Statement: “I was mistreated by police!”
Response: “No one should be mistreated by police!”
Does the response address the statement?
Right, precise figures simply aren’t available. Nonetheless, the perception exists, with some degree of support, that black Americans are more likely to be the victim of excessive police force and general harassment (such as was revealed by New York’s stop-and-frisk policy).
I’d also add that social movements that are highly specific in what their grievance is and what they want (say, the Civil Rights movement) are more successful than ones that don’t (Occupy Wall Street).
Therefore, a focus on the worst of the problem seems entirely reasonable, does it not?
ETA: Along with a push for uniform reporting on the use of force, especially deadly force.
Depends on the context. Is the person doing the statement implying that his mistreatment was a special case particular to him?
Actually, given that you’ve asserted intentions on behalf of those activists, I see no particular reason why I can’t talk to you about the logic that seems lacking in asserting that opinion. In fact, that seems a far wiser idea than talking to those activists; unless they know you personally, I don’t see how asking them about the logic underpinning an argument you have made would be of any help. Why would they know what you think about them?
I didn’t claim they booed in order to stimulate discussion. I claimed that booing draws attention and thought to what is being booed. A significant difference; I pointed out a result, and you seem to have read an intention into that result that I didn’t suggest.
Again, this argument lacks logic. For one thing, the whole set of “not-black” is not encompassed by “white”.
More importantly, however, this is not the separation you drew in your previous post. To quote you;
[QUOTE=Shodan]
If you say “all lives matter” instead of “black lives matter” you might be tempted to think about how we balance the lives of suspects against the lives of police and the public.
[/QUOTE]
Your separation here was that “black lives matter” does *not *tempt people to think about how we balance the lives of suspects against the lives of police and the public, while “all lives matter” does. That makes no sense considering that there are black police officers and black members of the public; their existence means that “black lives matter” necessarily incorporates all three of suspects, police, and the public.
Again, your logic is flawed. There is no necessary, required extra thought involved in saying “all lives matter” vs. “black lives matter”. A complete idiot might say either; a genius might say either; an average person might say either. With that in mind, you cannot impute that booing one means booing that thought has been made at all, rather than disagreement with that thought.
He may be. He would be right, if it couldn’t be shown that such mistreatment happens to others as well.
Must be more than merely full of shit. 21 times is not a little methodological error. If there data is off by, say, five percent, it hardly changes the picture. If the correct statistics are that young black men are only ten times more likely, that is no comfort.
As well, you have not offered us any citation nor have you offered us your boney fidos as a statistical analyst, simply your authoritative proclamation that It Is So.
So, what do you have?
Well, that’s true enough.
On the other hand, if we put “White Americans killed by black Americans in 2014” in one column and “Black Americans killed by white Americans in 2014” in another column, which number do you suppose would be larger?
I get the outrage about police killing black people, 100%. On the other hand, as someone who lives in a neighborhood where we’ve had several robberies/killings of white people by black people in the past year, I sorta get the “all lives matter” perspective, too.
No, it means no such thing. The hypothetical scenario in the Reddit post is one scenario. The real life situations in which Martin O’Malley and Kathleen McCartney used the words “All lives matter” are a different, unrelated scenario. The differences should be obvious to everyone, but in case they’re not obvious to you, I’ve already explained them. You’re using a textbook case of the false/overextended analogy fallacy.
Further, there’s no one who has only said “all lives matter” in response to “black lives matter”, as far as I know. Both O’Malley and Sullivan said “all lives matter” in the middle of speeches/messages focused on the topic of police violence against blacks. O’Malley used “black lives matter” together with “all lives matter”, not the one in opposition to the other. Sullivan never mentioned the phrase “black lives matter” at all, so she certainly wasn’t using “all lives matter” in response to it. To imply that they’re “saying ‘all lives matter’ in response to ‘black lives matter’,” without mentioning all of what they actually said, is intellectually dishonest.
The idea that booing attracts attention and thought about what is booed is your argument, not mine.
The whole genesis of the “black lives matter” thing was the shooting of black suspects by white police. That’s the only thing the black activists want to talk about, and the only thing they want Sanders to talk about. So they boo him when he says anything else, not to attract attention to “all lives matter” but to silence it.
Regards,
Shodan
Whether he’s right or wrong is irrelevant. You asked if the response addresses the statement.
Correct, and I have not disputed this.
But “booing attracts attention and thought about what is booed”, my argument, is a very different argument from “the idea of them booing it in order to stimulate discussion about it is pretty weird”, the argument you attempted to impute upon me. The first argument points out a result. The second argument assumes that the result is the intention of the cause. And I did not make that argument.
That is, again, illogical, given the point already made that the chant of “black lives matter” encompasses black police and black members of the public, not just black suspects. The necessary chant for your argument to work would be, “black suspect’s lives matter”.
That was not the chant.
If the chant, as you impute, is “the only thing black activists want to talk about”, then what they want to talk about is the lives of black suspects, and black police, and black members of the public, and… well. All black lives.
Again; you impute an intention that I have not suggested. All I have pointed out is that booing a subject would be illogical in terms of inhibiting thought on a subject, given that the very action of booing draws attention and thought to the subject being booed.
Your expertise on the opinions of black activists is authoritative, to be sure, you must personally know dozens of them. Well, many. Several. One?
It does - if you take into account reality. If you don’t, and take into account only the speaker’s fantasies - maybe not. But there is no requirement to take other people’s fantasies seriously.
That doesn’t mean anything. If somebody comes to you and tells you “I’ve been unfairly singled out and targeted by the police” and your answer is “Everybody is targeted by the police”, then you are dismissing his claim.
You may be right in dismissing it, you may be wrong. That’s irrelevant in this case, since that wasn’t your question.
Besides the right wing denial crowd, who is the constituency for “All lives matter”? “All lives matter” is an obvious commonplace. It was never stated before “Black Lives Matter” and had no reason to be. The only reason for it is to point out that one doesn’t feel responsible for black deaths or that “it isn’t happening in a significant way, so why are you saying it?”
If they had phrased it “Black Lives matter too” it would have been the same meaning. Would that be answerable by “all lives matter”?
-
They didn’t.
-
Because it wouldn’t have been the same meaning.
What’s the meaning of “black lives matter,” taking into account reality?
Divisiveness. Racialism. Where as if there was “too” added to it, that meaning would be neutralized.
Is… that your answer to the question?
It was good to see intelligent correct responses to OP’s strange question.
But …
Yes. Here’a an exercise for you: Review the Controversial Encounters thread in the Pit, find some posts that you think “liberals” or blacks would present as actual evidence and try to refute them. (Yes, this is “asking you to do your own work” but you do seem rather stubborn.)
Now I am baffled. Even if America has no racism, surely you’ve grasped that some think otherwise. After the discussion in this thread it is very surprising that you can’t even understand where “activists” are coming from, whether you agree with them or not.