How Problematic is "All Lives Matter?"

[Agema]

No, giving to a cardiovascular disease charity does not mean you therefore want people to die of cancer instead. However, that's not analogous to my problem with BLM. I'm not accusing them or anybody else for WANTING any other color to be mistreated. I'm accusing them of being discriminatory on the basis of race. There's nothing analogous to that in the question of disease charities. So no, the principle is not safely established.

Maybe if charities started calling themselves "cancer patients matter!" or something, then I and many other people would react with "So other patients don't?! All patients matter!"

"Black lives matter", per se, in total isolation by its own internal meaning, makes precisely zero statement on whether any other lives matter, in much the same way that "elephants are grey" makes absolutely no statement on whether any other object is or is not grey. But you would surely not for a minute argue that "elephants are grey" necessarily means that koala bears are not grey, would you?

In order to view it as exclusionary to other races, you therefore have to contextualise it with meaning external to the comment itself. In order to contextualise it, you should provide adequate reasoning. The most useful rationalisation derives from the intent of the creator(s) and adherents, how they understand the term. Given that pretty much everyone here seems to be in favour and is telling you it's non-exclusionary, and there is nothing to make us think the creators are dismissive about non-black lives, the rational standard you're employing to do so ranks somewhere around arbitrary or perverse.

Yes, being a "compartment" that specifically focuses on one race is still discrimination on the basis of race.

So you are angling for the "paradox of discrimination", then.

You know what they had during segregation? Compartments.

That is just sophistry, and ugly sophistry at that. I'm going to ignore it.

Which of these three charities are discriminatory?

At face value and without further complexity, none of them. One is compensating for a disadvantage. The other two are not appreciably providing any advantage or disadvantage to anyone, and should mostly just be regarded as a pointless waste of time and money.

Of course, there are race-based differences in health and medicine. So in terms of hypertension, black people benefit more from drugs called calcium channel blockers (CCBs), whereas white people benefit more from angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). Your line of argument seems to suggest you'd call it discrimination for black people to be given CCBs as first line medication and white people ACEIs. Is this where you stand?

My answer is that it is an unjust and unfair to focus on solving a problem for only one race, especially (but this isn't a necessary component) when that problem is not exclusive to that race.

Untimely death through illness affects lots of people. Isn't it unfair to focus on just one type of untimely death, to concentrate one's charitable donations on one form of ill-health that leads to untimely death, but not another? Why is that? Or to put more clearly as a statement rather than a rhetorical question, your position looks logically inconsistent.

 

[Xprimentyl]

No, giving to a cardiovascular disease charity does not mean you therefore want people to die of cancer instead. However, that's not analogous to my problem with BLM. I'm not accusing them or anybody else for WANTING any other color to be mistreated. I'm accusing them of being discriminatory on the basis of race. There's nothing analogous to that in the question of disease charities. So no, the principle is not safely established.

I heard an apt analogy that might offer a better insight into why the BLM movement seems so readily focused on black people to your perceived exclusion of all other races: if your house is on fire, should the fire department respond by hosing everyone's houses down along with yours because all houses matter? Black people are killed disproportionately more and more readily by the cops than white people, and the BLM is hosing down the house that's on fire.

If you've seen the George Floyd video, that cop was on his neck for nearly 9 minutes. NINE MINUTES. The man was already restrained, handcuffed and only struggling for air; could you imaging replacing Floyd in that video with, say, a 40-something suburban white woman? Y’know the type that readily get belligerent with the cops demanding badge numbers and refusing to comply while the cop is only able to get out “Ma’am… ma’am… ma’am, calm down” as a word in edgewise. Now could you imagine a young black man treating a cop the way she could and getting away with it? Blacks are seen as lesser-than and inexorable threats at moments of confrontation, even when we’re only selling lose cigarettes… walking home from the convenient store with an iced tea… sitting in our own homes eating ice cream and watching TV. Black Lives Matter TOO, and if the issue you take with that is that the four word slogan doesn’t encompass the full breadth of the ideology behind them, then you’ll never understand.

 

[Schadrach]

Supporting BLM does not preclude opposing police abuse of anyone else: it is merely a compartment of, and complimentary with, wider activity against police abuse and racial inequality.

