5 ms·

Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Matter as well. The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't, and that the r

Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Matter as well. The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't, and that the racial struggles of American Blacks are irrelevant. That is the reason why All Lives Matter is considered abusive.

iopq 10y ago
> The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't That's not what "all" means. It's turning the name of the movement by implying it means "only" Black Lives Matter. So All Lives Matter is saying that not only Black Lives Matter.
- commenting 10y ago
  Only if you take the literal interpretation of the words, rather than the connotation and context that I explained in my comment.
- grad_ml 10y ago
  The question is why people of color have to come up with "BLM" movement. Why not Latinos, White or some other racial entity (not yet, because they are not demographically significant)? Because there had been numerous instances, when black folks have been murdered by police brutally without any repercussions from courts or government. So, this is not the time for all lives matter, yet.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    In truth this happens to all races. It does happen to black people somewhat more often, per capita, but 50% of people killed by police are white.
    - kemayo 10y ago
      Mind, since ~70% of the US population is white, that does imply whites are less likely to be killed by the police. Predicting the likely response to this, of course, we get into the (surprisingly hard to accurately work out) question of what proportion of crimes are committed by people of various races, and to what extent that figure is manipulated by conscious / subconscious bias on the part of law enforcement. (It's a swamp, and I don't feel like arguing about it tonight, I just wanted to acknowledge it's complicated.) Edit to acknowledge: yes, it's more like 60% white if you're splitting out Hispanic-origin into its own category. Still, disproportionate.
      - BurningFrog 10y ago
        I think what's important about this is if the big problem is (1) race disproportionality or (2) general police brutality and unaccountability. If the main problem is (2), but society mobilizes to solve (1), thigs won't get better.
        kemayo 10y ago
        I feel that these problems are linked. If we solved (1), everyone would be equally likely to suffer from police brutality. This would make us more likely to then go ahead and fix (2), because suddenly it would no longer be something which mostly happens to long-downtrodden minority groups. Mind, if we fix (2) first, it's somewhat plausible that we might continue in a situation where minority groups are disproportionately targeted by the police, and we just go "eh, it's not that bad, we're not shooting them all the time any more".
        BurningFrog 10y ago
        Your first point only works if we solve (1) by increasing the killings of whites.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        > Predicting the likely response to this, of course, we get into the (surprisingly hard to accurately work out) question of what proportion of crimes are committed by people of various races I find this argument (the one you are referring to) to be spurious. We don't calculate the number of rapes committed by men and there is no subsequent societal bias against men as criminal by default (or suspect by default). Not to mention the mindset leads to a feedback loop: "Of the bugs found during team code reviews, 50% were in Bob's code" will lead to everyone going through Bob's code with a fine tooth comb - and finding yet more bugs, while Stacy's code never gets a second glance regardless of its quality[1]. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-b...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- drewrv 10y ago
  If one truly believed "all lives matter" then one would not object to the statement "black lives matter".
  - dak1 10y ago
    > When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter." O'Malley was eviscerated for that statement, even though he clearly agreed with the sentiment that black lives matter. I can understand the concern that some have that turning "Black Lives Matter" into "All Lives Matter" could conceal the reality that people with darker skin have been disproportionately impacted by our Justice system, but I also agree with the contention that overreaching and overreacting to a statement that seems completely reasonable to people not deeply aware of the discussion can ultimately have the opposite effect and serve as fuel to movements like the alt right.
ilugaslifg 10y ago
Yes, "black lives matter as well". That is a statement that I now understand and strongly appreciate the power and full meaning of, after spending a good amount of time and emotional and intellectual effort on it. The problem is innocent people who happen onto the conversation, interpret it at first glance, not unreasonably, as some insane asshole saying "only black lives matter", engage in good faith on that basis, to uphold ideals that we can all agree are right... and subsequently are piled on by a mob who agree that the offender has just instantly and irredeemably proven themselves to be one of the worst things they've been taught it's possible to be. With a real, non-zero chance of their real lives being actually, materially ruined as part of this public shaming. The problem is things like "Black Lives Matter" being used as a shibboleth[0] -- an excuse to form a gleeful lynch mob, giving everybody a pleasurable and community-affirming chance to engage in collective norm-enforcement against The Other. The problem is an atmosphere where I'm so paranoid about even attempting to have a good-faith intellectual conversation about this that I have to create a throwaway account to remove a not-at-all implausible chance of having my life ruined for even engaging on this topic at all. And this isn't even getting into the atmosphere that seems to really be setting in, where agreeing to listen to someone has become tantamount to agreeing with everything they say. That's the really frightening one. ---- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth
