5 ms·

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

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.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      I don’t think anyone actually supports the idea of “overpolicing and imprisoning [black people in particular] for nonviolent crime”. I think your understanding of the situation is that black people are “overpoliced” and disproportionately imprisoned for nonviolent crimes. This is why you want to change the situation, which is a logical conclusion. I think people who disagree with you about the conclusion you reach didn’t get there by sharing your understanding of the situation, shrugging their shoulders, and saying it was fine. I think they perceive the underlying situation itself differently than you do. It’s not a difference in values. They might be wrong, but people are wrong about things all the time.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        If I tell someone that "Black people are incarcerated at a 3x higher rate for drug crimes they commit at the same rate as white people", and they argue that that is Black people's fault, what should I conclude? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23667342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23667342) Is willful ignorance acceptable?
        philwelch 6y ago
        I don’t think the person you were arguing with was expressing, as a value statement, the idea that black and white people should be policed differently purely based on their race. I think you’re jumping to that conclusion a little. And I don’t really want to continue this because I have a hard time trusting that you’re going to listen to me in good faith, either.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > I don’t think the person you were arguing with was expressing, as a value statement, the idea that black and white people should be policed differently purely based on their race. I agree. But that's not what I asked. The statement I originally made was that "overpolicing and imprisoning <black people> for nonviolent crime isn't. Yet they can't imagine doing the same to white people." Which I do think is fairly clearly demonstrated. There's a subtle shift, but a relevant one. Creating new systems of oppression based on race is racist, but letting existing systems that treat races unfairly is okay, even though the results would be the same. I want to reiterate: I don't believe this person claims that black people should be policed different purely based on their race, but it does seem that this person is comfortable with that being the way the world operates. And way back, the statement we started from was "black lives matter". And in general I hold that to mean "black lives matter just as much as any other race". How do we square the value statement "black lives matter just as much as any other race" with the acceptance of over-policing of black communities as justified? I don't see how we can. But again, I'm open to other interpretations.

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.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    I don’t think anyone actually supports the idea of “overpolicing and imprisoning [black people in particular] for nonviolent crime”. I think your understanding of the situation is that black people are “overpoliced” and disproportionately imprisoned for nonviolent crimes. This is why you want to change the situation, which is a logical conclusion. I think people who disagree with you about the conclusion you reach didn’t get there by sharing your understanding of the situation, shrugging their shoulders, and saying it was fine. I think they perceive the underlying situation itself differently than you do. It’s not a difference in values. They might be wrong, but people are wrong about things all the time.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      If I tell someone that "Black people are incarcerated at a 3x higher rate for drug crimes they commit at the same rate as white people", and they argue that that is Black people's fault, what should I conclude? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23667342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23667342) Is willful ignorance acceptable?
      - philwelch 6y ago
        I don’t think the person you were arguing with was expressing, as a value statement, the idea that black and white people should be policed differently purely based on their race. I think you’re jumping to that conclusion a little. And I don’t really want to continue this because I have a hard time trusting that you’re going to listen to me in good faith, either.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > I don’t think the person you were arguing with was expressing, as a value statement, the idea that black and white people should be policed differently purely based on their race. I agree. But that's not what I asked. The statement I originally made was that "overpolicing and imprisoning <black people> for nonviolent crime isn't. Yet they can't imagine doing the same to white people." Which I do think is fairly clearly demonstrated. There's a subtle shift, but a relevant one. Creating new systems of oppression based on race is racist, but letting existing systems that treat races unfairly is okay, even though the results would be the same. I want to reiterate: I don't believe this person claims that black people should be policed different purely based on their race, but it does seem that this person is comfortable with that being the way the world operates. And way back, the statement we started from was "black lives matter". And in general I hold that to mean "black lives matter just as much as any other race". How do we square the value statement "black lives matter just as much as any other race" with the acceptance of over-policing of black communities as justified? I don't see how we can. But again, I'm open to other interpretations.