I'd argue that a significant part of it is in defining what lens it is considered acceptable to view an issue through. That one of the functions of BLM is to inexorably tie mistreatment in the criminal justice system to race, and make it unacceptable to talk about it except through a racial lens.

I even saw folks on social media comparing Roger Stone to Kalief Browder who stole a backpack, couldn't make bail and killed himself after spending three years in jail awaiting trial, arguing that there are two justice systems in this country, and pretty thoroughly implying that the important difference there was race. As opposed to, you know, wealth and political connection.

Black people are killed disproportionately more and more readily by the cops than white people, and the BLM is hosing down the house that's on fire.

If it were about hosing down the house that was burning the worst, it'd be "Men's Lives Matter", as by most measures we can get numbers for men are treated worse than women by the criminal justice system to a larger degree than blacks are treated worse than whites. That includes being killed by police, length of sentence for a given crime, etc. But viewing criminal justice through a gender lens is not appropriate, specifically because of that.

 

[Buyetyen]

...That one of the functions of BLM is to inexorably tie mistreatment in the criminal justice system to race, and make it unacceptable to talk about it except through a racial lens.

I even saw folks on social media comparing Roger Stone to Kalief Browder who stole a backpack, couldn't make bail and killed himself after spending three years in jail awaiting trial, arguing that there are two justice systems in this country, and pretty thoroughly implying that the important difference there was race. As opposed to, you know, wealth and political connection.

As a man so white I'm almost translucent in winter, I never got this impression from BLM. I think that's just your personal hang up. Also, I'm going to trust that you are aware that race and class are often joined at the hip.

If it were about hosing down the house that was burning the worst, it'd be "Men's Lives Matter", as by most measures we can get numbers for men are treated worse than women by the criminal justice system to a larger degree than blacks are treated worse than whites. That includes being killed by police, length of sentence for a given crime, etc. But viewing criminal justice through a gender lens is not appropriate, specifically because of that.

No, it's mostly just people have learned that when MRAs bring this up it's only in service of derailing a conversation and never proposing any viable policy solutions. Therefor the internet is a really shitty place to discuss the issue, especially in this age where every know-nothing Johnny Fuckface with a Twitter account can try to lecture a recognized and respected expert how to do their job and send them rape/death threats for not capitulating.

 

[Agema]

I'd argue that a significant part of it is in defining what lens it is considered acceptable to view an issue through.

I think that's the mealy-mouthed interpretation of people who have a hang-up about identity politics. Although that said, the average person who has a hang-up about identity politics has totally embraced identity politics themselves, just not the identities that the mainstream left usually backs. But, you know, it's not identity politics when they do it. A bit like when it was fashionable for the right to hate on postmodernism, even as right-wing politicians happily adopted postmodernist-style reasoning to defend themselves.

I think a simpler way of putting it is that BLM doesn't want a lens on police abuse that misses race out. After all, black people have an impressively long history of being missed out, right back to that issue already in this thread of "All men are created equal", which left them out.

If it were about hosing down the house that was burning the worst, it'd be "Men's Lives Matter", as by most measures we can get numbers for men are treated worse than women by the criminal justice system to a larger degree than blacks are treated worse than whites.

Can we? Because the last time you presented numbers, they weren't worth us wiping our backsides with them.

 

[Houseman]

"Black lives matter", per se, in total isolation by its own internal meaning, makes precisely zero statement on whether any other lives matter, in much the same way that "elephants are grey" makes absolutely no statement on whether any other object is or is not grey. But you would surely not for a minute argue that "elephants are grey" necessarily means that koala bears are not grey, would you?

In order to view it as exclusionary to other races, you therefore have to contextualise it with meaning external to the comment itself. In order to contextualise it, you should provide adequate reasoning. The most useful rationalisation derives from the intent of the creator(s) and adherents, how they understand the term. Given that pretty much everyone here seems to be in favour and is telling you it's non-exclusionary, and there is nothing to make us think the creators are dismissive about non-black lives, the rational standard you're employing to do so ranks somewhere around arbitrary or perverse.

