Hacked 2015 Democratic memo tells candidates how to deal with Black Lives Matter: listen, but offer no policy support

I think that this particular phrasing is due to someone else, the biblical version seems to usually be translated a bit differently: http://biblehub.com/proverbs/17-28.htm

Same basic idea though.



Well that tears it, I’ma votin’ for Trump!


I can see why BLM would be sad that there was language in there directing people not to offer support for specific positions, that’s honestly the best thing approach for a campaign; you can’t have some rank-and-file agreeing to some moonshot.

At the same time, this is probably a much better level of discourse than what takes place at the RNC, which is probably something like, “we do not negotiate with terrorist organizations.”


To that I quote Proverbs 18:2.

Pedantry is for fools.

(In all seriousness, I’m glad someone actually took the time to look it up)


Careful there, you’re bordering on thoughtcrime now.

Well, actually the quote from Proverbs is generally translated as something like “Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to hear their own opinions.”

Which I think that is like totally correct.


To add to that, given the national mood at the moment, being seen as associated with Black Lives Matter can be political poison, as terrible as that sounds. People like to take the more extreme views of some groups, such as

I see the police as part of the state and part of state sanctioned violence against our people, and so for me, I’m not concerned about blue lives, I’m concerned about black lives. In fact, I want the police to be abolished. I think we should be pushing the police out of our community. I think that we should be defunding the police. I think that we should be demilitarizing the police and finally dismantling the police.

And right-wingers take this quote from California State University professor Nana Gyamfi, who associates with BLM, and say, “Look, the Black Lives Matter want to get rid of the police! Senator Hufflepuff supports Black Lives Matter. He wants anarchy!”

And I mean, look at this hed and the response to it. It’s a memo from a single staffer. The same thing’s being done here that the right-wing whackadoodles do all the time to BLM.

It’s pretty solid advice even if it sounds terrible on the surface.

  • Trump 2016!

Fools have no interest in hearing the truth, they only want to read aloud stories about snakes.


Sounds like this isn’t policy, but i sure hope they have a policy. Even Democrats, winging it, will come out with offensive trash occasionally. At this time of year, it’s important to stay on message. The media is desperate to find a reason to say “both sides do it equally!”


Well, I can’t say what the author meant, but personally I share the concerns of BLM yet find their tactics to be counterproductive and their strategy nonexistent.


Throw in a plane and you’ve got me

1 Like


Who from BLM responded?

I think they have the same problem OWS had with the media. No concrete demands, and no visible leader.
All they are portaryed in the media is for baltimore ritots and that stuff.

1 Like


So. . . is the GOP reacting to this as "See? Democrats hate BLM! " , or are they reacting to it as “Democrats are placating a terrorist organization!” (which is how they always refer to BLM)?

Because I don’t see anything in here that is explicitly anti-BLM, more just trying to do a balancing act for issues that are so deeply ingrained in the American zeitgeist we’re still dealing with them 40 years after the Civil Rights Act.

In other words, I don’t know what any politician can promise BLM when roughly half our population is ready to support a guy who makes white supremacists wet their pants in ecstasy. Are empty promises better than nothing?


They have this:


I’m not sure everyone in here read the memo, so to speak.

The memo succinctly summarizes the key concerns of BLM.

The “What to say to media/activists” section of the memo actually speaks to the DOJ Ferguson report and systemic racism. The memo also notes that BLM is cautious about being co-opted by the Democratic party which puts staff in a position to take great care in choosing their words and follow up suggestions.

On the thing the memo could have done better: advise staff to read in greater detail BLM’s Guiding Principles and demands, for a more thorough prep before meeting with them. The fact that I had to go to two sites to find these suggests a current or future split. I hope it won’t be something that makes them collectively less effective.

Edit: Yes, they branded BLM as radical. That one leaves a bad taste. But it shouldn’t, because the root of the word radical is the same as the word “root”. Radicals address root causes.


I don’t consider this derogatory… but I strongly suspect the drafters do.


Sure, because snark and disdain totally equate to a literal lynch mob.

And of course, Boing Boing is the only site on the entirety of the internet where some posts tend to have click bait titles and some folks have knee-jerk reactions to incendiary topics.

That never happens on sites like Reddit… or 4Chan… or Twitter, or…