10 ms·

It's both obviously true AND a racist dog whistle. Stripped of context, it is obviously true, and utterly harmless. Placed in the context of BLM, it denies th

• djaque 6y ago
  > Stripped of context, it is obviously true, and utterly harmless. You can't strip phrases like that of context. "All lives matter" isn't just a statement, it is a direct response to black lives matter (too). Anybody who's been half paying attention to the news for the past few years understands that and is not making an utterly harmless assertion.
  • mantap 6y ago
    Say you are a Mongolian tourist and you arrive in America and people are getting upset about "all lives matter", you would think that it is an utterly bizarre thing to get upset about. In fact, the angry reaction to "all lives matter" precisely is what encourages its use. Because if you take as premise, that "all lives matter" is true then it becomes easy to cast anybody who gets angry about a true statement as unreasonable. You might think that there are no Mongolian tourists in America, especially right now, but you might be surprised how little many people pay attention to current events. [Disclaimer for the internet mob, I have never and would never use the phrase.]
• golergka 6y ago
  Problem arises when you assume that everybody exists in the same context.
• faitswulff 6y ago
  > Placed in the context of BLM 80 to 90% of the times I’ve seen this phrase, it’s been used in response to Black Lives Matter. As opposed to being used in the positive for, say, universal healthcare, food assistance programs, and initiatives to house the homeless.
  • Benjammer 6y ago
    Wait, so more than 1 in 10 times you've heard this, someone was saying it in an unrelated context to BLM? What were the separate contexts? I've never even remotely heard this term when not used as a response to "black lives matter."
    • faitswulff 6y ago
      Probably less than that, to be honest. People sometimes say it when it comes to banning abortion, but those same people don’t seem to care for childcare programs or maternal mortality rates. Note: above comments relative to the insanity that is the USA, of course.
  • StavrosK 6y ago
    I made the mistake of saying "but police brutality is a general problem, why make it specific to black people rather than try to solve all of it? Isn't it true that all lives matter?", and the person I was talking to basically heard "I'm racist", so it's not only true that it's both true and a racist dog-whistle, but it's also true that after the whistle has been blown, it doesn't matter what else you say. The whistle should be a red flag, rather than surefire proof that you now know everything the person is going to say, therefore you shouldn't listen any more. I think one of the problems in the US is the pervasiveness of the mindset of "I think you're X, therefore I refuse to listen to anything else you say".
    • pjc50 6y ago
      Unfortunately, given the prevalence of bad-faith debaters and sockpuppet accounts, we've got very used to a block-on-sight approach. It saves a lot of time.
    • zrail 6y ago
      That's an unfortunate reaction to what should have been a teachable moment. You're not wrong, in so far as all lives truly do matter. The statement "Black lives matter" seems to have an implicit "more than yours" tacked on in a lot of people's heads, and that's what seems to grate. It's not that Black lives matter _more_, it's that systemic institutionalized racism dating back to the origins of the US make it so that Black lives matter _less_ than white lives when dealing with organs of power.
• Finnucane 6y ago
  Exactly this. A lot of people who say 'All lives matter' as a response rather pointedly refuse to say 'Black lives matter' because that would be admitting that the problems of institutional racism that devalues black lives are real problems that need to be addressed.
  • core-questions 6y ago
    Step outside your statement for a second and consider it in light of PG's essay. Is it possible you yourself are afflicted with orthodox privilege, to the extent where you can't see any legitimate critiques of your own standpoint? If you continue to allow these statements to polarize and force a false dichotomy that demonizes a group and lionizes another, well, you're not really helping heal the divides either.
    • Finnucane 6y ago
      Dude, watch any video of a Republican politician saying 'All lives matter' and refusing to say 'Black lives matter' and then come back and tell me it's a false dichotomy.
      • core-questions 6y ago
        I've seen what you're talking about, but the false dichotomy I am referring to is between the real political implementations of the Republicans and Democrats, which don't really seem that different from my outside-of-America perspective. Neither party seems capable of fixing anything, or building the infrastructure they promise, or really protecting the Americans they purport to represent. The same moneyed interests continue to exert the same amount of control regardless. The same foreign policies and the same sabre rattling happens. The actual _people_ have much wider divergence of opinions, for sure. I don't expect a Republican to go around chanting the slogans of people who have declared themselves to be their enemies; why would they?
