I understood it completely. I am just suggesting that it might not apply.
But that’s just it: such people would, when saying it, mean it as a parallel sentiment. And if one of them said it to another, it would be understood — rather than, y’know, misunderstood — as that parallel sentiment. And if both of them said it to me, then I’d have little choice but to correctly understand them as meaning that parallel sentiment, because, well, they would, wouldn’t they?
How many people have to say it and mean it before the parallel sentiment getting expressed in means-what-it-says terms before it can so be understood?
Well, sure. But what if you go to someone, and say your knee hurts — and, when he takes the appropriate action, alleviating the pain by mending the injury or whatever, he explains that he’s glad to help anyone who comes to him with a hurt knee? How about someone who agrees that your knee hurts, and doesn’t help?
Surely the action he takes, and not the expression he uses, is key?
At this point, I can’t make heads or tails of what it is you are trying to say except that you believe that people who are otherwise capable of functioning in society and understanding the basic nuances of the use of the English language cannot figure out that “Black Lives Matter” is referencing a specific and well-publicized issue and can’t understand why responding with “…but all lives matter” is dismissive and supercilious. And by behaving as an apologist for this “Gee, whiz, I don’t get why y’all’s so offended,” you are clumping yourself in with the same group of self-professed ingenues. But I’ll make one last good faith effort explain in list form for ease of comprehension:
[ul]
[li]Black people are being shot by police at a disproportionate rate, often with little or no justification for use of force.[/li][li]Police and officials often respond in a protective or dismissive way toward these events.[/li][li]This response leaves the impression that, for police and officials, the lives of black people do not matter.[/li][li]Concerned people have responded by creating a movement titled “Black Lives Matter” intended to bring this issue publicity and discussion.[/li][li]This movement and the intent behind it has been widely discussed in media and anyone who claims to be informed should be familiar with it.[/li][li]Responding with “All Lives Matter” is a way of dismissing the issue and diverting from the discussion about why black people are being shot by police at a disproportionate rate.[/li][li]REPEAT UNTIL DIGESTED[/li][/ul]
Stranger
In the immortal words of Rust Cole from True Detective:
“If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward then, brother, that person is a piece of shit.”
::shrugs:: Okay. I mean, I usually give people who say that “black lives matter” the benefit of the doubt, and I guess I usually give people who say that “all lives matter” the benefit of the doubt: I figure they both mean that black lives matter just as much as non-black lives do, until and unless either of those people feels like making clear that, no, that’s not what I mean.
If you figure that clumps me in with one group, but not the other — well, shucks, I’ve been called worse, and for better reason. But I still think you’re wrong.
Oh, I see; you are applying a false equivalence. Well, that is certainly a justifiable position.
Stranger
Why? The really hateful ones are so because they’re “forgiven” and have decided that allows them to be as mean and spiteful and judgemental as they can, because “God has forgiven me”.
If God exists, that will be a really interesting conversation at the end of days, multiplied by the millions.
“Go and sin no more”
vs.
“I can say and do what I want because I’M FORGIVEN”.
Sorry, no; someone obligingly pointed out upthread that there are folks who actually do hear the phrase “all lives matter” and take it as sort of a parallel sentiment to the idea that “black lives matter”. If that’s so — and I see no reason to dispute him — then the equivalence isn’t at all false; in both cases, I’d be sensibly but mundanely understanding folks who really do mean it when they say it.
In some cases, sure. Possibly even most cases. I’m just saying that it’s not all cases. I’ve known a few.
Aside from the minor sidenote discussion about BLM, it seems the conversation on the thread topic is that Chrisitianity doesn’t make people assholes; it merely attracts people who already are assholes.
I’d like to lodge a point of disagreement here. Yes, people who are already assholes fit right in with Christianity (though I can’t imagine somebody converting due to that), but it’s not the case that you have to be an inherent asshole to be made an asshole by Christianity.
I have a mother. (Implausible, I know.) She’s a christian, and the sweetest lady you ever met.
She opposes gay marriage, and votes that opposition. If you’re a gay person she’s part of the side that is oppressing you.
She does this entirely because her religion tells her to.
Christianity is, in most of its forms and incarnations, an authoritarian religion - there’s somebody in charge, and his mandates are beyond question. Which means that if the authority mandates that you do something bad, then that’s what you’ll do.
And that’s without getting into the philosophical consequences of there being a god handing out rewards to good people and punishments to bad people - that poor person must be bad or they wouldn’t be poor; that person must be bad or he wouldn’t be on trial/in prison. Not every christian thinks that way, but if one does (and many do), there are clear metaphysical arguments justifying that view.
I think my friend framed why the issue is so contentious. Paraphrasing he said "Imagine if someone fell off a ship and was struggling to stay afloat at sea. He calls to the people on the boat, “I need help” and the people on the boat respond, “We all need help!” It’s not that the drowning person has invalidated the value of the people on the boat, but is drawing attention to his immediate peril. And the response of the people on the boat is a clueless misdirection.
Do they continue to insist that “All Lives Matter” is an equivalent statement after the basis and reason for the Black Lives Matter movement? Or are they like these people in going though great semantic contortions to avoid saying the words “black lives matter”?
The thing about ignorance is that one can only claim to be ill-informed for so long, and then it becomes deliberate obtusity in pursuit of avoiding responsibility for one’s words.
