Don’t forget about all the toxic waste and hazardous shit that was buried on or near Indian Reservations. Nobody would mistake me for the archetype of an “SJW” but “environmental racism” is, indeed real.
I know, right? It’s not like they are by far the dominant religion in the US or anything, far eclipsing even the second most popular religion. It just seems kinda crazy to pick on Christians, or maybe there OP just has an irrational hatred of Christians and is projecting or something, right? :rolleyes::dubious:
The obvious interpretaton is that Christ is specifically referring to the Ten Commandments which purportedly came directly from God and not the diverse anthology of stories from different eras and often noncanonical origins which provide an unclear moral guidance or or doctrine. Of course, one may interpret them otherwise as one wishes, but one may also believe that “Blessed are the cheesemakers” refers to all manufacturers of dairy products regardless of how the original message is garbled.
No, the people responding with “All Lives Matter” know exactly what they are saying, and it is a transparent attempt to dilute and divert from the essential message which is that large segments of society, including those responsible for enforcement and ajudication of the the law, do not view “black lives” with the same degree of concern and duty of care as they do with other lives. This weak attempt at ambiguous semantic wordplay to try to assert that protesters are actually at fault is at about the as mature as “I’m rubber, you’re glue…” Anybody over the age of eight who has spoken the English language and lived in the United States understands what “Black Lives Matter” is supposed to mean, and they’re just playing dumb to claim otherwise.
Stranger
Sure it does … I don’t see what others see, so I know I’m blind … if someone doesn’t see what I see, then they are blind as well … I’m holding an elephant’s trunk and claim the elephant is like a snake, you hold the elephant’s leg and claim the elephant is like a tree … we’re both blind …
Only together can we know the truth of the elephant …
Or you may be seeing elephants that just aren’t there.
This is the problem at root. It applies to Islam too, I would assume most Islamic Jihadist are also people who score high on authoritarianism too. Becoming a fundamentalist in the religion of the culture you are born into is a common trait of authoritarianism. It is conventionalism and submission to existing authority groups.
Here are some books on the subject of authoritarianism if you want to read more.
I think you’re simply incorrect. I mean, I doubt I can take personal offense, since I don’t believe that all lives matter; but I’ve spoken with plenty of folks who (a) have the Voted-For-Democrats bona fides, but (b) say that All Lives Matter because, as far as as I can tell, they genuinely believe it — which is, y’know, also why they voted the way I was just talking about, when you get right down to it.
Is there anyone who could, by replying with an “all lives matter,” get you to think, “huh, maybe I was wrong; is he just expressing an honest sentiment — in language that’s at least as accurate as Black Lives Matter — that I find commendable?”
And as if to reinforce this, one of the earliest debates and determinations among the team of Apostles was to the effect that new non-Jewish converts did not have to adopt most of the ritualistic and formalistic rules of conduct. Council of Jerusalem
No, I’m not wrong. People representing the Black Lives Matter movement have clearly and unambiguously explained the meaning of the phrase and the intent behind it, which is to bring awareness to systematic devaluation and prejudice to the point that black people can literally be killed without any apparent justification or provocation and the legal system will not bring the persons responsible to justice. In no way have they said “White lives don’t matter” or “Police lives don’t matter” or any of the multitude of implications that the people faking umbrage over this would like to imagine. Anyone trying to claim that the Black Lives Matter movement is somehow invalid because “All Lives Matter [not just black ones]” is playing semantic games over a literal life-and-death issue, and no adult human being who thinks that police using lethal force without justification is a systemic problem as indicated by evidence should have any patience for that kind of nonsense.
Stranger
Yeppers to all that. Thanks for fleshing out my short post with good examples.
What is this, fifth-grade mysticism? 
There are jerks in every large enough collection of humans, yes, but hang on a moment…
In a large group of footballers, there are some footballers who are jerks - but their behaviour is not necessarily part of their football; they are footballers who are incidentally jerks.
