Maybe this recent development will help with the process of normalizing the “Black Lives Matter” slogan in the public consciousness?
That’s going to really annoy the resident of 1600 Tiny Penis Avenue.
And it still seems highly unlikely to me that Grant Napear, specifically, didn’t understand that answering “black lives matter” with “all lives matter” would be taken as his criticizing BLM.
If my neighbor down the road (I’m thinking of somebody specific here) says she doesn’t see what’s wrong with saying “all lives matter” in that particular context, I’ll believe her, and try to explain it to her. But again, an NBA announcer? Is the theory supposed to be that he knows nothing whatsoever about what’s going on in the NBA other than what happens on the field during play?
Your problem is assuming that anyone “less highly educated whites and non-Black minorities who feel that they do not matter in this society” is running around spouting “all lives matter” in response to BLM. I don’t believe that’s true. At this point, it’s clearly a racist dog whistle.
Whatever slogan was chosen would’ve ended up problematic. Statues celebrating the Confederacy become historically important. A peaceful protest, where the protestor made an effort to not offend and explained that he wasn’t trying to offend became a trigger. This is what racists do. It’s incredibly naïve to expect otherwise.
Really no I don’t assume that. I assume they don’t say much about it at all most of the time. Other than times like this, when the everyday abuse is recorded, broadcast, and is the news cycle of the week, I think they don’t think or say much about it at all. They are worrying about what they see as their problems.
They instead just see and react to that one interaction. “All lives matter. Every single one.” “No. That’s a racist thing to say!” Suspended.
Maybe this time is a real watershed moment. There is something to be said about critical mass in public opinion and tipping points. The Floyd episode is that obvious brutal indefensible cruel sadistic and undeniable. Still while more are able to appreciate the degree to which excess force is used against Black men more than others as a result of this, I still suspect the video of the 75 year old white man getting casually pushed to the ground while peacefully protesting will be also important to these folk growing empathy with the more commonly abused.
If his reply had been, “Yeah, they need to stop killing those N*'s!” would you have the same defense?
I mean, it is actually a more positive statement, and an affirmation of one side being in the wrong, an acknowledgement and solution of the problem.
The only thing that people could criticize it for would be the l word choice. Do you think that people would be justified in criticizing the word choice in this instance? Would people be saying that maybe he just didn’t know any better?
Police violence affects us all. It is disproportionately harmful to the black community, but it is harmful to all of us.
It is odd that I find myself in agreement that a white man being pushed to the ground could cause more outrage than a black man being casually murdered in the middle of the street. As they say, if a white man has a cold, a black man gets pneumonia.
The reactions to the George Floyd execution are not just about George Floyd. For every video that causes public outrage, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands of incidents that should.
Awesome. It looks great from space!
What?
This is some special level of loopiness I have not seen in a long time.
I am having a hard time following what your gripe is.
I’ve read your posts after this and it still seems like overthink x1000.
Some day we’re going to make first contact with a space-faring species in Andromeda and the first message they’ll send to us is “Personally, I think all lives matter.”
I am a bit unsure if this is an honest question but will give a very big benefit of the doubt.
First I am offering no “defense” of anything. Again don’t know and don’t care about what actually motivated this sports announcer. I am instead criticizing the attitude that anyone who says “all lives matter” is “either a racist or too stupid to live”, and the response to that statement, with no explicit denial of saying Black lives matter, as a racist statement, that a statement of “all lives matter” should be responded to as a clear hate phrase.
Do you believe someone like the op, or someone else who honestly believes that all lives do matter (but who doesn’t have abuses by police or BLM as something they pay much attention to most of the time) is unaware that “n*s” is a hate word?
I do not.
So no.
See here’s where you and I have different understandings of what motivates people to action and to vote.
I don’t think “outrage” matters as much as you do. Outrage is transient and will fade as the American short attention span shifts to something different. The casualness with which Floyd was murdered and the fact that other cops involved behaved like this was an okay action, just another day on the job, OUTRAGES those whites, hugely. Will being outraged this week motivate them to place police reforms as a highest priority issue at all election levels next November? What “should” occur is immaterial.
Are they more likely to when they hear things that sound reasonable to them, that they think, getting people labelled as racist and too stupid to live? Or are they more likely to the more they can identify with the targets of abuse?
Whack-a-Mole it is the specific subject of the op so not sure where your confusion comes from: what does expressed outrage at someone saying “all lives matter”, getting someone suspended for saying it, result in?