I agree that the three words in total isolation: "black lives matter" is not discriminatory or exclusionary.
The BLM organization, however, judging by their own claims on their website, only focuses on black people. No amount of people telling me that "it's non-exclusionary" changes that fact. Does this mean that they're dismissive about non-black lives? Yes, I think so. I didn't see them marching when Daniel Shaver died.

So that's why I think the movement is discriminatory and exclusionary. All of the above provides the context for their slogan.

If you only focus on one race (which BLM does, this is not debatable) , that implies the exclusion and dismissal of all other races, regardless of whether or not they are impacted by the same problem.

If only black people were to suffer from a certain genetic disease, your focus should be on curing the disease, not on the race of the person, even if it's just a semantic difference. Language influences thought. Language really does matter.

So you are angling for the "paradox of discrimination", then.

I already said that it's possible to solve discrimination without discriminating. There need not be any paradox. BLM is guilty of creating a paradox BECAUSE they're fighting discrimination with discrimination. There are other ways. Whether or not those ways are "better" is a separate discussion.

That is just sophistry, and ugly sophistry at that. I'm going to ignore it.

Can you explain how it's sophistry? Because, due to the lack of reasoning provided, this just seems like a thought-terminating cliche.

Of course, there are race-based differences in health and medicine. So in terms of hypertension, black people benefit more from drugs called calcium channel blockers (CCBs), whereas white people benefit more from angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). Your line of argument seems to suggest you'd call it discrimination for black people to be given CCBs as first line medication and white people ACEIs. Is this where you stand?

Doctors should be treating the patient according to their individual need, not based on the color of their skin. And that's what they do. The color of their skin is just a coincidence. If a white person were to need a CCB, and not an ACEI, they would be administered what they needed.

If BLM were to tackle the problems of discrimination and police brutality, but coincidentally managed to solve a major problem that black people face, along the way, that would be fine.

Untimely death through illness affects lots of people. Isn't it unfair to focus on just one type of untimely death, to concentrate one's charitable donations on one form of ill-health that leads to untimely death, but not another?

That is one's own personal decision to make. Society is generally okay with allowing philanthropists freedom of choice for whatever charity or cause they want to support. Society, and the law, is generally not okay, however, with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc, not even within charities. I found case law where a charitable trust that distributed funds for "white, elderly, Presbyterian people" in an assisted-living home, the "white" and "Presbyterian" elements were removed by the court, or something like that.

Is this perfectly logically consistent? Probably not. But that's okay. Neither I nor society are perfect and consistent in all things. But we, as a society, have put our foot down and said "discrimination on the basis of race is not okay".

I heard an apt analogy that might offer a better insight into why the BLM movement seems so readily focused on black people to your perceived exclusion of all other races: if your house is on fire, should the fire department respond by hosing everyone's houses down along with yours because all houses matter? Black people are killed disproportionately more and more readily by the cops than white people, and the BLM is hosing down the house that's on fire.

Yes, that comic was posted in the last topic. I responded with a OC comic where three houses were on fire, but only the black house got hosed down.

Yes, black people suffer disproportionately. But the problems hurting black people are not EXCLUSIVELY hurting black people. Even if the problem does exclusively hurt a group of people, you should be focusing on the problem, not the people.

How would you feel if both yours and your neighbor's house was on fire, but his fire got priority attention from the fire department because he was part of a disadvantaged group of people and you weren't? Maybe you'd be okay with that. Maybe your relative "privilege" can mean that you would still land on your feet, while his life would have been completely ruined. Maybe that "justifies" it?

Or maybe you'd gradually turn against that group, and seek out help from your own "group" because if the state won't help you, you need to help you and your own. Maybe you and your group might feel the need "to secure the existence of your people and a future for your children". Can you see the problem there?

Are you trying to convince me that BLM doesn't discriminate, or that their discrimination is justified?

 

[ObsidianJones]

I'd argue that a significant part of it is in defining what lens it is considered acceptable to view an issue through. That one of the functions of BLM is to inexorably tie mistreatment in the criminal justice system to race, and make it unacceptable to talk about it except through a racial lens.

