It’s not simply a question of numbers; it’s a question of principle.
Should we, as a matter of principle, hold Persons A, B, and C responsible for the actions of Person’s D, E, and F just because they happen to share the same skin color? Your answer seems to be “Yes, if they are black.”
But i guess it’s really the BLM movement that’s racist, right?
Exactly.
The BLM website has a list of 11 Major Misconceptions About the Black Lives Matter Movement. Have a guess what the first one on the list is:
“All Lives Matter”, is Inclusive, it is racially ambiguous.
“Black Lives Matter”, is Exclusive to anyone not Black, thus not racially ambiguous.
One is not racist, while the other is by definition, racist.
What the dilemma? :dubious:
I wouldn’t go that far; it’s true that All Lives Matter includes Black Lives Matter – but Black Lives Matter doesn’t exclude All Lives Matter; it could mean that, it could mean the opposite, it doesn’t explicitly rule out other stuff, it doesn’t explicitly include it.
That first four-syllable word does not mean what you think it does, if anything. Report to the Pit! 
This logic makes no sense to me.
“All lives matter” seems, to me, to be basically saying “everyone is equal”.
Wasn’t Martin Luther King Jr’s speech hoping that one day all men would be equal?
So…by your logic, MLK was spouting racist nonsense, that racist.
I don’t get it and I never will. I understand that in response to BLM, ALM has become racist and a bad thing to say to shut down discussion and be a racist jerk…I’m saying, in general, beyond those circumstances, ALM is not inherently racist in and of itself. Because that’s like saying some who thinks everyone should be treated equal is a bad thing.
I don’t think it’s racist, but it’s like saying “everyone should have support” to our troops.
Sure. But beyond those circumstances is outside the real world.
LOL.
“In the complete absence of social and political and historical context, completely divorced from any of the racial conflict and inequities that have characterized American society for the past centuries, completely ignoring the racial disparities in law enforcement, and leaving aside the specific ways in which it is used to respond to the BLM movement by opponents of that movement, uttering the words ‘all lives matter’ is not inherently racist.”
Thanks for your blinding insight there!
And its entirely possible to protest mistreatment by law enforcement of black people, and also acknowledge that excessive use of force by police is a problem across all communities without being racist. Its entirely possible to know that black people face unfair policing, and acknowledge that police have a difficult and dangerous job. Its a complex issue in ALL directions, and it doesn’t do anyone any good to throw around words like “racist.”
Racist is frankly simply being used to cover too many things. When I think that someone is racist, I think that they won’t hire a qualified black person for a job. That they think my Asian son shouldn’t date a white girl. That they don’t want minorities living in their neighborhood. Racists blow up black churches and kill little girls. Being a racist is a serious thing. Calling someone a racist is a serious thing.
Its currently used for anyone who commits microagressions. People who hold stereotypes - which are a normal part of the human condition and built into us. I don’t think everyone who thinks I’m stupid upon first meeting me because I’m a cute blonde woman with a big rack is a misogynist. I know that I’m at a disadvantage going into situations, but that’s an artifact of society, not of the individual I’m talking to. They are sexist if after talking to me for a while they haven’t re-evaluated their stereotype. They are misogynist if they intentionally harm me because I’m female. (note that I’m now 50 and my hair is currently auburn, but I’ve been a cute young blonde - and my daughter is currently a cute young blonde).
I’m really careful talking to people about accusing them of being sexist - I have to see a pattern of behavior before I’m convinced. Because calling someone sexist is a big deal. I’m even more careful before I call a person a misogynist - because that is a BFD. In real life, most people I meet carry stereotypes about gender, a few of those have actually turned out to be sexist - unable to change their views when presented with an individual that doesn’t meet their preconceptions. A very few seem to be misogynists. And because I’d rather give people the benefit of the doubt before throwing nasty labels at them. Once I’ve done that, our chances of having a reasonable dialog about the state of women is lost.
And that’s what’s happening right now. The word racist is being thrown around in such a way as to turn off those people who don’t want discriminatory practices, but carry some stereotypes, make insensitive statements, and live their lives in a white privilege bubble - those people aren’t racists - they are just rag mannered, not well informed about the topic (and frankly, often have no interest in being lectured to - the world is full of problems, outrage fatigue is real, and they are worried about other things - their jobs, their stagnant incomes, their kid’s schools). And we will risk the word’s ability to describe people who target blacks.
Yes, I get/understand/know/realize/[choose your own synonym] that. And I think it’s stupid and ridiculous that it’s that way…that it’s seen as a “beyond the real world” position. Do I have that right?
What’s the difference between “All lives matter” and “everyone is equal”?
OK. I’m glad that the ignorance you showed in OP has been fought.
I’m still curious about the answer to my question, however. How did someone who “agrees with and supports the BLM movement” end up reading an article at endingthefed.com ? Does not compute. Was it part of some fraternity hazing ritual?
It was on FB, where I get all/most of my news.
No ignorance has been fought by your definition. I wasn’t taught anything I didn’t already know. I still disagree with the article and think it’s stupid, as I just said…although I think that’s less of an ignorance thing and more of a “I hate that it’s this way” as I just said two posts up.
By definition? What definition of “racist” are you using? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean “mentioning race.”
Of course. I think you’re wrong, but it’s not a huge deal.
If this movement has no more significance than a Miller Lite commercial then this argument makes sense. The cause is not about something that emerged in Florida a few years ago, this is a problem inherent in our society, and I thought the intention of BLM was to highlight that nothing is being done about the disparate treatment of African Americans in this country. Calling people racists because they say ‘All lives matter’ isn’t helping. There’s no point in discussing the subject at all with the type of person who doesn’t see that society has a responsibility to take action to end generations of discriminatory practices. There is hope in convincing well meaning people that more has to be done than simply speaking of equality, they can understand that we are far from the ideals we espouse and we have serious problems that need correction. Those people will be harder to reach if you call them racists.
It means exactly what it means. I posted a link showing the deaths so far in Chicago by month and day.
The numbers cannot be ignored or hand waved away.
actually it’s 84% but lets expand on what you just said.
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and “Other” 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.
Because BLM specifically focuses on black lives and a rate that is 8 times higher rate is an 800% difference.
It’s relevant to the discussion about black lives actually mattering.
No-one is ignoring or hand-waving the numbers. The number of shootings and killings in Chicago is large, and is incredibly depressing.
He was simply noting that your use of the word “exponential” demonstrates an ignorance of what that word means. Exponential does not mean “large” or “incredibly big” or “significant” or “massive.”
Here is a graph of the number of homicides in Chicago since the early 1960s. Ask a mathematician if the line in this graph represent exponential change in the the murder rate, especially over the last 10 years or so.
