Nobody is chanting it. They are saying it, because they do not perceive the same problem that BLM and white liberals do.
Sure there is. Rural states are conservative, and conservatives are reflexively biased in favor of the police. If you tell them the cops shot someone, white or black, they’re going to assume it was probably justified.
Any broad, successful, movement for policing reform is going to have to get support from the left. Unfortunately, the white working-class are no longer a constituency of the left, and they don’t seem intent on trying to win them back.
Two years ago unarmed black Sacramento resident Stephon Clark was shot and killed by police in his grandmother’s backyard, and two Kings games were delayed by demonstrations at the arena. The team took some actions to communicate with the community and make some significant engagements with the local Black Lives Matter organization. The Kings and Celtics players wore warm up shirts with Stephon Clark’s name on it in tribute. Boogie Cousins paid for the funeral expenses.
There’s no excuse for the team announcer being unfamiliar with the meaning of All Lives Matter.
So, what about the black folks who realize the message is exclusionary and say all lives matter? Should their lives be ruined by the internet mob? Or should people respect basic freedoms and realize that not all phrase or words mean the exact same thing to everybody in every context?
Cite? Are there actually some black folks who feel it’s important to resist explicitly agreeing with the statement “Black Lives Matter”, the way so many white folks seem to? I haven’t seen any instances of that.
As for “saying all lives matter”, AFAICT all the BLM-supporting black folks are fully in agreement with the principle that all lives matter (which is, after all, the foundation of the claim “Black Lives Matter” in the first place). What they’re objecting to is simply the insistence of so many white folks on stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the validity of the more specific claim that black lives matter.
Here is a handy little schematic that a BLM activist made to help explain the nuances of the issue. I’ll try to reproduce the gist of it in the following quote.
There, octopus, does that help clear things up for you?
Many actually. Just go to YouTube and you’ll see plenty. And the funny thing is the comment section quite often contains better debate than what we find in the echo chamber. If you can’t find a single one you just aren’t looking.
Many of the black people who address topics such as racism, language, etc. show far more nuance than their unelected spokespeople here and in other circles where critical thought is valued less than virtue signaling.
And regarding that schematic. That’s actually very well said.
Well, then it should be easy for you to find the requested cite, right? I mean, that’s how things work here in the debate forums: you make a factual claim, you’re asked for a cite, you provide a cite.
If you don’t happen to have a cite that doesn’t automatically mean your claim is necessarily wrong, but it’s still on you to provide an actual cite if you’re claiming that cites exist. You don’t get to offload that task on me and then declare that if I don’t find your cite for you it’s my fault.
I just don’t care to do so. What’s the point of finding a trivial anecdote? To prove that it exists? If you don’t believe me then you don’t. That’s perfectly fine.
– Bob goes to dinner with some people
– Everyone at the table is served food except Bob.
– Bob says “Hey, I don’t have any food”.
– Charles says “Yeah, I guess that’s right. Hey Dave, you were the organizer of this party and said you’d feed everyone and even gathered $20 from everyone to pay for it. What’s up?”
– Dave says “Sorry, man, there just wasn’t enough food for everyone.”
– Charles says “of course there was, you should give him some food. I’d give you some of mine but I’ve already taken bites of everything.”
– Dave says “this is my house, I can do what I want!”
– Bob says “I should get my money back, and never invite me to this again!”
– Eunice starts to join them in a much more animated fashion, jumping up and down, yelling about how Bob needs food to eat.
– Dave is frightened and calls the police
– Bob continues to calmly ask for his money back
– Eunice dumps her drink on Charles, ruining his $150 suit.
– Charles says “what did you do THAT for? I wasn’t the one who didn’t give Bob any food!”
– Fred jumps in “no one should have a drink dumped on them, but if you didn’t get fed, wouldn’t you dump your drink on someone?”
– Eunice escalates to trashing the place.
– The police arrive and arrest Bob.
But it’s the “stop complaining” that’s doing all the work, there. If Bob says “Hey, I don’t have any food,” and the rest of them put food on his plate — while agreeing that they all deserve food — then there’s no problem.
But if they instead put no food on his plate, despite replying that Bob does deserve food, then there would be a problem.
Bob’s concern is, presumably, whether you’re going to put food on his plate; if you are, then what difference does mentioning the other folks at the table make? And if you’re not, then what difference does it make if you only mention Bob?