I even saw folks on social media comparing Roger Stone to Kalief Browder who stole a backpack, couldn't make bail and killed himself after spending three years in jail awaiting trial, arguing that there are two justice systems in this country, and pretty thoroughly implying that the important difference there was race. As opposed to, you know, wealth and political connection.

You're understating the case.

First off, it's alleged that he stole the bookbag. In fact, we don't know. And the boy could have spent 700 days in solitary confinement because it was safer for him due to a cop picking him out of a crowd.

The cops wanted Browder to confess. They said if he did confess, that he would go home that night. Browder, maintaining his innocence, refused. And they let that young man rot in jail for three years without granting him a trial.

They took three years of this man's life, and then created the scenario that caused him to take his life due to not really giving a fuck.

Roger Stone was found lying. Being friends with the President helped, assuredly. But there wasn't even a measure of police work or justice in Browder's case. Just admit that you did it so you could go free.

When I have had friends of the family who were lawyers, cops, and the like tell me point blank that I need to steer clear of everything as young black man because no one will believe me... yeah, we have to address that there's racism in this system instead of constantly trying to find anything else to focus on.

As it was once said by Seth Stoughton, a former cop and now current Law Professor:

I have become convinced that we do not have a race problem in policing, Rather, we have a race problem in society that is reflected in policing.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Are you trying to convince me that BLM doesn't discriminate, or that their discrimination is justified?

What you call “discrimination’ is more “self-reliance.”

Hundreds of years of slavery, repression, oppression and discrimination kept the proverbial knee on the neck of black people, and it finally culminated in a Civil Rights movement (sparked by black people speaking up for themselves, not good nature white folks who finally saw the error of their ways) barely 60 years ago. That’s not that long ago. We’re not that far removed from it. My Grandfather is still alive and well and remembers when he was relegated to “colored” entrances and denied access altogether to “white only” facilities. Civil Rights didn’t shut off systemic racism and racist mentalities; it simply mandated that those bitter behind the movement’s “success” take their hatred to the shadows. Black people continue to suffer from those in positions of power and authority who can simply do as they please and continue to make black lives miserable out of spite. They hide behind hiring desks and corporate ownership; they are our teachers and coaches; they are our neighbors who out of suspicion and unmerited fear can endanger black lives with a mere phone call; they wield gavels. They wield badges. They say “Black Lives Matter” because to so many, they don’t, and for decades, even those not of overt bigoted tendencies sat quietly and or ignored the plight blacks deal with. So black people decided to break the silence again and speak for ourselves (not that I’m an active BLM activist or anything.)

No one speaks for us, and when we speak for ourselves, we’re shot down with every excuse in the book to silence us like we’re blowing a very real issue out of proportion because “racism is a thing of the past.” So yeah, we had to finally tell the world that our lives matter TOO, and we’re willing to stand up for them since no one else ever seems to ever want to be bothered and look the issues in its face. BLM doesn’t condone or dismiss the killings by police of non-black people, but to ask that they laden their movement down by lumping it in with a larger problem of “generic police brutality” mitigates the point of their message. It’s not about just corrupt and violent police; it’s about a system that since the inception of this nation that has seen black persons as two-thirds a man, barely human and not worth the shell casing left after one is shot and killed in yet another a “justifiable homicide” and thrown on the pile.

 

[Agema]

I agree that the three words in total isolation: "black lives matter" is not discriminatory or exclusionary.
The BLM organization, however, judging by their own claims on their website, only focuses on black people. No amount of people telling me that "it's non-exclusionary" changes that fact. Does this mean that they're dismissive about non-black lives? Yes, I think so. I didn't see them marching when Daniel Shaver died.

Black Lives Matter Supporters Call Attention to Graphic Video of Arizona Shooting

"Consider that Shaver might well be alive if only the Mesa police department had long ago adopted reforms of the sort that Black Lives Matter suggests."

www.commondreams.org

They're supportive of people going out there and campaigning for other lives, too. But they've made their remit. More below.

I already said that it's possible to solve discrimination without discriminating. There need not be any paradox. BLM is guilty of creating a paradox BECAUSE they're fighting discrimination with discrimination. There are other ways. Whether or not those ways are "better" is a separate discussion.

