Apparently saying "all lives matter" is racist according to a BLM's co-founder.

In My Humble Opinion
141

No duh. How is this curiosity conveyed? Perhaps through a certain tone of voice, right?

Probably because your intended meaning is coming through clear to others as a result of your implicit and explicit messages being in harmony.

Okay, but that still doesn’t change the fact that you had more to work with in these exchanges than the literal words from each other’s mouths.

What, again, does this have to do with ALM? Oh yes, I remember! When people object to its use, it’s not because they don’t * literally* think all lives matter. It’s because they are picking up on ulterior motives behind its usage, that are communicated by the context, tone, and other messages coupled with it. Which is how language works.

Believe it or not, people make allowances for ALM when the person saying it is clearly doing so with no malicious intent. For instance, if a ALM sign is being raised alongside a BLM in a deliberate show of unity, as it’s being done in many places post-Dallas shooting, ain’t nobody (worth taking seriously) bothered by this. It’s when ALM is not being used as a show a unity–but rather a rebuttal–that you see offense taken to it.

You keep saying “but sometimes it’s not meant to convey ill-intent!” as if this counters the opinion that ALM is usually used in loaded way as a diversionary tactic. But it doesn’t precisely because this opinion only concerns its loaded usage. Not the rare and precious times that it is used innocently.

142

As far as I can tell, it’s pretty much the default so long as I refrain from a sneering tone, and refrain from making it sound like I’m joking around, or whatever. I don’t do anything extra to convey sincerity; I do something extra if I want to add something else.

Well, there you go, then. All I’m saying is, sometimes – often, even – I have no implicit message other than the explicit message; I simply say what I mean. If you insist that there’s always an implicit message, even though that implicit message is often just see the explicit message, then I’ll drop that dispute…

Again, no, it seems to be the default: when I have an explicit message to convey, and don’t want to convey anything else, I simply say what I mean and put no additional work in. (I do so while knowing that I could add stuff to the literal words to convey an implicit message – but if I don’t bother, then genuineness just ensues.)

Sure, but some folks saying that All Lives Matter may well be just as straightforward as the ones saying that Black Lives Matter; sometimes there’s no ulterior motive, and no implicit message contravening the explicit one, but just earnest sincerity.

Sometimes there is, of course, but sometimes there’s not.

Well, yeah – and thus is the question from the OP answered. And, as you go on to note, it can just as clearly be used with an objectionable implicit message.

I merely add that, when it’s used in a manner that’s not clear – what then? In the absence of a clear call, do we assume racism and an implicit message other than all lives matter – or do we shrug and default to figuring that this is yet another one of those situations where there’s no malicious intent?

Hey, my first priority was establishing that it can be used at all by sincere people with no ill-intent. If you want to debate “generally”, the most recent poll I’m aware of backs my read: that most people surveyed – be they white or black – seem to find it an unobjectionable way of expressing an acceptable sentiment.

If you have evidence otherwise, feel free to explicitly relay it to me without bothering to add an implicit message to the contrary; I’ll consider it accordingly.

143

Yeah, right, ok, sure, uh huh.

144

Funny, then, how the phrase never even existed before Black Lives Matter.

145

comparing MLK with BLM is an apples to landmines comparison.

146

Nobody compared BLM to Dr. King. You said it was not OK for organizations to focus on different things when it singles out a race. You were asked if that logic applies to MLK. Astute observers will have noted that you did not answer the question. So I’ll ask it again: was it okay for Martin Luther King’s civil rights activities to focus on rights for black people?

147

I am honestly trying to understand the thinking of Messrs. Thoughts and Pepper. Can either of you give the specific example context in which the statement “All Lives Matter” is not racist? Sorry if this is answered at OP’s link — I have no stomach for such nauseatingly stupid sites (and lose confidence in those who do).

It’s trivial to concoct examples where the statement isn’t racist. For example:

Dennis: “But I’m so hungry! Don’t Black Lives Matter?”
Jimmy Bob, Junior: “No, ya Nigra. Only White Lives Matter.”
Jimmy Bob, Senior: “That’s not right, Junior. All Lives Matter.”

There. I’ve demonstrated the existence of a context in which the sentence could be considered non-racist.

Is that all that Messrs. Thoughts and Pepper are trying to contribute to this thread? :confused: The tautological observation that it’s possible to construct non-racist contexts? No, there must be more to it than that: If such a useless point were their idea of advancing debate, no one would ever pay heed to their worthless postings.

So: What is the context where the statement “ALM” is being defended as non-racist?

148

I think I mentioned one just a touch upthread, quoting something that appeared on Slate earlier today, noting that “there were people carrying ‘All Lives Matter’ signs at the first BLM action I went to. They were there in support of BLM. They didn’t disagree with other marchers – or if they did, it was over the appropriateness of using that phrase to support the BLM cause.”

But I think that rather misses the point. You claim that it wouldn’t be racist in response to a claim that only white lives matter; correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you figure it’d be an appropriate response conveying a valid point.

If that’s so, then I’d figure that relaying that same point would seem like an equally unobjectionable reply – well, pretty much whenever it’d be appropriate to respond that black lives matter. If you ever see people being treated like as if they don’t matter; and you believe that all lives – including black lives – matter; then by all means protest that black lives matter, or that all lives matter; if you’re sincere, then I don’t see how I could call you a racist for doing either.