leereeves 10y ago
Before there was an All Lives Matter movement, there was one candidate who said: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter." Whatever may have happened after, there was little justification to destroy that candidate for saying this.
- throwaway4job 10y ago
  There was, and only somebody who has no exposure to black troubles; or who simply doesn't care about them could understand the problem. Also, please don't pretend that one thing destroyed him... that's nonsense that you're peddling. But it's unsurprising that somebody peddling racist lies is a liar.
- makomk 10y ago
  Here is how Donald Trump described said candidate's apology for that: "And then he apologized like a little baby, like a disgusting, little weak, pathetic baby, and that's the problem with our country," [1] Make no mistake, Trump and the alt-right are incredibly hostile to anyone who doesn't see Black Lives Matter as an evil, racist attack on white people, who don't think that blacks complaining about police violence against them is the real racism. [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/martin-omalley-donald-trump-black-lives-matter/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/martin-omalley-do...
  - leereeves 10y ago
    I think that's true, but I also think one reason that works for him is that the left is so hostile to a moderate position.
    - spacemanmatt 10y ago
      Seems more directly applicable that it works for him because the alt-right is so hostile to a moderate position.
      - leereeves 10y ago
farright 10y ago
You are interpreting "all lives matter" to mean this. It could also mean that black people are not especially target by the police and that outrage at law enforcement is misplaced. For example we know that the rates of police violence against black people vs white people roughly mirrors arrest and conviction rates. Now you might consider this incorrect, but I think it's a debate that has to be had in the open and not shut down by calling people racist.
kemayo 10y ago
My preferred analogy to use here is that saying "it's not just black lives that matter, all lives matter" is like going to your fire department and saying "it's not just houses on fire that matter, all houses matter". Yes, of course, they do. But some houses need immediate attention because they're in danger.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Then it's a failure in marketing, as the fire deparment doesn't market itself as "department for throwing water at houses". Maybe BLM should be more clear about its goals? I'm not really up-to-speed with US politics, but I know it's horrifying how easily and with impunity the police have been killing black people. Still, "Black lives matter" isn't a great slogan, and calling "all lives matter" racist definitely seems like an overreaction. I'm not familiar with ALM's positions, though, so maybe it's a racist organization in disguise, I don't know.
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    > Then it's a failure in marketing, as the fire deparment doesn't market itself as "department for throwing water at houses". Well, the fire department does tell people that they need to pay attention to things that might cause fires. The response isn't "well, people should pay attention to all dangerous things! What about car accidents?" I mean, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. When someone is raising money for orphans, people don't usually say "but what about money for veterans?" When people are raising awareness about breast cancer, you don't usually tell them "hey, we should be raising awareness for all cancer." They don't get angry that Smokey Bear focuses on forest fires ("Oh, house fires don't matter to you?"). People understand single-issue campaigns for most things, but some suddenly have an issue with it when it comes to African Americans deaths. This naturally raises a few eyebrows.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Yeah its a knee-jerk reaction and sad. The more accurate slogan would be "Black Lives Also Matter" but that isn't as effective. I think we all really understand that's what "Black Lives Matter" means. The real question is, why the strong counter-reaction? Why the sophistry around the slogan? What is that covering for?
BurningFrog 10y ago
> Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Matter as well. Agreed. And that implies that Black Lives currently do not matter, which hopefully we can all agree is a big overstatement. I understand that movements need simple powerful slogans to chant and make bumper stickers from. That's fine. But let's not treat these three words as some definitive analysis of race in America.
tyho 10y ago
All lives matter may be distasteful (I don't actually know anything about it and am not making a judgment one way or another) but calling it "abusive" is exactly the sort of over the top PC nonsense which fuels the alt-right. EDIT: Perhaps I am wrong here, as I said, I know nothing about All Lives Matter, can you justify calling it an "abusive" movement?
- cloudsloth 10y ago
  All lives matter is a direct response to black lives matter and is trying to nullify the claims of the latter. It is functionally abusive because it actively fights increased awareness of the racism that BLM was(is) working towards. The statement 'All Lives Matter' not as response to BLM would have been fine, but come on. No one here is blind to the current discussion to that extent.
  - tyho 10y ago
    I am not arguing for "All Lives Matter", but fighting against awareness is a very low bar for "abuse".

