Hypothetical for Terr and ITR Champion – Imagine during the course of several high-profile press conferences following police shootings of black suspects, several mayors/police chiefs/city officials got up in front of the microphones and flat out said, “Yes, we admit that our officers may have been a bit overzealous in this case, but the victim was black, so no big deal, right?”
Would “Black Lives Matter” be a reasonable rallying cry in that world?
I thought I was clear. Saying that black lives don’t matter is a ridiculous exaggeration. As is your post.
So yes - if something that I deem “ridiculous exaggeration” was actually true, then that slogan would be valid. And if my grandma had wheels, she’d be a bus.
but none of that is the point of the OP. The question is not whether the people behind the *“Black Lives Matter” *movement are right or wrong in their perception regarding police abuse, the question is why would they consider that saying “All Lives Matter” opposes them.
And it opposes them because it implicitly states that their perception regarding police abuse is wrong. So saying “All Lives Matter” is heard as “No, black people are not specifically targeted by policemen”.
It may be “heard” that way by some, but that’s a ridiculous misinterpretation. As ridiculous as “hearing” BlackLivesMatter as “white lives don’t matter”.
No it doesn’t. No gun shaped object (or any object on Rice) is visible in the video. There’s a possibility that a hand movement towards the waist occurred, but considering the quality of the video it’s not definitive at all. And the video already disproves several of the officers’ other assertions, so I see no reason to trust the other points that the video does not definitively resolve.
Whether it’s a ridiculous misinterpretation or not is a very interesting subject deserving of it’s own thread. The OP, however, still doesn’t ask that.
Well this has certainly been eye opening. Here I thought that we just needed to calmly and carefully explain to people that “All Lives Matter” is seen as dismissive to those with a legitimate complaint, but it ends up that they already know that. In fact, that’s a feature of the phrase, not a bug.
So if Terr came in and said “My grandma needs wheels” and I replied, “All buses need wheels,” apparently that makes perfect sense to a certain segment of the population. To me, it’s complete gibberish. Valid responses would be either, “Yes, let’s get some wheels for your grandma so she can be a bus,” or “Your grandmother is not a bus.” “All buses need wheels” exists in a nonsensical middle, where I don’t have the courage to confront Terr on his beliefs about his grandmother’s vehicular status. Instead, I condescendingly dismiss him in a non-confrontational way, and if he got upset I could throw my hands up in the air and start this thread. “Why does he feel like I’m being dismissive of his problems? All I’m doing is trying to be dismissive of his problems.”
Perhaps ITR feels differently.
Aw. I was just countering your assertion that you have to be “willing” to see Rice reach for a gun by suggesting that you have to in fact will yourself to see that. The question is why are you willing yourself to see that? Is there something in particular about this child that is making you want to see him pulling a gun from his waistband?
Then the answer to OP is: Some people ridiculously misinterpret what “All lives matter” means.
Great. So we’ve managed to reach a serviceable answer.
Nonsense. It’s intended to be dismissive and that’s exactly how it’s taken.
But that’s not factual.
So your suggestion is stupid, and a misconstruing, as I mention.
Black lives matter, all lives matter. Facts, apparently, don’t.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t like people infringing on your turf?
I am not surprised that you would ridiculously misinterpret it.
Am I wrong? Aren’t you dismissing the premise behind “Black Lives Matter?”
All lives matter; not all lives are equally endangered. For example, a ProPublica analysis found that black males aged 15 to 19 were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than white males aged 15 to 19.
The data is incomplete, however, due to the lack of a uniform reporting mechanism nationwide.
No.
As I posted above: Since there are incidents of police misconduct with whites as well as with blacks, “black lives are not treated as though they matter” is a subset of “all lives are not treated as though they matter” in such incidents. Just like “BlackLivesMatter” is a subset of “AllLivesMatter”.
We discussed that report already. ProPublica analysis is full of sh*t.
It is more than incomplete. It is practically non-existent. And Propublica took this “data” and ran with it without weighting it with any other factors. So basing anything on that ProPublica “analysis” is ridiculous.
Right, you’re dismissing the premise that this is a racial issue, correct?
A variation on the Reddit scenario.
Kid is not passed up. He gets his food, and gets exactly his fair share.
Nevertheless, he complains to his dad: “I should get my fair share.”
Dad replies: “Everyone should get their fair share.”
This, too, is a faulty response. It’s faulty whether or not the kid actually got his fair share or not.
When you ask why “all lives matter” is a faulty response to “black lives matter,” it doesn’t matter whether black people actually are being mistreated or not. What makes it faulty doesn’t turn on the fact of the matter concerning mistreatment of black people. Rather, what makes it a faulty response is simply its failure to address what is clearly being communicated, implicitly, by the person saying “black lives matter,” just as the father in the Reddit scenario is clearly failing to address what the kid said whether or not the kid actually got his fair share or not.