You can't just say what BLM is doing is discrimination to me in this debate, because that's begging the question: it's treating the very issue under debate as an established fact.

Can you explain how it's sophistry? Because, due to the lack of reasoning provided, this just seems like a thought-terminating cliche.

Firstly, it's a weak semantic play on the term "compartment". Secondly, it's invalid because the implication of the allegory is that no-one can support BLM and also protest non-black police deaths, which patently isn't true. (And as it's not true, because BLM does not preclude campaigning against other police abuses, it is therefore not exclusionary, as previously stated)

Doctors should be treating the patient according to their individual need, not based on the color of their skin. And that's what they do. The color of their skin is just a coincidence. If a white person were to need a CCB, and not an ACEI, they would be administered what they needed.

That's not how it works. If a patient walks into a surgery needing an antihypertensive, the doctor will take notes, and if not contraindicated will get the recommended first line medication. A black patient might actually do better with an ACEI than a CCB, but they'll get the CCB first because, according to their race, it should be better. Nevertheless, this is not a key point, I just wanted to know where you stood on the matter, not argue about it.

That is one's own personal decision to make. Society is generally okay with allowing philanthropists freedom of choice for whatever charity or cause they want to support.

Right. And Black Lives Matter is a personal decision, too. It's not a state organisation. It is not exercising institutional power, authority, laws, or control over other people's lives. It's not even a society, with a membership. Its campaigning is at no disadvantage to any other victim of police abuse. It is individual people exercising their freedom of choice to focus on a particular problem in society and working under a common banner, seting their remit like donors to a cardiovascular disease charity have set theirs.

I do not see how you can reasonably ask people to accept this is fair "freedom of choice" in one area and unfair "discrimination" in another.

Is this perfectly logically consistent? Probably not.

Yes, but I don't think you can reasonably hand-wave away logical consistency in this manner without an exceptionally good reason. If you do not have logical consistency, it suggests you are not giving things equal treatment. In debate we'd normally call this double standards or bias, and I can't help but point out that bias or double standards in some societal issues is called discrimination.

You are free to believe what you choose, but if in the final analysis you cannot provide sufficient reason for your belief...

 

[Houseman]

Black Lives Matter Supporters Call Attention to Graphic Video of Arizona Shooting

"Consider that Shaver might well be alive if only the Mesa police department had long ago adopted reforms of the sort that Black Lives Matter suggests."

www.commondreams.org

What is this link supposed to prove? I said that they didn't march for Daniel Shaver and they didn't. The article shows BLM "leaders" mentioning his death on twitter. Of course they did. It was big news. I'm sure BLM leaders mention lots of things on their twitter accounts, maybe even comments about cute cat pictures. There was no, however, official support from the movement.

You can't just say what BLM is doing is discrimination to me in this debate, because that's begging the question: it's treating the very issue under debate as an established fact.

You're right.

Can I rephrase that as a conditional? If BLM is is guilty of racial discrimination, then they create the paradox themselves. Regardless, I'm not saying that it's not possible to fight racial discrimination without racially discriminating yourself. That's my reply to your argument about the paradox of tolerance.

it's invalid because the implication of the allegory is that no-one can support BLM and also protest non-black police deaths, which patently isn't true. (And as it's not true, because BLM does not preclude campaigning against other police abuses, it is therefore not exclusionary, as previously stated)

Are we talking about individuals who identify as part of, or as supporters of, the movement or the movement itself?
Because it's not debatable that the movement itself does not protest non-black police deaths, and does not campaign against other police abuses (given this, I don't know how anyone can argue that it still isn't racially discriminatory, both in word and in deed. And then there are those anti-discrimination laws that many #BLM hashtaggers are trying to repeal...)
It doesn't restrict its individual "members" from doing so, however. It doesn't tell its "members" what they can and cannot do. But the movement itself has clear goals and boundaries over what it will or will not support.

Are you trying to say that, because BLM doesn't restrict what it's members do, then it's not exclusionary? Because the movement itself is pretty clearly made to serve, and exclusively serves, black people.

Right. And Black Lives Matter is a personal decision, too.