iopq 10y ago

> The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't That's not what "all" means. It's turning the name of the movement by implying it means "only" Black Lives Matter. So All Lives Matter is saying that not only Black Lives Matter.

commenting 10y ago
Only if you take the literal interpretation of the words, rather than the connotation and context that I explained in my comment.
grad_ml 10y ago
The question is why people of color have to come up with "BLM" movement. Why not Latinos, White or some other racial entity (not yet, because they are not demographically significant)? Because there had been numerous instances, when black folks have been murdered by police brutally without any repercussions from courts or government. So, this is not the time for all lives matter, yet.
- leereeves 10y ago
  In truth this happens to all races. It does happen to black people somewhat more often, per capita, but 50% of people killed by police are white.
  - kemayo 10y ago
    Mind, since ~70% of the US population is white, that does imply whites are less likely to be killed by the police. Predicting the likely response to this, of course, we get into the (surprisingly hard to accurately work out) question of what proportion of crimes are committed by people of various races, and to what extent that figure is manipulated by conscious / subconscious bias on the part of law enforcement. (It's a swamp, and I don't feel like arguing about it tonight, I just wanted to acknowledge it's complicated.) Edit to acknowledge: yes, it's more like 60% white if you're splitting out Hispanic-origin into its own category. Still, disproportionate.
    - BurningFrog 10y ago
      I think what's important about this is if the big problem is (1) race disproportionality or (2) general police brutality and unaccountability. If the main problem is (2), but society mobilizes to solve (1), thigs won't get better.
      - kemayo 10y ago
        I feel that these problems are linked. If we solved (1), everyone would be equally likely to suffer from police brutality. This would make us more likely to then go ahead and fix (2), because suddenly it would no longer be something which mostly happens to long-downtrodden minority groups. Mind, if we fix (2) first, it's somewhat plausible that we might continue in a situation where minority groups are disproportionately targeted by the police, and we just go "eh, it's not that bad, we're not shooting them all the time any more".
        BurningFrog 10y ago
        Your first point only works if we solve (1) by increasing the killings of whites.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > Predicting the likely response to this, of course, we get into the (surprisingly hard to accurately work out) question of what proportion of crimes are committed by people of various races I find this argument (the one you are referring to) to be spurious. We don't calculate the number of rapes committed by men and there is no subsequent societal bias against men as criminal by default (or suspect by default). Not to mention the mindset leads to a feedback loop: "Of the bugs found during team code reviews, 50% were in Bob's code" will lead to everyone going through Bob's code with a fine tooth comb - and finding yet more bugs, while Stacy's code never gets a second glance regardless of its quality[1]. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-b...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
drewrv 10y ago
If one truly believed "all lives matter" then one would not object to the statement "black lives matter".
- dak1 10y ago
  > When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter." O'Malley was eviscerated for that statement, even though he clearly agreed with the sentiment that black lives matter. I can understand the concern that some have that turning "Black Lives Matter" into "All Lives Matter" could conceal the reality that people with darker skin have been disproportionately impacted by our Justice system, but I also agree with the contention that overreaching and overreacting to a statement that seems completely reasonable to people not deeply aware of the discussion can ultimately have the opposite effect and serve as fuel to movements like the alt right.

ilugaslifg 10y ago

Yes, "black lives matter as well". That is a statement that I now understand and strongly appreciate the power and full meaning of, after spending a good amount of time and emotional and intellectual effort on it. The problem is innocent people who happen onto the conversation, interpret it at first glance, not unreasonably, as some insane asshole saying "only black lives matter", engage in good faith on that basis, to uphold ideals that we can all agree are right... and subsequently are piled on by a mob who agree that the offender has just instantly and irredeemably proven themselves to be one of the worst things they've been taught it's possible to be. With a real, non-zero chance of their real lives being actually, materially ruined as part of this public shaming. The problem is things like "Black Lives Matter" being used as a shibboleth[0] -- an excuse to form a gleeful lynch mob, giving everybody a pleasurable and community-affirming chance to engage in collective norm-enforcement against The Other. The problem is an atmosphere where I'm so paranoid about even attempting to have a good-faith intellectual conversation about this that I have to create a throwaway account to remove a not-at-all implausible chance of having my life ruined for even engaging on this topic at all. And this isn't even getting into the atmosphere that seems to really be setting in, where agreeing to listen to someone has become tantamount to agreeing with everything they say. That's the really frightening one. ---- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

leereeves 10y ago

Before there was an All Lives Matter movement, there was one candidate who said: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter." Whatever may have happened after, there was little justification to destroy that candidate for saying this.

