He went to talk about Social Security, that was his topic, that’s what he came to talk about. Is it reasonable to expect that pro-choice demonstrators can demand that he vacate his topic in order to address their agenda in the manner they feel is appropriate? What about the old guy who came to hear about Social Security, was assured that this was the topic, is he supposed to shut up and sit on his hands?
This is coalition politics, it is clumsy and difficult. And in the halls where the Forces of Darkness meet to conspire, this is the best news they’ve had all week. Maybe all month. I don’t like it when they are happy, I especially don’t like it when we make them happy.
Sanders, although originally from NY, is a senator from VT-- a place not exactly spilling over with racial problems.
As for the OP, the linked article talks about two women, out of a crowd of thousands, who were involved, so I’m going to chalk this up to: rotten apples in every barrel. And if you don’t understand the specific problems that black people have in the US, especially wrt law enforcement, then you haven’t been paying attention. I think the implied “also” is a perfectly good explanation and it’s a bit of a shame that the original slogan did not contain that word.
Is there any actual evidence that policemen treat black civilian lives as matter less than those of any other race? That policemen or anyone else views black lives as cheap and disposable?
This is a red herring, and also is a topic well taken care of in a couple of other threads on the Dope.
You asked what’s wrong with saying “all lives matter.” The problem, in this context, is that it exhibits a failure to grasp the message of “black lives matter.” That message is what it is even if it turns out it’s all an illusion and black people aren’t actually treated as disposable in many cases.
“Black lives matter too,” as a slogan for a movement, is not going to motivate nearly as many people to act for or against that movement. It comes across as more of a plea from a place of weakness, than as an assertion from a position of strength.
I’d say the most obvious problem with “All lives matter” is that it’s so broad as to be essentially meaningless. Taken literally it seems unlikely that anyone actually agrees with it (who weeps for innocent bathroom mold, cut down in its prime?), but it doesn’t specify what sort of lives aren’t being given due attention. It could be an anti-abortion slogan, an anti-war slogan, an anti-death penalty slogan, an anti-land mine slogan, an anti-animal testing slogan, an anti-meat-eating slogan…
That’s not an answer to the question, though. “All lives matter” is an assertion that neither police brutality nor any other form of brutality should be tolerated, especially when it leads to someone’s death. If we’re to believe that this is a bad message because it “exhibits a failure to grasp the message of ‘black lives matter’”, that’s kind of begging the question: what is the message of “black lives matter”, and why is the message of “black lives matter” so important that we’re supposed to stop asserting equal respect for all human lives?
But that’s the thing. The impetus behind “black lives matter” is police brutality, but it speaks to a wider conversation about how black people are viewed by society.
When people say “black lives matter”, they aren’t just talking about the police shooting unarmed black guys. They are also talking about the laws and institutional policies (see Ferguson) that make black people perpetual targets of the police. And that has everything to do with race.
Let me focus on this link first. It’s to Mother Jones, a far-left magazine. It makes assertions like this:
On the one hand, overt expressions of prejudice have grown markedly less common than they were in the Archie Bunker era. We elected, and reelected, a black president. In many parts of the country, hardly anyone bats an eye at interracial relationships. Most people do not consider racial hostility acceptable. … And yet, the killings of Michael Brown, Jordan Davis, Renisha McBride, Trayvon Martin, and so many others remind us that we are far from a prejudice-free society.
The article offers no evidence whatsoever that the killings of any of those four individuals had anything to do with racial prejudices. It’s simply asserted as if it was a proven fact. And the article is difficult to trust, as it makes claims like this:
We may never really know the exact sequence of events and assumptions that led to the moment when Brown, unarmed and, according to witnesses, with his hands in the air, was shot multiple times.
This is, to put it mildly,misleading.
Most of the article focuses on scientific studies addressing, for instance, what happens when white and black faces and words with positive and negative connotation are flashed rapidly on a computer screen and the subject has to sort them. Fascinating stuff, to be sure; at some point I’ll try to read these studies themselves and see if they actually say what Mother Jones claims they say. But nothing in the article justifies the claims earlier in this thread, such as that policemen “view black lives as cheap and disposable”.
It’s like you expect someone to be able to post a cite from a police officer saying “Black people’s lives are cheap and disposable”. And even this wouldn’t be enough for you, because it would be only one police officer out of millions. I guess I’m a fool for thinking your question was an honest one.
Decades of social science research has produced reams of evidence that American society is heavily biased against non-whites–especially black people. Jim Crow laws are still in living memory, as are the days when the police were the visible arm of racist governance. Given this reality, it should actually be incumbent on the denialists to start producing evidence that the police are fair and balanced–since this would be a significant departure from historical and current status quo.
The “race doesn’t matter” crowd have the same level of respectability as Flat-Earthers and Moon landing conspiracy wackjobs.
That’s an unfortunate article, but is it your contention that blacks, and particularly young black males, are not subject to heightened police scrutiny? That young black males are not especially vulnerable to police brutality? I don’t see how anyone living in the US could deny that.