Whether or not one supports BLM is a personal decision. I'm calling the movement discriminatory and exclusionary. I'm not saying that people are necessarily discriminatory because they have freedom to choose which charities they do or don't support.

It's not a state organisation. It is not exercising institutional power, authority, laws, or control over other people's lives. It's not even a society, with a membership. Its campaigning is at no disadvantage to any other victim of police abuse. It is individual people exercising their freedom of choice to focus on a particular problem in society and working under a common banner, seting their remit like donors to a cardiovascular disease charity have set theirs.

This is all true. I'll also add that they are a non-profit organization that accepts donations and has at least one bank account. With money comes power.

But despite all that, I maintain that the movement is racially discriminatory.

do not see how you can reasonably ask people to accept this is fair "freedom of choice" in one area and unfair "discrimination" in another.

Because discriminating between white people and black people is viewed by society as being much different than discriminating between the pink ribbon charity and the save the children charity.

If you'd like, we can come up with names that draw a distinction between the two. How about "racial discrimination"? I'm "anti-racial-discrimination", but ambivalent on "choice-in-charity discrimination" how about that? I thought that it was generally understood that I was talking about race this whole time.

 

[Gordon_4]

Jesus wept the sheer amount of pedantry over this slogan is getting absurd.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Jesus wept the sheer amount of pedantry over this slogan is getting absurd.

I agree. Next thing you know, “Best Buy” will come under scrutiny for not having the objectively optimal purchases and change their name to “Some Items Available In Exchange For Predetermined Amounts Of The Local Currency.”

 

[Hawki]

Indiana woman shot dead after saying ‘all lives matter’: family

A young mother was fatally shot earlier this month in Indiana and may have been targeted for saying “all lives matter,” the 24-year-old’s family said Sunday. Jessica Doty Whitaker…

www.nydailynews.com

Moral of the story? Don't say All Lives Matter. It can get you killed.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Imagine that there was a U.N. task force designed to stop discrimination. Imagine that it ONLY focused on stopping discrimination against a single race/ethnicity. Wouldn't you have a problem with that? That's the problem that I have with BLM.

Allies of World War II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Like this one?

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Jesus wept the sheer amount of pedantry over this slogan is getting absurd.

When you have a large and succesful movement about conscience and reform then you have to create new heights to try and find reasons to be uncomfortable about it when you're already a non-socialist to own the libs. God forbid people have specific grievances, it must then be about feelings. God forbid people have factual evidence, then it must be about their feelings instead!

 

[gorfias]

It's just another empty slogan from lazy, complicit people who don't want to address the fact that America has never been as free as we like to imagine. The whole point is to stymie conversation by making it impossible to concentrate on one topic or issue. Anyone who at this point still believes that BLM is saying that "only" black lives matter, is doing so deliberately because they want to be aggrieved and pretend they're the victim instead of, you know, the people murdered by cops.

I think this a very myopic post.
Someone stating "all lives matter" may be (in my case is) angry that BLM is using this topic in a way that others like myself see as racist and bigoted in and of itself. Cops sometimes use excessive force. Making this a racial issue, which is what BLM is doing, distracts from a very real problem and unnecessarily polarizes people who should be pushing for things like body cams, an end to police unions, rules that if violated will bring about real and quick proportional rebuke of the abusive cop.
What is apparent is that the real agenda of BLM is some mix of a Black racist supremacist and/or Marxist front.
You end up with white people apologizing for the crime of having been born white while literally washing black people's feet.

Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological f…

nypost.com

 

[ObsidianJones]

I think this a very myopic post.
Someone stating "all lives matter" may be (in my case is) angry that BLM is using this topic in a way that others like myself see as racist and bigoted in and of itself. Cops sometimes use excessive force. Making this a racial issue, which is what BLM is doing, distracts from a very real problem and unnecessarily polarizes people who should be pushing for things like body cams, an end to police unions, rules that if violated will bring about real and quick proportional rebuke of the abusive cop.
What is apparent is that the real agenda of BLM is some mix of a Black racist supremacist and/or Marxist front.
You end up with white people apologizing for the crime of having been born white while literally washing black people's feet.

Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological f…

nypost.com

Without humor, this is also a myopic post.

