You don’t seem to be listening. Are you preaching or discussing? I’ll trll you that functionally, it is a rejection of “black lives matter”. Are you honestly looking to underdstand why?
Black people have had it rough lately and they came up with this slogan to bring attention to the matter. Do white people really not get it? Can’t we just let them have it? Maybe if we actually listened instead of trying to take over the discussion, we might do some good together, or just stand back and let them do some good. If we’re just going to bicker about their slogan, then we’re part of the fucking problem.
Who’s bickering about a slogan? Neither Bernie Sanders nor Martin O’Malley bickered about the words “black lives matter”, or rejected it, or expressed any disagreement or unhappiness with that slogan. It was the activists who started the fight in both cases. The activists are responsible for starting this fight.
So, just preaching then.
Yes, please explain why saying “all lives matter” is a rejection of “black lives matter”.
So if I have this right there is a wedge of people arguing here that the coverage of police killing black people is a liberal media craze; and that in a more objective, factual media landscape you would find other stories analogous to these stories, equal in severity, brutality, and senselessness, but involving white victims, and that any statistical differences towards black victimhood would be accounted for by the prevalence of crime in Black communities?
Maybe it is lacking an explanation for coattailing a political activist organization formed to address one specific issue, and attempting to replace it’s language and message?
Why didn’t anyone say all lives matter before Black lives matter? Their statement is caused by the statement of another and coopts its language, without recognizing or acknowledging their concern.
Well, that assumes white people freak the fuck out when stopped by cops with the same frequency.
You started the thread, pal.
Black lives matter isn’t an organization, or at least it’s not primarily thought of that way. It started as a hashtag on Twitter, as I recall. Saying “all lives matter” does not replace any part of the movement based on the hashtag “black lives matter”. Anyone can still walk around with a sign that says “#Black Lives Matter” or use that slogan in any way, regardless of how often or rarely someone else says “all lives matter”.
How do you know that no one did?
As already noted, Martin O’Malley said “black lives matter” three words before “all lives matter”, in an event where the topic of police violence against blacks was mentioned often. To imply that O’Malley failed to recognize their concerns is outright untrue.
In any case, why would borrowing language be a bad thing? The Declaration of Independence was written to assert that 13 colonies were leaving the British Empire. Since then, numerous other groups have echoed statements such as “all men are created equal” or " inalienable rights" while pursuing totally different causes. This is surely a good thing, not a bad thing. Different groups using the same language is a reminder of shared humanity.
Until society (and all police departments) stops separating people, then activists can’t, and shouldn’t. If black people are treated differently, this should be highlighted and corrected.
To start with, answer for yourself the question, “Why is this person saying ‘black lives matter’?”
You are pretending like you believe this to be a statement of absolute truth, devoid of context. It is totally disingenuous to pretend that you do not understand the reason why it is being said.
Obviously, the message is that black lives matter as much as other lives, so we shouldn’t just turn a blind eye to instances where black people are being killed by police. If you agree with their point, you would say, “Yes, I agree.”
If you didn’t understand, you would say, “Well, I agree, but why are you saying so?” For instance, if someone said to me, “Irish lives matter,” I wouldn’t understand the reason why they were saying that. I would try to understand the message they meant to convey.
When someone says “black lives metter” and you say “all lives matter”, you aren’t saying “yes, I agree.” You’re rejecting the point. It’s disingenuous to pretend that you thought the person saying it was ignorant of the fact that all lives matter. It’s disingenuous to pretend that you are not negating their point that given the way things stand in regards to differential threats to black lives from police, it appears that black lives do not matter. It’s dismissive and rejecting
It’s like hearing “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it!” and replying "We’re all here. Get used to that! It rejects the point that gay people were/are being treated differently.
It’s like hearing “Women deserve equal pay” and saying “Everyone deserves equal pay.” It dismisses the complaint that women aren’t being paid equally.
When you hear “black lives matter” and respond “all lives matter”, you are rejecting the complaint that during interactions with the police, black lives matter less than others.
All lives matter is a response to Black lives matter. It’s a temporal thing. You may cite something from the record if it’s there to prove it was not.
Is Martin O’Malley the subject of the OP? I’m sure he’s a decent sort. I haven’t listened to his speech. I’m responding to the race baiting in this thread. But you are connecting the two statements by citing him, and he did in his speech. If they are connected then you are wrong. You dig your own grave in this.
“Kiss me I’m Irish”
“Hey man don’t kiss him. Kiss me: I’m someone. Call the ACLU”
Uh, what? If the statements “black lives matter” and “all lives matter” were used together by Martin O’Malley, how does that prove me wrong? Can you please explain, because I’m not seeing the logic here?
ITR Champion, did you read the reddit example with the family at the table?
Kid gets skipped over when dinner is served. Kid says “I should get my fair share.” His dad replies, “Everyone should get their fair share.”
What’s wrong with the dad saying “everyone should get their fair share”?
Kid’s reply: “Everyone should. I didn’t get my dinner.”.
Or, for the “BlackLivesMatter” - “Everyone’s life matters. Black lives don’t.”
Of course, claiming that black lives don’t matter is a ridiculous exaggeration. While saying “I didn’t get my dinner” is, in that case, a statement of fact. Maybe you should try a different analogy.
Yes I did, and I thought it was incredibly stupid, just like everything I’ve ever read on Reddit.
In the example the family at the dinner table, one child is not served dinner, while everybody else is. So the one child has obviously been treated the exact opposite
of how everyone else was treated. The problem could be easily and obviously solved by simply serving dinner to that kid.
In America, police brutality is an issue that affects people of all races, not just black people. Any solution to the problem of police brutality will benefit all people of all races. A solution that specifically address the problem of police brutality against blacks but had no effect on police brutality against other races is neither possible nor desirable.
But if you feel it’s a ridiculous assertion, then nut up and make that argument directly. Say “Black people aren’t at greater risk for harm during police encounters.” Stop this namby pamby pussyfooting around playing semantic games.
“Black lives don’t matter is a ridiculous exaggeration.”
“Black people aren’t at greater risk for harm during police encounters.”
Those two statements are not in any way equivalent, are they?