I fully agree that Black Lives Matter* Too *would have been twice as effective and had half the misunderstanding.
I think it would have led to a different misunderstanding. It’s too easy to hear it as, “Well, of course white lives matter, first and foremost. But black lives matter too; let’s not forget them. Here you go, black people, here’s a bone.” I like it this way: black lives matter, full stop.
Anyone who claims to get this meaning out of the phrase is lying. There is no reasonable way it can be interpreted that way, nor any predictable reason why it would be.
Actually, since Ferguson, police are killing people at the same rate, or slightly more often. So, there’s plenty of room to argue that it’s been ineffective. There’s no evidence that the change is happening fast.
As far as the phrase goes, it’s perfectly fine. I think that you’d have to be ignoring the context to miss the implied “as well”.
If I have a problem with the movement, it seems to be more interested in whether a killing is easily publicized rather than whether it is actually unjust. If you’re resisting arrest, it’s often very difficult to determine whether the police were justified in shooting. If you were merely trying to evade arrest, or simply had your actions misinterpreted, then it’s more clear cut. The BLM movement seems to have a habit of treating all deaths of black people at the hands of the police equally. Most people do not seem to see them all equally.
I think the credit goes way more to the increased ubiquity and quality of smartphone and other cameras capturing things that didn’t used to be witnessed or believed to happen by many.
ETA: And of course, the ability to share these pictures and videos instantly via the internet/social networking.
Police killings are one of BLM’s issues, but not the sole issue. So the argument that their effectiveness can only be measured by the number of killings is silly. Even if that were the sole issue, they have made a lot of progress on the building blocks of reform. These things take time.
As to whether BLM should get all the credit, of course not. There have been other technological and social changes happening. They just played an important role, which is pretty much all you can say for any big social changes.
After 50 years of struggle, for example, Newark, NJ finally has a civilian complaint review board and it’s the finest in the country. That it finally happened in 2016 is not a coincidence. BLM helped substantially, even though many pieces had to come together.
You haven’t shown any reason why the same changes we’ve seen wouldn’t have come about without BLM. Not that they get all the credit, but that they get any of the credit.
I have not tried to demonstrate it to you, because it wasn’t necessary to rebut the arguments being offered.
If you deny their role in bringing about many changes that address the issues they are targeting, that’s a different but related debate. That takes more work, and I think reasonable people could probably disagree about causation in the end, as is the case for all social change.
You’re the one making a claim of causation. You may believe that BLM will have a positive effect in the long run, I can’t say that it won’t, but the subject of this thread is phrasing of their name, which IMHO is divisive and not helping. The organization began to form only three years ago following the Trayvon Martin tragedy, and only began to be noticed at all after the Ferguson shootings. The changes we’ve seen recently are the result of efforts that started well before then.
As I mentioned before, they have stated that all lives do not matter, perhaps not their intention, but that’s why language matters. They are preaching to the choir, those who don’t already understand the problem are perceiving their message as a threat, and due to the unfortunate circumstances in Dallas they may end up being counter-productive to achieving the goals they claim to have.
Quoted for self-awareness.
Yeah, that’s the problem. People are confused about what the name means.:dubious:
It doesn’t matter what they call themselves. Because this is a movement that is focusing and channeling black people’s anger and resentment, some people will view such a movement as inherently threatening.
Black Lives Matter means that ALL lives matter.
This reminds me of people who argued against the phrase “Gay Pride” because hey, “Why can’t I be proud to be straight then?” :rolleyes:
That was always my problem with the “Got Milk?” campaign. Hey milk people, maybe I need some eggs in my fridge. So we got all these people thinking all you need is milk, thanks a lot dairy council. Maybe your next ad should be “Got milk too?” and avoid all this confusing confusions.
I have no problem with Black Lives Matter, but I do sort of like the idea of adding the word also.
Only because I like the acronym BLAM. I like the sound of it.
Black Lives Matter Mother Fuckers would also work. Because I think a person has to be purposefully misunderstanding the phrase to take offense from it.
A “Jesus Saves” bumper sticker led to my own financial ruin.
The ingenuousness of these law students might a subject of some debate, but here’s a group that appears to take that meaning of it after their professor wore a BLM shirt:
Many white people enjoy torturing themselves over terms.
“‘White privilege’ doesn’t make any sense. It’s not a privilege being white!”
“That’s not racism! It’s prejudice! Totally different things!”
“Why is that they can say ‘nigga’ but we can’t say ‘nigger’?”
“‘African American’ is stupid. The blacks need to stop being so politically correct.”
Engaging in semantic arguments creates the illusion that one is interested in the discourse, when really they just want to shut it down.
In the Grand Scheme, No Lives Matter.
Eat at Arby’s?