It is one that is carefully created in a bubble, without any sense of casualty. The Black Lives Matter of today was born from one thing: The Willful ignorance of the Majority from the pleas of the past.

How many times do we have to peacefully protest until we overcome the seemingly endless inertia of the Majority's compliance? We've been doing it since the 1960's

Think about that. We're still dealing with an issue that some claim is 'not a racial issue' since the decade of birth of the parents of a good deal of the forum members here. That's mighty enraging.

We have evidence of bad police and falsifying evidence, overpolicing and quotas that lean on the black and latino population to make arrest.

And if it is as you say, just simply a matter of a very real problem of police excessive force... Where is the majority? I mean, they always want to call out the minority communities for any infractions that are committed by them. Fair enough. But the reason why we have the terms of Majorities and Minorities is that we're talking about Population Numbers. Ergo, Political Power. The Majority always had the means to change this, via voting. They did not. Because overpolicing didn't bother them, because they thought it was fine, because they didn't know... whatever. They did not change the system.

Have your feelings. If you feel attacked, I understand that. And furthermore, I am genuinely sorry that you have to feel that way.

But realize as well. I am a target. Many other people who look like me are. And I have a significant part of the majority of this country more upset with the name than the problem. Which tells me and others like me that once again, what is more important to the Majority is how the Majority feels about a situation than the actual situation that's going on. Because if there was a cause to save the Ice Caps, and they called it "White Power Forever"... I would not spend more time debating and being mad about the name than freaking solving the problem of our generation and the generations coming.

I would spend my own energy, my time, my effort, and whatever I could do to save the Ice Caps. And don't get me wrong, I would NOT be happy about the name. But the PROBLEM is greater than my taste of the segment. And the actual Problem is Blacks are disproportionately killed, even when accounting for being unarmed.

That is the problem at hand. That is why Black Lives Matters has been formed. No one is saying don't arrest. All anyone is saying is don't kill more than you arrest. That is it.

But apparently, for certain segments of the majority? Their feelings about the tone of the situation far outstrips the brutality visited. And if anyone feels guilt or discomfort about that, I say that's good news.

 

[ObsidianJones]

"It is one that is carefully created in a bubble, without any sense of causality"^

It will not let me edit for some reason.

 

[Houseman]

And the actual Problem is Blacks are disproportionately killed, even when accounting for being unarmed.

But why? Because the police officers are racist? If so, shouldn't we see more white officers killing black people, than black officers killing black people? But that's not what we see. So are black cops racist towards black citizens?

The problem with ascribing a race-based motive to these killings implies a race-based solution. Hence, BLM. But what if it's not really about race at all? What if race is just a correlation, not a causation?

That's what this study suggests (actual study is behind a paywall)

Poverty leads to crime. Crime leads to higher police activity. Higher police activity leads to more deaths. And we all know that race correlates to poverty (but neither directly causes the other). Seems pretty simple, right?

If you misidentify the problem and try and solve it from the wrong angle, not only will it not work, it might backfire and cause even more problems.

Maybe racism, past and/or present, is responsible for poverty, but BLM is clearly not the right movement to solve that problem. They'd have to rebrand and refocus around, I don't know, creating jobs and strengthening economies.

 

[gorfias]

Without humor, this is also a myopic post.

It is one that is carefully created in a bubble, without any sense of casualty. The Black Lives Matter of today was born from one thing: The Willful ignorance of the Majority from the pleas of the past.

How many times do we have to peacefully protest until we overcome the seemingly endless inertia of the Majority's compliance? We've been doing it since the 1960's

Think about that. We're still dealing with an issue that some claim is 'not a racial issue' since the decade of birth of the parents of a good deal of the forum members here. That's mighty enraging.

We have evidence of bad police and falsifying evidence, overpolicing and quotas that lean on the black and latino population to make arrest.

And if it is as you say, just simply a matter of a very real problem of police excessive force... Where is the majority? I mean, they always want to call out the minority communities for any infractions that are committed by them. Fair enough. But the reason why we have the terms of Majorities and Minorities is that we're talking about Population Numbers. Ergo, Political Power. The Majority always had the means to change this, via voting. They did not. Because overpolicing didn't bother them, because they thought it was fine, because they didn't know... whatever. They did not change the system.

