous service of police.
Both experiences are real and justified. For huge parts of the US, George Floyd is a blip, a non-representative experience. But in my neighborhood, Floyd's death becomes, "see? that's what I'm talking about. Maybe finally, white people will understand what's being done to us." Both experiences are real and justified.
Not really
Death23 has just revealed that they are an Ancap posing as a Socialist. There is no surprise there, for me.
I do believe that socialism is generally superior if you want what's best for the nation as a whole, from a utilitarian standpoint. That's simply a dispassionate, dissociated and dryly academic perspective. When it comes to making personal sacrifices for the benefit of the community, no I will not. Nice guys finish last. You will not find this atheist in a foxhole. When the ship of state is sinking you'll see me grabbing whatever booty I can find, making off with it and a lifeboat, and giving the finger to my doomed countrymen as I paddle away laughing at their misfortune.
describe*
@Death23
You just let slip that you are not a socialist. You desribe the mentality of a diehard capitalist who adores the unfair and brutal competition of selfish interest and holding onto wealth:
"I'm a bit of a nihilist and really, my house would let the world burn and not care much except to the extent the interests of myself and family are adversely impacted."
As for why I called you a 'bigot', your entire attack on BLM was rooted in the idea that blacks only look out for blacks because that's how you feel about all human groups.
Yes your debate resolution was "net harm to America" - This is a generally accepted standard in American politics but this debate had no such standard in place. In any event, substantial evidence exists supporting the contention that significant racism exists within local police PD's which is detrimental to black Americans and others. Though, as I stated in this debate, while the problem may be significant, it's not as big of a problem as the movement makes it out to be. In other words, my sense is that the movement represents an undue focus on the issue, plausibly caused by widespread emotional responses to stories of alleged incidents of police brutality. Weighing any benefit of addressing the issue itself against the other problems of the movement (e.g. divisiveness and falsehoods), on balance it is a net negative. Even given that, what the heck does "this house would" mean? I'm a bit of a nihilist and really, my house would let the world burn and not care much except to the extent the interests of myself and family are adversely impacted.
'assumption'
If you'll note my debate with RM (which I won, by the way), it is simply a matter of dismantling the assumption of systematic corruption.
The case is harder to make than I initially thought because it is necessary to develop a standard for supporting particular movements and justify that standard. That is something that's very hard to do IMO. Like, why divisiveness or misinformation significant? As far as evidence goes, I understand the general skepticism people have when going in to debates. From a judging perspective you could look at whether or not particular factual assertions are denied by the opposing party, or you can generally deny all of them (other than ones of generalized knowledge). I have observed that the latter approach is common in the community here. I'm not sure which is superior.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Toolkit-WhitePpl-Trayvon.pdf
th, Death I did follow the case as it unfolded and generally accept state and federal judgements on the matter. In my vote, I was looking for evidence that BLM persisted in false narratives regarding that case. As I said, I thought you established BLM self-delusion re: Brown shooting pretty well but then you just said "same thing with Trayvon Martin" although that case preceded BLM's existence and I don't know what their narrative is (beyond listing young Trayvon among the ranks of unarmed black men shot dead). I wanted more evidence there.
I consider you as a very good debater and I think you could craft a winning argument around your position here with a tighter set up (and no forfeit, naturally). Which is not to say I agree with that analysis of BLM's overall contribution.
Regarding #14:
The debate voting period has ended, but you are always welcome to expand your RFD within the comment section.
Trusting the witness is lying to defend Martin rather than Zimmerman is confirmation bias. It's also entirely viable to see clothes but not specific movements in the dark with one guy on top of another.
If you're at all interested in the Trayvon Martin case, there was only one witness (other than Zimmerman) to the fight. The witness's testimony suggested that Zimmerman was on his back, on the ground, screaming for help, and being punched by Martin before Zimmerman fired. See for yourself https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=196691611 Why in God's name the prosecution even bothered with the case is beyond me. See what the juror said about it: "JUROR: Well, because of the witnesses of John Good, saw Trayvon on top of George, not necessarily hitting him, because it was so dark, he couldn't see. But he saw blows down towards George. And he could tell that it was George Zimmerman on the bottom. He didn't know who it was, but he knew what they were wearing." https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2013-07-15-sfl-zimmerman-juror-cnn-transcript-0716-story.html
I never said it wasn't valid, I simply state that, in my opinion: votes shouldn't as opinionated as yours was, due to the inherent bias it produces and conveys.
