3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat'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 agoThere 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 agoI 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.