Have your feelings. If you feel attacked, I understand that. And furthermore, I am genuinely sorry that you have to feel that way.

But realize as well. I am a target. Many other people who look like me are. And I have a significant part of the majority of this country more upset with the name than the problem. Which tells me and others like me that once again, what is more important to the Majority is how the Majority feels about a situation than the actual situation that's going on. Because if there was a cause to save the Ice Caps, and they called it "White Power Forever"... I would not spend more time debating and being mad about the name than freaking solving the problem of our generation and the generations coming.

I would spend my own energy, my time, my effort, and whatever I could do to save the Ice Caps. And don't get me wrong, I would NOT be happy about the name. But the PROBLEM is greater than my taste of the segment. And the actual Problem is Blacks are disproportionately killed, even when accounting for being unarmed.

That is the problem at hand. That is why Black Lives Matters has been formed. No one is saying don't arrest. All anyone is saying is don't kill more than you arrest. That is it.

But apparently, for certain segments of the majority? Their feelings about the tone of the situation far outstrips the brutality visited. And if anyone feels guilt or discomfort about that, I say that's good news.

It is what it is. I have been abused by cops and I'm not black.
I have Italian and Irish friends who have been abused by cops.
Reducing excessive force is a problem that everyone can get behind until one polarizes the issue and make sweeping generalizations about whole identifiable demographic groups.
In a radical egalitarian sense, one could argue there is a problem. If, say, Japanese Americans commit 1/2 as much crime as white American, and are 1/2 as likely to be shot, from a radical egalitarian point of view, there should be no identifiable differences between identifiable demographic groups. If white people are committing twice the crime as the Japanese Americans, something is de facto wrong, even if not dejure. But, I think we would impose more injustice on the world trying to be radical egalitarians. Seeking fairness can work, be just, but is a lot harder to define and requires a ton of work.
You write of generations not being heard. But cops wear body cams now. Cops, like the ones in the Fruitville station homicide are going to prison.
These kinds of results come from hard work. And there is no utopia coming. There will ALWAYS be hard work to do. Identifying wrongful behavior. Documenting and recording it. Following up with it.
I've heard a lawyer complaining the BLM is making his work identifying and prosecuting bad cops harder as they are hardening public opinion against prosecuting cops. So much of making things better revolves around image problems. To say the floggings will continue until morale improves is not going to be productive. Yelling that white people need to get used to their new reality as they are shamed into publicly washing black people's feet is an image problem.
And everything I just wrote comes before a more important fact: the danger that cops pose to black people is negligible compared to much more vital issues. It's a distraction, bringing those not part of the movement to ask, "what is this really all about." With BLM leaders openly stating that they are Marxists it appears that this movement is not about justice or making things better. It's about useful idiots thinking they've found a wedge issue with which to tear down a great country and replace it with some Communist Utopia. Which enough US citizens, at least at this time, know will not happen. Maybe, at best, we'll be like the former U.S.S.R? They torture murdered millions of people, including any relatives I might have had in the Ukraine at the time. I won't sign on to something like that happening here to my family.

But why? Because the police officers are racist? If so, shouldn't we see more white officers killing black people, than black officers killing black people? But that's not what we see. So are black cops racist towards black citizens?

The problem with ascribing a race-based motive to these killings implies a race-based solution. Hence, BLM. But what if it's not really about race at all? What if race is just a correlation, not a causation?

That's what this study suggests (actual study is behind a paywall)

Poverty leads to crime. Crime leads to higher police activity. Higher police activity leads to more deaths. And we all know that race correlates to poverty (but neither directly causes the other). Seems pretty simple, right?

If you misidentify the problem and try and solve it from the wrong angle, not only will it not work, it might backfire and cause even more problems.

Maybe racism, past and/or present, is responsible for poverty, but BLM is clearly not the right movement to solve that problem. They'd have to rebrand and refocus around, I don't know, creating jobs and strengthening economies.

So limiting income disparity comes waaaay before blaming all white people for cops excessive force. There are policies that are fair, just but will take a ton of work to help reduce income inequality. We just can't let distractions keep us from that task.