Pretty much any context in which it would also be appropriate for a non-racist to say that black lives matter, for a start; take any occurrence where folks have tweeted that sentiment, or chanted it, or displayed it on a sign – and I’ll tell you whether it would have been appropriate, as far as I can tell, for that individual to have asserted instead that all lives matter.

(If you want to pull a cute ‘gotcha’, you can of course post one where that obviously won’t work – “DeRay McKesson is a member of what organization?” – but play fair with a time when “black lives matter” was asserted, and see if it works.)

149

then we’re agreed they’re not comparable.

BLM isn’t focused on black lives. It’s an anarchist group focused on police hatred.

150

So…

  1. Black Lives Matter is racist because anything focusing on only one race is racist.
  2. MLK focused on gaining rights for black people.
  3. But that’s not comparable to BLM, because they’re not focused on black lives.

Is that your logic?

151

I may not be clear on the rules: are we allowed to call someone a racist outside of #TheBBQPit?

152

Seriously changing your story here. Which is it?

And your claim is laughable bullshit.

153

No. The only reason to say the phrase “All Lives Matter” is to argue against “Black Lives Matter.” The first is not a common saying. It only exists as a counter to the second. It did not exist before.

Someone who says “All Lives Matter” is inherently saying they are choosing not to listen to those who say “Black Lives Matter.” It is the counter slogan, yet does not in any way refute what BLM is saying. The only reason to say it is if you don’t actually know what BLM is saying.

Yes, people like iiandyiiii can try to get them to listen anyways, hopefully getting past any biases these people have that make them choose not to listen. But that’s not because they are choosing to listen.

No, it doesn’t mean the person is necessarily racist, but only because they might have biases that led them to not listen. They may buy the story the news is selling that BLM is just a terrorist organization that wants to kill cops. If I believed that, I’d be shouting All Lives Matter, too.

This is like going to a pro-life rally, and saying you are pro-choice, but then say you mean the choice of the baby to live. You might be able to get a bumper sticker out of it, but you’re ignoring what the phrase actually means.

I don’t know what else to say. You can accept this, or not. But, if you don’t, and you say “All Lives Matter,” and get treated as a racist, it’s your own fault.

I know it’s a basic psychological thing we do, where you pick apart the opposition with tiny things and ignore the bigger picture. But I actually find it more frustrating to combat than flat out racism.

Just seeing people treat bigotry like a special case, where you have to find even the slightest sliver to prove someone isn’t racist/sexist/etc is not only annoying, but a challenge to any social justice movement.

All Lives Matter is a racist phrase. It was created as one. Its use doesn’t mean the person who says it is racist, but it does show an ignorance of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Some people may make a publicity stunt, trying to reclaim the phrase, but, in isolation, “All Lives Matter” means “Stop saying that only black lives matter.” That’s what it was coined to mean, and that is how it is used 99.99% out of 100%.

You say it, that’s what people are going to assume it means.

154

I don’t see it.

If, as you say, it “does not in any way refute what BLM is saying” – which it obviously doesn’t, this isn’t some tortured reading the way your ‘pro-choice’ example would be, it’s the plain meaning of the words – then the link I posted to Slate makes perfect sense: people who agreed with BLM used it alongside BLM precisely because it “does not in any way refute what BLM is saying.”

Why? Do you, in fact, believe that all lives matter?

Wasn’t it Martin O’Malley who, upon hearing a chant that Black Lives Matter, promptly replied in the most natural and obvious way? “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” Because of course he did. Because, again, it wasn’t some strained interpretation like the pro-choice bit you mention; it’s the obvious one.

I have no intention of using the phrase. It’s just that I also have no intention of treating people like racists simply because they use the phrase.

Do you have a cite for either of those? Again, that link I posted had what seems to be a fairly liberal source noting that he first came across it being used in solidarity with BLM, and the most recent polling I’ve seen shows more people – white or black – saying that All Lives Matter better reflects their point of view.

Good thing I have no plans to say it, then, I guess.

155

They’re racist because they draw racists groups to their rallies. They’re liars because their purpose is not “black lives matter” but hatred toward police officers. They’re anarchists because they shut down establishments that have zero to do with anything related to black lives or their hatred of police officers.

All they’ve done is foster a distrust in the black community and get people killed.

Nothing good has come of their efforts or will come of their efforts.

156

You still haven’t answered the question, Magiver. Was MLK wrong to focus his civil rights campaigns specifically on the problems facing black people?

157

I answered your question. You just didn’t like the answer.

And FYI, I’m not your little question bitch. Trying to link BLM to MLK is an apples to hand grenades redirect. And you know it.

158

Did you? Where? Can you link to it? I can’t find any post in this thread where you answered that question.

I’m not trying to link them at all. I’m trying to figure out if you think MLK was wrong to have his civil rights organizations focus on anti-black prejudice. Do you?

While I’m at it:

By this standard, would you say that it is fair to call the Republican party racist?

159

So body cameras and better police accountability are nothing good?

And most of what you say about the organization in the rest of your post is demonstrably wrong - they’re not anti cop, they don’t promote violence, and they don’t promote racism. One only needs to go on their website and read their positions to see this.

160

who do you think those cameras help? They help the police officers and it benefits the cities who buy them.

The 8 dead cops and the businesses harmed would disagree. And it’s not like you can’t google videosof them promoting violence that killed the cops.

Whatever you do, you pull your pistol out and fcking bust them… Trust me when you see me move, I’m moving in violence. We need action. I don’t give a fck if you knock them over, whether you run up on them, whatever you do, you better f*cking take action.