My entry into this thread was an objection to the lumping everyone who has not had BLM as their main issue and who doesn’t immediately hear “all lives matter” as an expression of hate, as “racists or too stupid to live.”
No question that racists troll by responding to “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter”. My small bit is that responding to that trolling with “Racist!” is counterproductive, making it an effective troll response. A response of “Yes, All lives matter, not some lives matter: Black Lives Matter, yes?” forces the trolls hand instead. They can either endorse the statement or make their real intent clear. And it clarifies BLM to those who still are honestly not yet clear.
Okee doke. Here’s the thing, we’ve been over the phrase Black Lives Matter lots of times on this board. It dosen’t take a whole lot of thought or introspection to see that the response is: Yes they do.
So motherfucking tired of people who are confused or conflicted by such a simple and self evident phrase.
Good luck with the cause of racism, BTW.
The best analogy I’ve heard lately is this:
If your wife asks you if you love her and you say you love everyone equally, you’ve completely missed the point. You’re also probably never going to have sex with her, ever again.
Sheesh, I’m late to the party. Appreciate the context on “All lives matter.” I’m gonna watch that one moving forward. (Not to derail, but my Amerasian kids automatic response to BLM when it first came out was “I too am a minority and therefore all lives matter.” That said, after having it pointed out, it is head smackingly obvious to me that “all lives matter” has been coopted with baggage I certainly don’t want to be associated with. It is a bit akin to “fiscal conservative”. Who doesn’t want to be “fiscally conservative” until you learn that means tax cuts for the rich as an excuse to no longer pay for welfare, unemployment or healthcare?)
Yes, to the OP, as a spokesperson, the only job is to not put your foot in it. If you don’t understand verbal landmines, then you shouldn’t be a spokesperson.
Yes, I meant it in as an honest question, even if it is reductio ad absurdum.
No, but I also do not honestly believe that a radio announcer who covers the NBA doesn’t know the context of the phrase “All Lives Matter.”
Maybe he is just that ignorant and incompetent, in which, he should resign for that reason.
Which is why it is so much more important, that when what should occur is occurring, that it not be torn down by people playing semantic games.
Spend pages and pages in a distraction discussing grammar and etymology, meanwhile, nothing is actually done addressing the problem.
We have a short window of time here, until the attention span of the public is distracted by squirrel!!!. We shouldn’t squander it. Those who say “All Lives Matter” are trying to make us miss our window of opportunity. They are trying to divert the attention and the conversation to what they want to talk about, which is not the systematic stripping of the humanity and the rights of our fellow citizens, but rather, how they are the real victims here.
Who are the targets of abuse here? IMHO, the targets of abuse are our fellow members of our community who are disproportionately singled out for harassment, humiliation, dehumanization and degradation by those who are charged with protecting their community.
There are those who have an excuse to be naive about the conversation, not everyone is engaged into the new cycle. Those people, once caught up, can either apologize for their misstep and everyone moves on, or they can double down and insist that they are the victims here, they are the ones being abused.
And no one disagrees with that. There are those who genuinely have not heard the controversy over the phrase. That’s pretty rare now, and really only in people that are very disengaged from the news and politics.
And it depends on phrasing. If the response to “Black Lives Matter” is, “Yes, of course, everyone’s life matters.” then that is a person agreeing, most likely. That is how you state agreement with someone, to rephrase their statement without misinterpretation.
By responding “All Lives Matter”, that’s not rephrasing their statement, that is changing it. That is challenging the statement, attempting to rebut it.
And if they reply with, “Yes, like I said, All Lives Matter.” still ducking the point and diverting the attention from where it needs to be directed, what’s your next step in dealing with this troll?
Agree with the “squirrel!” comment but my take is taking the troll’s bait is allowing the subject to be changed.
Disagree about what almost everyone already knows.
To your what if - two options, partly influenced by who else I think is listening to the conversation, the context.
Both start with “Glad you agree that Black Lives Matter.”
If I think the others listening have the attention and interest to listen to more or not impacts what next.
Might just stop there.
Or follow up with questions about specifics and discussion of how we all can help. The need for reforms on police accountability and oversight. If I know about local candidates and their positions and track records asking for support of them. Or a discussion about them. Redirect from squirrel to issues that matter, not focus on it.
