5 ms·

So they say "Female Lives Matter" and you say "All Lives Matter". If I learned anything from "Black Lives Matter", it is that this type of response is not acce

So they say "Female Lives Matter" and you say "All Lives Matter". If I learned anything from "Black Lives Matter", it is that this type of response is not acceptable and does a lot to diminish the original message.

mmel 10y ago
The original message is divisive in nature.
iLoch 10y ago
Without getting too political, I'd like to point out that the purpose of the Black Lives Matters movement is to address differences between the life the average black person is afforded vs. that of a non-minority person (ie. white). There's a strong correlation between black and being poor, and perhaps the solution is not to create a divide by race, but rather by socioeconomic status. A lot of problems we have today, faced both by black people and poor people alike, can be solved by addressing the problems in poor neighbourhoods. Of course that is not to say all black people are poor, that would be ridiculous. But in the mind of someone who thinks in a certain way, because a person is black it means that they are in fact more likely to be from a poorer family, may have received lesser education, etc. So I think socioeconomic status is a much more fair and less divisive way grouping people. "All lives matter" is certainly reactionary, but I think there's truth to the idea the BLM isn't the correct way to solve the problem.
- mc32 10y ago
  I think the issue some people have with the BLMM is that it focuses on one aspect of the violence: police vs black population, while not confronting other sources of violence from within the population. Now, me, I think they are both valid concerns. Violence from the police is a big issue (for black and for any population, but they suffer from it the most, proportionately speaking) and it's a complex issue. As recent studies have shown, depolicing/trepidation by police is likely a factor in the increase in violence in large metro areas studied. That said, while being poor is a factor in violence (we can go to Japan or China (more homogenous groups) and we see more violence among the poor or disenfranchised (Yakuza). But that does not absolve the populations from looking inwardly and addressing inter-group violence. With regard to violence on women, as depicted here in the story, it's not from other women but by males and they also bear the brunt of the violence (2/3 of the cases). So I think it's fair to address this as a special case of violence needing added attention due to the disproportionality of where the violence comes from and who it impacts.
- omonra 10y ago
  Do you happen to have (or ever looked at) the statistics for criminality of low-income whites? I'd be curious for that comparison - let's say murder rate (as these things are less likely to be covered up) across bottom 10% of income by race.
  - dlmetcalf 10y ago
    The mortality gap between white and black Americans still exists, but has closed dramatically in recent decades. Mortality rates are still far worse for men than women though. But particularly, that poverty affects male mortality far more than poverty affects female mortality. E.g. Mortality rates for financially disadvantaged white males is still very significantly worse than for black women (where as black male mortality is still worse than for either - but dramatically less worse compared to white males than it was a couple of decades ago). http://voxeu.org/article/mortality-inequality-good-news-county-level-approach http://voxeu.org/article/mortality-inequality-good-news-coun...
    - omonra 10y ago
      I was talking about homicide rate rather - ie if poor whites commit serious crime at the same rate as poor blacks.
  - dlmetcalf 10y ago
    That said, black Americans are relatively more likely to be financially disadvantaged in the first place (which skews the weight of attention warranted I guess).

mmel 10y ago

The original message is divisive in nature.

iLoch 10y ago

Without getting too political, I'd like to point out that the purpose of the Black Lives Matters movement is to address differences between the life the average black person is afforded vs. that of a non-minority person (ie. white). There's a strong correlation between black and being poor, and perhaps the solution is not to create a divide by race, but rather by socioeconomic status. A lot of problems we have today, faced both by black people and poor people alike, can be solved by addressing the problems in poor neighbourhoods. Of course that is not to say all black people are poor, that would be ridiculous. But in the mind of someone who thinks in a certain way, because a person is black it means that they are in fact more likely to be from a poorer family, may have received lesser education, etc. So I think socioeconomic status is a much more fair and less divisive way grouping people. "All lives matter" is certainly reactionary, but I think there's truth to the idea the BLM isn't the correct way to solve the problem.

mc32 10y ago
I think the issue some people have with the BLMM is that it focuses on one aspect of the violence: police vs black population, while not confronting other sources of violence from within the population. Now, me, I think they are both valid concerns. Violence from the police is a big issue (for black and for any population, but they suffer from it the most, proportionately speaking) and it's a complex issue. As recent studies have shown, depolicing/trepidation by police is likely a factor in the increase in violence in large metro areas studied. That said, while being poor is a factor in violence (we can go to Japan or China (more homogenous groups) and we see more violence among the poor or disenfranchised (Yakuza). But that does not absolve the populations from looking inwardly and addressing inter-group violence. With regard to violence on women, as depicted here in the story, it's not from other women but by males and they also bear the brunt of the violence (2/3 of the cases). So I think it's fair to address this as a special case of violence needing added attention due to the disproportionality of where the violence comes from and who it impacts.
omonra 10y ago
Do you happen to have (or ever looked at) the statistics for criminality of low-income whites? I'd be curious for that comparison - let's say murder rate (as these things are less likely to be covered up) across bottom 10% of income by race.
- dlmetcalf 10y ago
  The mortality gap between white and black Americans still exists, but has closed dramatically in recent decades. Mortality rates are still far worse for men than women though. But particularly, that poverty affects male mortality far more than poverty affects female mortality. E.g. Mortality rates for financially disadvantaged white males is still very significantly worse than for black women (where as black male mortality is still worse than for either - but dramatically less worse compared to white males than it was a couple of decades ago). http://voxeu.org/article/mortality-inequality-good-news-county-level-approach http://voxeu.org/article/mortality-inequality-good-news-coun...
  - omonra 10y ago
    I was talking about homicide rate rather - ie if poor whites commit serious crime at the same rate as poor blacks.
- dlmetcalf 10y ago
  That said, black Americans are relatively more likely to be financially disadvantaged in the first place (which skews the weight of attention warranted I guess).