A lot of religion is about what you believe, think, say and do - it’s a lot harder to just be an incidental jerk in this context - because being a jerk is also about what you believe, think, say and do. It’s much easier for religious people to be jerks specifically about the subject of their religion.
In my experience of several different churches and denominations, there is an alarming tendency for congregations just to tolerate or overlook some quite outrageous and outspoken hatred, when it’s coming from people whose observance of the religion is unassailable in other respects (that is, it seems that often if someone is prepared to get conspicuously involved in prayer, giving, Bible study, worship, etc, their bigotry or hatred will somehow get brushed under the carpet).
But what of someone who, if asked whether Black Lives Matter, assuredly replies that All Lives Matter? What of someone who merely announces that All Lives Matter? Will you declare that anybody who uses that phrase is surely playing semantic games, or must surely be opposed to the goals of the Black Lives Matter movement? Are you set to dismiss them, out of hand, for clearly acting in bad faith?
It would either be disingenous or blithe ignorance because there is no lack of presentation of the issue and the BLM movement in media. If your defense is that your news diet is restricted to only what Sean Hannity blathers out on Fox News and whatever your racist uncle posts on Facebook, that isn’t much of a defense.
Stranger
How is it disingenuous or ignorant? Take a good look at the copy-and-pasted bit you replied to: that’s not a guy who says anything bad about “the BLM movement”; it’s a guy who, as far as I can tell, (a) believes that all lives matter and (b) says so.
Granted, if I later throw you some hypothetical about a guy who has various pointed things to say about “the BLM movement” — saying that they think most of the folks in “the BLM movement” think that not all lives matter — then, sure, maybe start ranting about “disingenuous” this or “ignorance” that. But why now?
This is one of the by-products of religion of any kind, and it is why religion is so harmful. It creates a divisive, us-vs-them mentality and then you can use your religious views to act like a dick to the other person.
I’m set to ignore anyone who treats Black Lives Matter as a question begging for a response. The words comprising BLM are capitalized for a reason. It’s not to be taken as a literal assertion; it’s a pithy moto that doubles as the name for a social cause.
Moms Against Drunk Driving (MADD) works the same way. The name puts an emotional, human touch on the cause of drunk driving, perhaps by making us think every victim of this offense is associated with a grief-stricken mother who is now committed to stopping other kids from dying. But acting as though the name implies non-mothers aren’t also against drunk driving is silly and reveals a massive refusal to understand the cause being confronted. Which is the problem of drunk driving. Who is not explicitly mentioned in the acronym is so far away from the point that you can be sure they are fighting to accept the point.
There was a story recently about a DC city councilman who Tweeted out a conspiracy theory about the Rothschilds controlling the weather. He was shocked - apparently genuinely - to find out that, “The Rothschilds control the _________” is a typical anti-Semitic belief. The guy has apparently come across the theory, scrubbed of anything overtly anti-Semitic, and then repeated it, not knowing the context and history behind it. That particular guy, it appears, was genuinely not anti-Semitic. Does this mean, “The Rothschilds control the _______” is not an anti-Semitic idea in general?
I would argue no.
Similarly, there are certainly some people who have heard the phrase, “All Lives Matter” but not the context in which it was coined, and misunderstand it to be a sort of parallel sentiment to “Black Lives Matter.” Does this mean “All Live Matter” is not an attempt to dismiss and trivialize the issues of systematic racism and police brutality in American society?
Again, I would argue no.
Oh, that guy? Fuck that guy, he’s an asshole.
If you go up to someone and say, “My knee hurts,” and he responds, “Lots of peoples knees hurt,” that person isn’t expressing concern for all the hurt knees of the world. He’s belittling your complaint. He’s an asshole.
My apologies … this was a literary reference to the tale of the blind men and the elephant … in some versions the blind men turn to violence believing the others are lying, other versions they talk out their differences …
Perhaps this tale coming from the Hindu tradition is what threw you …