No we shouldn’t.
Point taken, but, nevertheless, Jesus, in the beatitudes, did select specific people and said that they mattered.
He said, “Suffer the little children to come to me,” and not, “Everyone, come to me.”
Shortly after the Dallas shootings, one BLM source said – most wonderfully – “Police lives matter.” Can you imagine if another BLM member had corrected him? “No, all lives matter.” Very bad taste.
I take your point, but do you figure it’s still bad taste if we switch the hypothetical “no” to a hypothetical “yes”, there? Or if the original BLM source had expanded his own comment out to “Police lives matter just as much as ours do,” or maybe out to “Police lives matter, because all lives matter,” or whatever?
I’d never heard of this “news” site, but a glance — just reading the domain name for that matter — told me all I needed or wanted to know. The only reason I clicked on Health and Science there was to prepare this brief report.
The “Health” page contains almost nothing but right-wing articles. The “Science” page articles themselves may not be slanted (I only inspect the titles) but much of the “Science” page’s space is taken up with links to right-wing non-science political opinion pieces. And, BTW, when I speak of “right-wing” I’m not speaking of intelligent conservative economics, or legitimate non-progressive agenda, but just the sort of claptrap Lies-about-Hillary-and-Hussein we’ve come to expect from Teabaggers and other nincompoops.
Which is all by way of segue into a question:
@ Mr. Thoughts — sincere question: How large do you guess the intersection of the following two sets to be:
[ul][li] People who “agree with and support the BLM movement”, and[/li][li] People who somehow click to endingthefed.com and then manage to read an entire article before turning away, perhaps with an urge to vomit.[/li][/ul]
IOW, you seem rather unique! Care to comment? Was reading endingthefed.com part of a fraternity prank?
I’d prefer not to condescend to you (especially since you have the Power to issue Warnings!) but I think you already know quite well that the sentence “All races should matter”, when viewed in isolation, is not intrinsically racist. It’s silly and disingenuous of you to pretend anyone thinks otherwise.
If you want to Pit Ms. Marissa Jenae Johnson for not articulating her point in the most perfect way, fine. In that case you’ll fit in real well among other SDMB nitpickers. Feel free to find a misplaced comma or spelling blunder in my post here while you’re at it.
It was good to see that the first several Dopers to respond all understood what was apparently lost on Mr. Thoughts.
Thank you, Dopers.
Mr. Thoughts— Has your ignorance been fought?
Goddammit, Dennis.
I dunno - it shows no sign of going away.
Most of what I have to say about it has already been said. The phrase is a reminder that black lives matter just as much as anyone else’s. It’s not a difficult concept, unless you’re resistant to the idea.
The phrase “states’ rights” seems completely unobjectionable. Of course states should have rights!
But in context, it meant “the right of slaveholding states to protect and expand slavery,” and everyone at the time damned well knew it.
Of course all lives matter! But the context of its current usage is to counter the ideas the BLM protest is trying to convey.
I’m not sure how you could understand and support BLM, understand that ALM has been used to silence the BLM discussion, then conclude that she is saying it’s racist to think that all races matter. Isn’t it obvious what she’s talking about?
If he says “All lives matter”, I’ll point out to him why BLM has chosen their slogan, and why “All lives matter” appears to diminish or dismiss their concerns, based on the way it’s been used so often (e.g. to diminish/dismiss the concerns of BLM).
So you feel that complaining about a slogan is taking the wrong action, but someone who voices a slogan about how Lives Matter should – have stuff pointed out to him, while you explain the concerns of assorted people? That’s the right action?
Only pedantry matters. Until the end of time.
They are the victims; they are stating their position and objecting to the way they are being treated. They came up with a slogan. Instead of listening to their grievances, you just came up with a slogan and threw it in their faces, indicating you’re not willing to listen to their problems and are dismissing them out of hand.
See, again, it’s that part after the comma that seems like it’s doing all the work.
If a guy does listen to their problems instead of dismissing 'em out of hand, doing so because All Lives Matter – isn’t that unobjectionable? But a guy who isn’t willing to listen to their problems, dismissing 'em out of hand while breezily agreeing that “yeah, sure, of course black lives matter” – isn’t that troubling? If you figure a guy can say All Lives Matter while acting like it’s not true, why not grant that he can say Black Lives Matter while acting like that’s not true?
Isn’t either statement compatible with listening to people instead of dismissing them out of hand? And can’t you mouth either statement while doing nothing?
BLM never stood for Black Lives Matter. If it did it would focus on the ridiculously high levels of violence within the black community. It stands for Black Lives Matter Only If It Involves a Handful Being Killed By Someone Who Isn’t Black. It started with a juvenile delinquent who died attacking someone and then over a thug/thief who attacked a store clerk and then a policeman. That quickly ramped up to large scale protests designed to disrupt public freedoms and cause economic damage against people and businesses that had nothing to do with their cause.
To date their successes are measured in burned out businesses and dead police officers who had zero to do with anything. Virtually everything they do is designed to disrupt society in a racially divisive manner and it attracts violent racist groups such as the New Black Panthers.
There are more black people killed in Chicago alone in any given MONTHthen the combined group of people BLM has protested over since it’s founding 3 YEARS ago. So if their message isn’t getting the public support they think it deserves it’s because they’re going about it in a divisive and destructive manner. You can’t beat a message of support into society with a stick. I expect more economic damage and more police shootings as a result of their actions.
I find assertions like this rather curious.
It’s always intrigued me that, according to people like you, the “black community” as a whole is apparently responsible for crime committed by African Americans, or in predominantly black areas.
I mean, i’m a white guy, and no-one ever blames me, or the white people in my neighborhood, or the “white community,” when a white person commits a crime here in San Diego. They blame the criminals for their own actions. And if a police officer oversteps the mark and abuses his authority in my neighborhood, i’m allowed to complain about it without being accused of ignoring all the white criminals arrested in San Diego, or in California, or in the United States. Everyone recognizes that, just because i’m white, it doesn’t mean that i have some sort of control or legal authority over what other white people do.
And yet apparently the simple fact of being black places upon an African American the burden of responsibility for every crime committed by someone with a similar level of melanin. Why is that, i wonder? Why is it that the law-abiding black people who live in the United States are responsible for the actions of the black criminals that they are unfortunate enough to have living in their neighborhoods? And why does the existence of crime in black neighborhoods somehow disqualify African Americans as a whole from asserting their rights as tax-payers and citizens in the face of often unfair and sometimes violent police tactics?
Is there some basic difference between black people and white people that i’m missing here, and that you can help me understand, which would justify this discrepancy?
Yes, there is a basic difference. The exponential amount of murders within black communities. Ignoring this in the face of a handful of deaths (by someone who is not black) is a poorly framed movement made worse by it’s tactics and supporters.
As it is going now there will be more economic damage, and more officers killed as a result of this blatantly racist movement.
Do you know that more than 85% of white people who are murdered are killed by other white people?
Why doesn’t anyone bring up “White on White crime?” Why do you put the extra blame and responsibility on Black citizens?
In a very minuscule sense, I think so. I do very little for the BLM movement other than supporting it in online discussions, but I’ll try to do that the best I can.
BLM leaders and advocates have repeatedly denounced black-on-black crime, and have done so for decades (since long before BLM existed as a movement).
It’s entirely possible to protest mistreatment by law enforcement while also opposing crime and violence from other sectors.
I support athletes. Yes I have been an “athletic supporter” for quite some time!