The meme I’ve seen enacted in a few different versions is this:
Person 1: Hey, what are you yelling about over there? Person 2: My house is on fire! Help! Fire! Help! Person 1: What about my house? Person 2: What? What do you mean? Person 1: Isn’t my house important too? Person 2: What? You mean your house is on fire? Help! Fire! Person 1: No, but that doesn’t mean my house isn’t important! Person 2: Huh? I never said your house isn’t importan— Person 1: Look, all houses matter, okay?
But — again — what seems to be doing all the work in that analogy is the bit where you’re not putting out the fire.
If my house is on fire, and folks put out the fire while noting that, hey, they would’ve done the same for my neighbors, since all houses matter? Well, okay, then! And if my house is on fire, and they don’t put out the fire, then: what do I care whether they (a) say my house matters, and (b) mention no other houses?
Yeah, I think the implication is that the “what about my house? all houses matter!” response reveals that Person 1 doesn’t really care that Person 2’s house is on fire.
Or at the very least, that the demand to temporarily prioritize Person 2’s house (while not immediately focusing on Person 1’s house also) makes Person 1 so uncomfortable that they have to demand explicit acknowledgement for their own house before they can manage to do anything about Person 2’s house being on fucking fire and all.
I mean, yeah, sure, in a situation of normal human decency Person 1 sees Person 2 yelling “Help! Fire!” because their house is on fire, and immediately joins in with their own cries of “Fire! Help! Help! Person 2’s house is on fire!”. But race relations in America are radically distorted by a very long-term deficit of normal human decency.
Right. No wording would really appease them. Just like no form of peaceful protest (like kneeling during the national anthem) would appease them. Continuing trying to appease them won’t work. When has it ever? You’re just playing their game and not winning over the winnable. And whitesplaining to them what’s wrong with their slogans and protests sure sounds pretty shitty.
Just to be clear: I have no problem with people saying that black lives matter; it’s just that I also have no problem with people saying that all lives matter. After all, I have no problem figuring that the former were also implying the latter, and that the latter were also implying the former; and, as far as I can tell, I’m in no hurry to tell either of ‘em that anything is wrong with their respective slogans.
I do not think anyone disagrees with someone, anyone, saying, “All lives matter.”
Because duh.
When someone is saying, “Black lives matter,” they are NOT saying ONLY black lives matter. They still, 100% agree that ALL lives matter. They are noting that black people are dying at a much higher rate than all the other people and maybe we need to pay attention to that.
So, when you say, “But, but…ALL lives matter!” you are explicitly deflecting from the issue at hand.
When Bob says he has no food he is not saying no one else deserves food. He is saying there is an inequity that needs addressing.
It’s a fair point; there are several amusing videos out there of BLM protesters beating up the Antifa who showed up to cause mayhem, and these give one hope.
But the rioting and looting did happen. And maybe they were caught off guard the first night or two, but even after three and four days, way too many progressives (whether or not they were formally affiliated with BLM), instead of saying very loudly that they were horrified by the violence, they hated antifa’s guts, etc., they went on TV and talked about how this was justified, understandable and all the rest.
Whether you think that’s true is irrelevant; politics isn’t about truth, it’s about what people can be convinced of. What is relevant is that you’re never gonna convince middle-class people in the suburbs that setting fire to churches and looting small businesses are legit protest tactics. Those are the people whose support BLM needs in order to win, and this week drove them away.
I take it from this … meaty … response that you believe the idea of expanding the breadth of support willing to vote for those who prioritize the needed structural and systemic changes at all levels is a joke.
Personally I feel that change will only happen with such expansion of support. And that such expansion is possible, not by demonizing everyone who questions or even misinterprets, but by encouraging empathy by way of demonstrating it. The belief that all who react positively to hearing “All lives matter.” are racist and unreachable is defeatist. It defines the necessary majority of Americans as unreachable racists. If so don’t bother. I see them differently.
What are the percentages, at a rough guess, of spokespeople to protesters?
Did any of those people represent any group formally? Were any practiced in being interviewed or were they Joe/Jane Schmo caught up in the moment?
Have you ever seen a talk show host ask people on the street and everyone they ask seems an idiot getting easy questions wrong? Put another way, do you understand editing for TV?