        • joshuamorton 6y ago
• rukittenme 6y ago
  The thing about protest is that it has the capacity to be misunderstood. They misunderstood you. You misunderstood them. > it denies that anything unfair is happening to people because of their skin color. Like you did here. In my experience, an "all lives matter" activist is quite happy to both acknowledge racism and have a discussion on the nuance of racial treatment in the United States. Where the two sides really differ is in their general view of America. Whether its optimistic or pessimistic. Whether its isolated or systematic. Whether its "racial" or "cultural". To be blunt, its absurd to label a movement which has millions of adherents as a "racist dog whistle". Its either an overt, racist megaphone or just a difference in opinion.
  • pjc50 6y ago
    There's an "all lives matter" movement? > its absurd to label a movement which has millions of adherents as a "racist dog whistle" It's entirely possible (and historically true!) for millions of people to be overtly racist.
    • rukittenme 6y ago
      Did you miss the next sentence?
• malandrew 6y ago
  The problem with the slogan black lives matter is that it is so obviously a straw man as are all "____ lives matter" slogans. Except for some truly tiny pockets in the US, the overwhelming majority of people believe black lives matter, even most that use the expression "all lives matter" in earnest. My observation is that almost everyone I've seen use the term "all lives matter" is doing so as a response to a straw man. Most people who have been arguing on the internet long enough can agree that as satisfying as a straw man argument is to use, it's almost invariably counterproductive to convincing your interlocutor of responding positively to whatever point you're trying to make. Why? Because by responding with a straw man, you've demonstrated that you're not going to interpret any response from your interlocutor charitably and that's just getting off on the wrong foot. The slogans black lives matter, all lives matter, blue lives matter, etc., are all straw men slogans/arguments that communicate to whomever you're speaking with that you're not planning on interpreting them charitably.
  • joshuamorton 6y ago
    In what way is black lives matter a straw man? I know lots of people who think black lives matter some, but who don't think they matter as much as white lives. Like going around and murdering black people is clearly unethical, but overpolicing and imprisoning them for nonviolent crime isn't. Yet they can't imagine doing the same to white people.
    • philwelch 6y ago
      Are you certain that people believe that, or is that a straw man idea that you are characterizing them as believing?
      • joshuamorton 6y ago
        Which part do you disagree with: > but overpolicing and imprisoning them for nonviolent crime isn't. Yet they can't imagine doing the same to white people. was and is (relatively) commonly stated. I claim that to believe this is alright, you must implicitly value black safety less than white safety. I'm open to counterarguments.
• throw_for_obv 6y ago
  You are confusing disagreement with racism. Saying "Black Lives Matter" has the connotation that the police force has "systemic racism" against black people, and the phrase "All Lives Matter" is intended to explicitly affirm the literal aspect of the phrase while disagreeing with the connotative element. Disagreement with important, factual claims is not racism.
• Proziam 6y ago
  I know folks, including black folks, who disapprove of the Black Lives Matter messaging and try to redirect BLM conversation towards specific issues while promoting the use of 'all lives matter' Your statement > Placed in the context of BLM, it denies that anything unfair is happening to people because of their skin color. simply doesn't reflect the actual beliefs of many people who use the term. I, for one, am absolutely certain that racism exists and gets people arrested or killed. However, I have seen people become fed up with the narrative being promoted by BLM that frames the issue as being a 'black only' problem. To keep those people on the side of progress it's important to make sure we're not excluding them from the discussion. It's also worth noting that BLM is not just a movement, but there are organized entities operating under the brand. [1]Many people disagree with those organizations for reasons that have nothing to do with racism or police brutality. Nonetheless, those people are called racist and accused of using dog whistles. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpIIiBe7Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpIIiBe7Wc
  • dsr_ 6y ago
    When you use a catch-phrase associated with racists, and you are trying to be an effective communicator, and you are not a racist: then you use a different phrase next time. If you're not trying to communicate effectively, or if you are trying to communicate your sympathy with racism, you keep using that phrase. Language is a tool.
    • zajio1am 6y ago
      Everyone is responsible for their own heuristics to judge other people. Other people are not responsible for behaving in accordance to your heuristics, it is your error if you misjudge them. Therefore, if someone uses a phrase also used by racists/communists/some other baddies, and does not fall into that category, it is your error to guess that someone does. It is just victim-blaming for error of judgement.
      • dsr_ 6y ago
        Words are tools of communication. They have meanings. Those meanings shift over time, and according to context. In the context of a programming discussion, "Just hash the string and see if you get a match" is a reasonable and meaningful thing to say. In the context of cooking breakfast, it's meaningless drivel. Reasonable people try to use words that their current audience will understand in the current context. If they make a mistake, they learn from it. Unreasonable people insist that they are being victim-blamed.