Not my problem.
My vote is valid.
I would say the false narratives argument is strongest. At the rallies I attended this summer, "hands up, don't shoot" was by far the most popular slogan even though the majority of witnesses and gun residue establish pretty definitively that Brown was reaching into the car when WIlson fired the first two rounds and the witness who reported Brown's hands up was shown to be unreliable. "hands up, don't shoot" was also the most popular response of the vandals and looters when police approached, although I am quite clear that I witnessed little overlap between those rioters and BLM. Nevertheless, BLM can't really back down on the narrative that made them famous or the slogan around which folks rallied this summer. Such false narratives are often at the heart of many a movement (Boston Massacre, for example) and doesn't have much impact on the net positive impact BLM has had on improving govt accountability and standards when it comes to shooting citizens.
Um... so, I kinda lean towards RationalMadman's opinion, though to a much lesser degree, but I also think you're opinions and political leanings should not inform your voting. Hopefully my vote was fine? My point is, I do agree that RationalMadman's vote is too opinionated.
I don't think you're getting it. Even if you do cite PRO, you are literally only doing so to prove your own agenda that, lo and behold, the debate is a falsism.
go ahead and list the contentions, I will explain one by one why they're false and how Pro addressed them.
"Con literally has 0 contentions that are true, literally. Just a series of disinformation and lies"
uh-huh, sure
I did not treat it as a falsism, My RFD was more in-depth than yours.
Sure, you may think it is an objective fact, in your OPINION. That is your prerogative. But clearly others do not share that belief. So, then, you can not treat the debate as if it were a falsism and be justified.
That illusion is what every single voter gives in every single debate. It is an objective fact that BLM is brilliant and has helped many poor and sidelined individuals, since what they pushed for in society was beneficial to the poor and the segregated.
They have done many good things and the only 'bad things' they can be associated with are rogues saying that they are part of a protest which they have in fact hijacked.
In addition to not being right-wing, I don't think Death23 is a bigot either. Opposing BLM doesn't make him a bigot or mean that he thinks black lives don't matter. The organization and the idea are not the same thing.
It's entirely your prerogative to feel that way, I just think you should try and give an illusion of objectivity when voting
That is how I felt while reading your debate, which was a series of defamation to BLM.
RM's RFD is loaded with bullshit and insults, and is clearly biased. Take that garbage down m8
One second, I have explained something wrong about what I quoted from Con vs Pro. I will like to also quote Pro's reply to what Con said. Please let me repost my RFD.
thanks for the compliment, as it came from you.
@RM
You're a fucking idiot.
"Pro put the right-wing bigot"
Death23 has Socialism listed as his political ideology. I'm pretty sure he isn't right-wing.
Something tells me you were a little too biased to be voting on this debate to begin with
A few side notes not relevant to judging.
CON argued that the Black community via BLM was insular, only interested in black problems. I note that BLM was founded by a lesbian, an immigrant, and a jew- two are married to trans spouses. I'd argue that BLM's core membership is much further outside of the Christian core of the Black community than say, a straight white Christian. The old NAACP and SPLC set was less pleased with BLM's influence than your average police officer until George Floyd changed BLM from a group to a slogan with national resonance this summer.
PRO's breast cancer awareness argument is interesting in light of revelations ten years ago about Susan G Komen's leverage of Bush Admin influence to eclipse AIDS fundraising and channel large sums to GOP and anti-abortion causes. The argument is true generally but false in the largest and most specific real world example of breast cancer fundraising.
1.5 days remain for voting.
BLM wants racial reparations. This would drag us deeper into debt and keep black people dependent on the government. They also hate the nuclear family because it's western prescribed even though it lifts people out of poverty. I don't support BLM.
5000 character limit is harder than I thought it'd be (lots of editing), but I look forward to your round 3.
I will likely be voting when all is said and done
Disillusioned isn't the right word. More like skeptical.
I'm growing increasingly disillusioned with the movement itself
Thanks, I'll check it out.
I fully agree. Feel free to look at my debate with RM for some extra evidence/arguments on this topic