Stranger
Again, if someone agrees that said guy needs help, and then doesn’t help — well, I figure he’d be just as bad as the guy who doesn’t help and points out that other folks need help too. But if someone saved the struggling guy’s life while noting that he’s doing it because said guy’s life matters just as much to him as anyone else’s? Well, then, shucks, I’d figure that the rescuer would be just as fine a person as someone who saves the struggling guy while (a) implying that exact same sentiment while (b) only actually mentioning that said guy’s life matters.
In your hypothetical, the sentiment being expressed doesn’t actually move them to perform the desired action. Okay, fine — but make sure to compare that with a situation where the sentiment being expressed is more palatable, but still fails to get paired with the desired action. Is there a difference? Is there a difference if both of those sentiments do get paired with the desired action?
Well, then, shucks, I guess there’s no problem as long as we can all say “all lives matter”. Let’s pack it up and put it on the bus, boys. Problem solved, no awkward discussions or social change needed!
Stranger
It’s fine to opine that people shouldn’t say ‘all lives matter’ in the particular context of a comeback to ‘black lives matter’.
But, calling it ‘hateful’ is IMO an example of the tendency of some on the left to use supposed moral superiority as an intellectual crutch. Make your argument that ‘all lives matter’ is inappropriate in a given context. But not everyone who disagrees with you on politics, and ‘black v all’ is politics, is ‘hateful’. Claiming ‘hateful’ is often just a cheap way to try to win political arguments.
Having a low opinion of BLM as a movement doesn’t mean you ‘hate’ anybody. It doesn’t even mean you deny the existence of any problem which motivates the movement. You might simply believe the movement brings along more negative baggage than good it does. Some people at least glomming onto that movement have expressed outright desire that police should die. Condemning that is certainly not ‘hateful’. And it’s a matter of opinion how you judge those and other excesses relative to positive elements of the movement.
“All lives matter”
Yes, but the point of BLM is that, in our society, black lives seem to count for less, and that needs to change. Saying ‘All lives matter’ is attempting to distract from the problem being addressed there.
But this isn’t about BLM, it’s about Christians who use their religion as cover for their hate.
Floaty, would it be accurate to say that the vast majority of those hateful Christians are white evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants as opposed to non-white Christians, Catholics, Orthodox or mainline/liberal Prostestants?
Perhaps some of it has to do with aspects which come from the roots of that demographic and have amplified over time.
Protestants: Protestantism started with an effort to separate oneself from a corrupting influence, the medieval Catholic church. That, on its own, isn’t that problematic but it put the emphasis on separating oneself from others.
Calvinism has the view that some people are just chosen and some people (us, good Christians) are just fucked (everyone else).
Anglicanism started not with a serious theological or philosophical dispute but with the overt desire of a king to have his religion say what he wanted it to say. “My religion doesn’t allow me to divorce and remarry? I guess I’ll start my own religion then.” From what I’ve heard, a lot of the splitting in Protestant denominations is little more than that and personality clashes between members.
Puritanism: The desire to form a polity where every member is Christian (of the right type, not the fake corrupting king) and where the polity itself is Christian and enforces the morality of the group. For example, alcohol prohibition was mainly a Protestant thing. Even today, Protestant (or formerly Protestant) regions tend to be more focused on drug prohibition than formerly/Catholic regions.
The spread of different religions and irreligion is quite scary to them which causes them to hold on to it ever tighter, even if it means insisting on every stupider denials of scientific evidence.
Then, mix that with race/ethnicity. In order to justify slavery, you have to come up with some twisted view of the world, one based on strong unchanging hierarchy between groups and authoritarianism.
Mix those two together and you get the idea of a shining city upon a hill, threatened by the corrupting unsaved Others who would besmirch the land of God’s chosen.
I also get the impression that many of them are not particularly high in social status/self-esteem. Sometimes they make good money by working like bulls but in that they resemble Trump who can be a billionaire but will always be white trash. Those people have been able to find some self-esteem/ego/status boost in being part of the group that’s on top, the winning team, the main seat at the table of the country and the world. Yet they are starting to realize that they will not have the main seat anymore, they will not be the “first among equals”, they’ll just be equals who will have to compromise like others. The US will no longer be their country. To people with low status/self-esteem or accustomed to thinking in terms of one group dominating another, that’s dispiriting and scary.
To them, Christianity is a rallying cry for their tribe to fight against the corrupting Others and maintain their status as masters.
It’s not a new phenomenon in the US: Know Nothing - Wikipedia
Plus religion is great at giving simple satisfying answers and saying whatever you want it to say.
A similar thread you may find interesting: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=834919
Amen. I’ve written before how my car was pulled over all the time thanks to my having long hair.
And this was in Boston, not Alabama. And I was white. And I was a Republican at the time, stupid me.
Luckily I was a college student, who never did drugs, and who for all the cop knew could have a rich father who would make his life hell. So I wasn’t hassled further. But I can imagine not being so privileged.
What was that line… something about whitened sepulchres… Yeah, I think you’re far from the first to notice that. That tolerance of the painted tombs seems to me to be yet another manifestation of tribalism: that person is one of us, therefore by definition ok, where the same behavior would be condemned in an outsider.