And I don’t disagree that that is what should happen. I don’t know how to police the entirety of those who are offended by the All Lives Matter rebuttal. I know it makes my skin crawl when I see it. I can resist the Troll Bait, maybe… But you are asking every single person to resist it, and calling it a failure if even one does.
Also, what venue is it prohibited to respond to All Lives Matter? Can we still bitch about it on this MSBD, as no one actually reads this rag, but we can’t on twitter, because someone may see it?
It’s well and good to say not take the bait, and even better to resist it yourself, but to expect no one to is simply unrealistic, IMHO.
I think it would be easier to educate people as to the context of Black Lives Matter and its rebuttal, All Lives Matter, than to prevent everyone from responding negatively to it.
That’s fine, but we aren’t talking about everyone or almost everyone. We are talking about an announcer who covers the NBA.
When you have a position of great privilege, then making the argument that you are too ignorant and disengaged to use that privilege responsibly doesn’t come across as well as one would imagine.
Part of being a public figure is to have some idea of what is going on in the world.
That’s almost trolling back, but sure. I’m not quite enough of a troll mindset to come up with the next rebuttal to that, but I’m sure it’ll be quite trollish. Probably something like, “So, what you are saying is that only black lives matter.” and they would have a point, to your naive mutual audience, as you have not agreed with them that all lives matter yet.
And you are assuming that you are controlling the discourse. Much of this conversation happens online, where you cannot control the actions of either your enemies or your allies.
Trolls always go for the low hanging fruit, so your perfectly crafted supply gets dismissed as not following the narrative, and they go after that other guy who is a much easier target.
I don’t know if any conversation that starts in quite that bad faith can end in productive policy discussion.
So I will admit to being a white man who had an initial reaction upon hearing “Black Lives Matter” of “Yeah, All Lives Matter”. And feeling a bit that the slogan sounded a bit exclusionary. But it only takes a couple seconds to ask the obvious question, “Why are they singling out Black lives?” Which, of course, immediately answers itself. It is Black lives that are being treated like they don’t matter. Thus the need to actually state that they do. :smack:
You make it sound like both Presidents were working in a vacuum. And that the prison reform bill was Trump’s idea and pet cause, not something he glommed onto in order to pander.
So, two weeks in, how do you feel about those words now? Are you seeing just blanket “awareness”, or have you seen actual specific actions being put forward? You know, like disbanding police forces, or shifting funds from policing to other community responses that are more about helping and less about confronting. Starting a national police violence database to track cops with disciplinary actions.
Have you just seen violence and rioting and looting, or have you noticed the reduction of those as the protests grow in size, and continue to swell? Have you missed all the calls from folks like Rev. Al Sharpton and the Floyd family to not riot and loot but protest peacefully? Are you stuck in confirmation bias, or actually watching what’s going on?
I like that response. Agree that they are mishearing the whole point of the slogan, and ask them to agree that Black Lives are specifically part of All Lives, and emphasize that it’s the Black lives that are being treated as if they don’t matter.
Wait, say what? What is this “Anti-Life” business? I’ve never heard that.
Yeah, I thought Max S. might have been meaning to say that “Pro-Choice” is a sort of anti-slogan to “Pro-Life”, even though the two terms are nominally not contradictory. In the same way that “All Lives Matter” nominally doesn’t contradict “Black Lives Matter” but in practice functions as a sort of anti-slogan to it.
If I were asked to appear on Fox’n’Friends (rather unlikely!) I’d hope to say something like “‘All Lives Matter’ is an admirable sentiment, and you wonderful people are to be commended for the spirit of humanity and generosity that sentiment expresses. But to the people marching with ‘Black Lives Matter’ signs, the expression ‘All Lives Matter’ seems tone-deaf; it makes them wonder if you fail to empathize with their resentment. Let me try to [del]pound the reasons into your sad excuses for brains[/del] explain this for you smart sweet souls.”
But we’re not on Fox’n’Friends. We’re a group of rational thinkers speaking frankly. The right-wing thinkers here, believe it or not, are much smarter than the average Fox Potato. Among Trump voters they are the crème de la crème! It may do no good, but we extend them the courtesy of being brutally candid.
I was referring to, for example, “the Pro-Life movement should really call themselves Anti-Life, all they care about is the life of the embryo/fetus”. And so at pro-life rallies you might see signs from counterprotestors that read “anti-life”.
Thinking back on it, I suppose it is even more commonplace to see the pro-choice movement described as “anti-life”. Poor choice of example on my part.
~Max