Not sure but you might insulting those specific people cause rest of the world and hell the was able to make sense of it see a guy get choked out while grasping for air and was able to make sense of it. Are these "sidelined people" dumbfounded when they find out they can get a chicken sandwich from Burger King and go on tirades that its false advertisement.
www.cnn.com
nypost.com
Well if you want to play it that way, allow me to respond in kind: That's bullshit and I'm pretty sure that you know it, which is probably why you opted for the "if you were being honest" personal attack. Now, I'm sure we could go back and forth all day with snide insinuations about each other's character and how our arrogant certainty of our moral rightness means the other must be willfully blind or otherwise disingenuous, but I'm sure we'd both much rather leave that at the door and get to the actual substantive arguments.
I didn't attack your character. I was talking about a future hypothetical event. "If you were to answer the question, and if you were to be honest while doing so" That's what I meant.
"All men are created equal, except we're not actually willing to make it happen for black people" sounds to me exactly what BLM was designed to complain about.
Oh for sure, you didn't attack my character. You just implied that I was dishonestly avoiding directly answering a question because I obviously 'know' it really champions racial supremacy, thereby tacitly acknowledging that in my heart of hearts I'm really a racist, and that therefore I was dishonestly dodging the question (instead of, you know, questioning the fundamental assumptions on which the question was based) and not arguing in good faith. Which is totally not an attack on someone's character, amirite?
If you want to be offended, I can't stop you.
So does the slogan or the movement care about other ethnicities? It's a simple question, yes or no.
The answer is fundamentally "obviously". Once again, the gist of Black Lives Matter is accurately summed up by adding "Too" at the end of the slogan. It is trying to force equal recognition of the value of black people's lives, not elevate them above others, nor devalue others. To bring this back around again, you might as well be asking if "Votes for Women" cared about the votes of men. Of course they did. It's just that men already had that right and women lacked it. Consequentially "votes for men" was, at best, redundant, as men's votes were a given. So too is it here.
I've never not been been under the impression that Black Lives Matter had a tacit "too" at the end, but this assertion is false.
The BLM website states: "We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position"
That'd be covered in the bit about redundancy and giving the lives of black victims the same weight as those of other ethnicities that you ignored.
So if they don't march in support of white people who get killed by the police, then why do you say that they "obviously" care about other ethnicities?
"To bring this back around again, you might as well be asking if "Votes for Women" cared about the votes of men. Of course they did. It's just that men already had that right and women lacked it. Consequentially "votes for men" was, at best, redundant, as men's votes were a given. So too is it here."
That doesn't answer the question. You seem to be saying "BLM obviously cares about white people because white people don't suffer like black people do". That doesn't make any sense. That logic, your logic, does not follow. There's no reason why "because they don't suffer like we do" means "we care about them".
That's not my logic. That's a strawman of your own invention. A more accurate representation is "BLM obviously cares about white people because they are not the supremacy movement. However, the root problem that BLM is trying to address is that black lives are treated as if they do not have the same value as those of other ethnicities, that the loss of black life is treated less severely than an equivalent loss of white life, therefore the latter tends strongly to be less topical than the former." Hence the analogy to the Women's Suffrage movement.
I don't see how that follows. I don't see how "I don't consider myself superior to you" means "I care about you equally". I don't consider myself superior to my neighbors who live in the building across from me, but I also don't care about them, for example.
Aren't you just admitting to, and justifying, discrimination? You seem to be saying "yes, we are discriminating, but this is just the most efficient use of resources".
So let me get this straight...I make it a point to emphasize both the greater frequency of these offenses occurring to black people, and that when the same offenses do occur in other ethnicities it already provokes a greater response, as part of a consistent explanation over multiple posts that the goal is that the former should be treated the same as the latter...and your response is to characterize it as suggesting that it champions prioritizing lesser injuries to black individuals over more threatening injuries to non-black individuals, and therefore discrimination?
Is that not what is happening? Don't white people suffer from police brutality too? Don't Native-Americans and Latinos and Asians and all other ethnic groups suffer from police brutality? You say that their suffering isn't as "severe", as a whole, and that they need to be put on the backburner while we focus on this one ethnic group.
