6 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    > 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. This is definitely true, I'm just puzzled as to why you'd focus efforts on solving a subset of the problem rather than the whole problem. Wouldn't that lead to fragmented movements of "<race> lives matter" rather than one single effort?
    - pjc50 6y ago
      To the extent that the problem can be solved, the solution isn't going to be race-specific! There's no subsetting going on here. The people complaining are black. They want their lives to matter. If you can't campaign for that without there being something in it for you as well .. why not?
    - zrail 6y ago
      Black Lives Matter is, among many other things, a hook to draw attention to systemic institutionalized racism from white voters who haven't ever questioned their privilege (the teachable kind, not the kind PG is talking about). The legislative programs that people are advancing in the wake of this attention do indeed focus on solving the problem for everyone, not just Black people. For example, Colorado recently passed a police reform bill that does a lot of beneficial things, none of them specifically targeted at the Black community[1]. [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-passes-sweeping-police-reform-bill/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-passes-sweeping-police...
- soco 6y ago
  I've seen a good metaphor to this: imagine if somebody told you the Amazonian forest needs saving and you said "but all forests matter". While an obviously true statement, you just (unwittingly) downplayed the imminence of one over the other and missed on the particularities.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    That's not a good metaphor because there isn't a single entity destroying all the forests. If, say, Exxon, was destroying all the forests, I'd for sure not be trying to save the Amazon but trying to stop Exxon instead.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      There isn't a single entity killing black people in the US (police forces are highly localised, and the original campaign was about a vigilante murder and not caused by the police per se, but the failure of the justice system to convict a murderer)
  - bufbupa 6y ago
    I think you're projecting your perspective of the relative dangers to the Amazon rainforest and the {other} rainforest in that metaphor. In your head one class is in real trouble, and other class is in lesser trouble. Try to exercise your metaphor from the perspective other forests are in equal or greater danger: eg: Imagine if someone told you the Pacific Temperate rain forest needs saving and you responded with "sure, but we're prioritizing resources for the Amazon first - its got it way worse" You just (wittingly) downplayed the imminence of one over the other and missed on the particularities because of how you perceived their relative danger. Now consider your original metaphor without the bias about which forest is worst off in reality. You might find that "all forests matter" might be a more valid response in that context because they don't want to dis-proportionally favor one at the cost of the others.

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.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  > 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. This is definitely true, I'm just puzzled as to why you'd focus efforts on solving a subset of the problem rather than the whole problem. Wouldn't that lead to fragmented movements of "<race> lives matter" rather than one single effort?
  - pjc50 6y ago
    To the extent that the problem can be solved, the solution isn't going to be race-specific! There's no subsetting going on here. The people complaining are black. They want their lives to matter. If you can't campaign for that without there being something in it for you as well .. why not?
  - zrail 6y ago
    Black Lives Matter is, among many other things, a hook to draw attention to systemic institutionalized racism from white voters who haven't ever questioned their privilege (the teachable kind, not the kind PG is talking about). The legislative programs that people are advancing in the wake of this attention do indeed focus on solving the problem for everyone, not just Black people. For example, Colorado recently passed a police reform bill that does a lot of beneficial things, none of them specifically targeted at the Black community[1]. [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-passes-sweeping-police-reform-bill/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-passes-sweeping-police...
soco 6y ago
I've seen a good metaphor to this: imagine if somebody told you the Amazonian forest needs saving and you said "but all forests matter". While an obviously true statement, you just (unwittingly) downplayed the imminence of one over the other and missed on the particularities.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  That's not a good metaphor because there isn't a single entity destroying all the forests. If, say, Exxon, was destroying all the forests, I'd for sure not be trying to save the Amazon but trying to stop Exxon instead.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    There isn't a single entity killing black people in the US (police forces are highly localised, and the original campaign was about a vigilante murder and not caused by the police per se, but the failure of the justice system to convict a murderer)
- bufbupa 6y ago
  I think you're projecting your perspective of the relative dangers to the Amazon rainforest and the {other} rainforest in that metaphor. In your head one class is in real trouble, and other class is in lesser trouble. Try to exercise your metaphor from the perspective other forests are in equal or greater danger: eg: Imagine if someone told you the Pacific Temperate rain forest needs saving and you responded with "sure, but we're prioritizing resources for the Amazon first - its got it way worse" You just (wittingly) downplayed the imminence of one over the other and missed on the particularities because of how you perceived their relative danger. Now consider your original metaphor without the bias about which forest is worst off in reality. You might find that "all forests matter" might be a more valid response in that context because they don't want to dis-proportionally favor one at the cost of the others.