Whether what you’re saying is right or not, I still haven’t yet seen you try to actually dispute the numbers I used or anything I asserted.
Why not? This isn’t hard. Quote the post you think is wrong, bold the specific sentences you think are wrong, and explain to me in detail why they are wrong. Why is this so hard for you? If I’m so obviously wrong, it should be easy to show the specific numbers and specific assertions of mine that are incorrect. You haven’t done this yet, and you don’t appear to have even tried.
This is kind of a tiresome line that a number of you guys bring up. The fact that it’s impossible to come up with a magic string of words that the right wing won’t pick apart isn’t a good reason to never rethink your messaging.
To elaborate on my analogy, let’s say I truly believe that Coca-Cola is the best cola on Earth and is clearly superior to Pepsi. I wouldn’t dream of changing the recipe to Coke (I don’t want to alter a single thing on the Democratic Platform). But I believe that in certain parts of the country (swing states), we should change the logo and the shape of the bottle to appeal to the peoples in those areas while keeping the recipe exactly as it is. Pouring old Coke into new bottles.
I agree with Ashtura and CarnalK. I’m not advocating for a WLM movement!
But I don’t see how you can escape the strong implication of “black lives matter” being “it’s like a scaled-down version of the lynching days: a high percentage of white people think nothing of killing black people, and we are dying, and we are going to stand up and resist!” Right? But how does this make sense if only one in 700-odd thousand white people kills a black person in a given year, while 1 in 103,000 black people kill a white person in a given year?
Think about schools. Many are nearly all white or all black (which is unfortunate). If you have the magic power that every time you speak at a high school graduation ceremony about lives mattering, everyone who hears your voice is guaranteed to never commit murder their whole lives, where should you go? To a high school with 1,000 blacks or one with 1,000 whites? You only have so many hours in a day, so you can’t reach more than a tiny fraction of all schools. If you want to save the most lives, you go to black schools!
I’m hoping against hope that this is the point that finally lights the bulb over Andy’s head, but I’m not holding my breath.
How hard is it to quote a post, bold an assertion, and explain why you think it’s wrong? Why are you refusing to do this?
I don’t know what you’re doing here, but it’s not lighting any bulbs, since you don’t appear to be actually refuting or even trying to respond to anything I’ve said.
Doesn’t that, in the slightest, make you reflect at all on your position and analogy?
So, you agree that your “suggestion” was not a “magic string of words”? That even your suggestion would be picked apart by the right wing?
It’s fine to rethink messaging, sure, but when the message will not be accepted no matter how it is packaged, it is more than a bit pointless to bend over backwards to try to find a way of presenting a subject in such a way that it will not offend those who make the deliberate choice to be offended.
It is tiresome, sure, but the tiresome part is not the people trying to talk about systemic racial biases in our society, what is tiresome is the people who will come up with every and any excuse to prevent that discussion from taking place.
Your point here is really bad, independent of the accuracy. It’s bad because BLM isn’t about a generalized group of people of which you are focused on. One of BLM’s main goals was a call to action against state sanctioned mistreatment and violence against black people by police and the rest of the justice system. Unless you’re isolating state sanctioned actions, BLM shouldn’t be your example.
I have done it, in many different ways. That’s what these posts have been.
The stripped down point is that it is only true that a black person is more likely to be murdered by a white person than vice versa because there are so many more white people than black people in this country. Not because white people are more likely to be murderous towards black people then vice versa- the statistics show just the opposite.
Still haven’t quoted a post and highlighted an assertion, or explained what I said that you think is wrong. In fact, this post seems to be saying that what I said was correct, but should be disregarded.
I’m skeptical that mainstream “non-activist” words are really being picked apart that much in the first place.
I mean, if you call me a racist, and I don’t think I’m a racist, I’m going to take offense to that. But not at the word, the accusation behind the word, which I think most people have a pretty good understanding of.
If I feel like I’m being unfairly painted a racist, as an individual, I’ll say that. But I won’t say that nobody should be called a racist.
But this was all about the linguistic framing, the marketing. So the name here is the issue. There have been anti-police brutality campaigns for decades. Believe it or not, I organized and led a march over an incident involving an innocent black man and a bunch of white cops who beat him so badly he had to be airlifted to a major city’s trauma center. The BLM name, like “white privilege” instead of anti-discrimination, is the problem–as I believe you acknowledged in the latter case.
Yes, it does. But this is where Pinker’s point about the alt-right comes into play. Did you follow that?
What you said would also be technically correct if applied to the space station scenario. Which should show you that it is a wildly distorted way to frame things. It sheds no light, only obscures the truth.
No both parts are tiresome. You can’t even conceive that morphing a phrase from the early 60’s might be something to think about because right wingers will only try to undercut you. Not everyone is either on your side or a right wing talk show junkie.
This isn’t a space scenario, it’s real life. If someone is basing their opinion of BLM, or black people in general, in statistics, then they should be on my side, not yours. Hint: disparate population sizes are indeed part of the explanation. Minority fears of majorities are at least partially based on being way outnumbered. That doesn’t invalidate the numbers and statistics.
My point is, the rabbit hole you are going down to castigate BLM is not a good argument in any way. I’m not talking about the naming of BLM. It’s like arguing that the high cost of lettuce means that we should reduce the speed limit. Nationwide or total population figures for homicide aren’t germane to BLM because BLM is about state sanctioned violence against black people.
No, I’m pretty sure you crunched the numbers the wrong way and talked about victims rather than perpetrators. Regardless, it’s stupid and you should stop arguing about it.
Nope, go back and look at your post where you claimed I was wrong and hadn’t done a basic check of the facts or whatever it was. Read the quote box. Repent.
SlackerInc’s words were: “a randomly selected black person is much more likely to kill a white person at some point in their life than a randomly selected white person is to kill a black person at some point in their life”
So, we know that there are 37,685,848 black people in the US, 243 of whom killed a white person. So a randomly selected black person is (243/37,685,848)*100% likely to kill a white person, or 0.0003% likely.
Do the same with races reversed and you get 0.0006%.
So we could, using **SlackerInc’s **exact words, rewrite his statement as:
“a randomly selected black person is 0.0003% likely to kill a white person at some point in their life, while a randomly selected white person is 0.0006% likely to kill a black person at some point in their life”
I understand your argument, but the fact is that **SlackerInc **utterly and completely fucked this up, in a way that should have been instantly obvious to him if he’d taken even a few seconds to check his assumptions.