throwaway4job 10y ago
There was, and only somebody who has no exposure to black troubles; or who simply doesn't care about them could understand the problem. Also, please don't pretend that one thing destroyed him... that's nonsense that you're peddling. But it's unsurprising that somebody peddling racist lies is a liar.
makomk 10y ago
Here is how Donald Trump described said candidate's apology for that: "And then he apologized like a little baby, like a disgusting, little weak, pathetic baby, and that's the problem with our country," [1] Make no mistake, Trump and the alt-right are incredibly hostile to anyone who doesn't see Black Lives Matter as an evil, racist attack on white people, who don't think that blacks complaining about police violence against them is the real racism. [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/martin-omalley-donald-trump-black-lives-matter/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/martin-omalley-do...
- leereeves 10y ago
  I think that's true, but I also think one reason that works for him is that the left is so hostile to a moderate position.
  - spacemanmatt 10y ago
    Seems more directly applicable that it works for him because the alt-right is so hostile to a moderate position.
    - leereeves 10y ago

farright 10y ago

You are interpreting "all lives matter" to mean this. It could also mean that black people are not especially target by the police and that outrage at law enforcement is misplaced. For example we know that the rates of police violence against black people vs white people roughly mirrors arrest and conviction rates. Now you might consider this incorrect, but I think it's a debate that has to be had in the open and not shut down by calling people racist.

kemayo 10y ago

My preferred analogy to use here is that saying "it's not just black lives that matter, all lives matter" is like going to your fire department and saying "it's not just houses on fire that matter, all houses matter". Yes, of course, they do. But some houses need immediate attention because they're in danger.

StavrosK 10y ago
Then it's a failure in marketing, as the fire deparment doesn't market itself as "department for throwing water at houses". Maybe BLM should be more clear about its goals? I'm not really up-to-speed with US politics, but I know it's horrifying how easily and with impunity the police have been killing black people. Still, "Black lives matter" isn't a great slogan, and calling "all lives matter" racist definitely seems like an overreaction. I'm not familiar with ALM's positions, though, so maybe it's a racist organization in disguise, I don't know.
- Chathamization 10y ago
  > Then it's a failure in marketing, as the fire deparment doesn't market itself as "department for throwing water at houses". Well, the fire department does tell people that they need to pay attention to things that might cause fires. The response isn't "well, people should pay attention to all dangerous things! What about car accidents?" I mean, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. When someone is raising money for orphans, people don't usually say "but what about money for veterans?" When people are raising awareness about breast cancer, you don't usually tell them "hey, we should be raising awareness for all cancer." They don't get angry that Smokey Bear focuses on forest fires ("Oh, house fires don't matter to you?"). People understand single-issue campaigns for most things, but some suddenly have an issue with it when it comes to African Americans deaths. This naturally raises a few eyebrows.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Yeah its a knee-jerk reaction and sad. The more accurate slogan would be "Black Lives Also Matter" but that isn't as effective. I think we all really understand that's what "Black Lives Matter" means. The real question is, why the strong counter-reaction? Why the sophistry around the slogan? What is that covering for?

BurningFrog 10y ago

> Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Matter as well. Agreed. And that implies that Black Lives currently do not matter, which hopefully we can all agree is a big overstatement. I understand that movements need simple powerful slogans to chant and make bumper stickers from. That's fine. But let's not treat these three words as some definitive analysis of race in America.

tyho 10y ago

All lives matter may be distasteful (I don't actually know anything about it and am not making a judgment one way or another) but calling it "abusive" is exactly the sort of over the top PC nonsense which fuels the alt-right. EDIT: Perhaps I am wrong here, as I said, I know nothing about All Lives Matter, can you justify calling it an "abusive" movement?

cloudsloth 10y ago
All lives matter is a direct response to black lives matter and is trying to nullify the claims of the latter. It is functionally abusive because it actively fights increased awareness of the racism that BLM was(is) working towards. The statement 'All Lives Matter' not as response to BLM would have been fine, but come on. No one here is blind to the current discussion to that extent.
- tyho 10y ago
  I am not arguing for "All Lives Matter", but fighting against awareness is a very low bar for "abuse".