36 ms·

> The statement is only raised for the purpose of preventing action from being taken or change being made, in regard to investigation into and prevention of unn

> The statement is only raised for the purpose of preventing action from being taken or change being made, in regard to investigation into and prevention of unnecessary deaths of black people. Have you considered the possibility that a lot of people agree that action should be taken, and that statistically-speaking, that positive action will reduce unnecessary deaths for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity? If a software bug is reported to affect a certain subset of users more often than others, but upon investigation, it turns out the bug is a duplicate of another more fundamental bug that affects all users relatively equally, are we preventing action (or discrediting that subset of users who reported the bug) by marking it as a duplicate and giving priority to the fundamental issue so as to fix it for everyone? Just as Black Lives Matter supporters often claim that the phrase is misunderstood by those who question it, All Lives Matter is misunderstood by many who think it takes something away from the black community. It's not a denial of anything, but rather a recognition that the problems actually do statistically affect everyone, and singling out one race (when all are affected) actually does more harm than good when it comes to ending racism.

joshuamorton 6y ago
That would be believeable if all lives matter didn't get thrown around by the same people who say blue lives matter and who systematically refuse to take action on police violence that affects everyone. You don't counter protest a movement you agree with because you dislike it's semantics. You use semantics as an excuse to ignore a movement that ultimately makes you uncomfortable. MLKs letter from a Birmingham jail being ever relevant.
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  Perhaps you could re-read the article this discussion is about. You're misrepresenting (and projecting other ideas onto) a viewpoint that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand. Semantics do matter, especially when specifics are used to highlight division, and that division is used to justify more violence (such as murders committed by the very people who are protesting).
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Which part do you disagree with? I made a few claims, which I'll summarize: - Politicians that state "all lives matter" by and large do not support action to reduce police violence in general. - Groups that state "all lives matter" often exist to directly counterprotest groups that state "black lives matter". - Groups that state that "all lives matter" often also state "blue lives matter" and espouse support for the police in favor of protestors. Do you disagree with those statements? If you agree with those statements, why would someone who believes that police violence is a problem choose to associate themselves with the police over other people protesting police violence? It is more pragmatic to support the group that causes you more concern, if you have two concerns that are temporarily at odds. Ergo, if you, aware of the above, say "all lives matter", you know that you are associating yourself with people who condone police violence against everyone. This would imply that you believe the "danger of racism" in the BLM movement is of greater concern than police violence. Please critique my logical progression there. To be clear, while you may have only the best intentions when you say "All Lives Matter", it is naive to believe that everyone else who says the same does. When you choose to use a politically charged slogan you should be aware of the message that sends. You ultimately cannot choose how people will interpret your words, and that they see your words by their association instead of your intention is not the recipients fault.
    - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
      I disagree with almost everything you just said. You're saying that "because X group said Y and X group also does Z, Y supports Z". Your premise is based on a genetic fallacy, and your argument implies a false dichotomy. Your claims are hasty generalizations with insufficient evidence.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. I don't support everything Joe Biden does, but I still throw my support behind the democratic party because there are only two realistic options in the US today, and the other one is far worse. If you're going to choose to say "All Lives Matter", you are choosing to involve yourself in a binary. And ignoring the context of that binary (that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that came about only in response to the statement/movement "Black Lives Matter") is done at one's own risk. > Your claims are hasty generalizations with insufficient evidence. So you disagree that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that only came into being post-"Black Lives Matter"? Edit: On Blue Lives/ All Lives people minimizing violence against black people[0]. And Tim Scott, who is known for being an "All Lives Matter" proponent, opposes ending Qualified Immunity (and indeed his proposed bill on police reform does almost nothing). Whereas Colorado's QI-ending bill was sponsored by Leslie Herod, who joined a Black Lives Matter march. In the House, the Qualified-Immunity ending bill[1] is sponsored by only Democrats, among them many who are openly pro-Black Lives Matter, and, well Republicans don't seem to be[2]. Swallwell supports ending QI, Gaetz does not. Swallwell says Black Lives Matter. Gaetz refuses to say that, instead saying that All Lives Matter. Is that enough evidence? [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/us/all-lives-matter-reenact-george-floyd-black-lives-matter-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/us/all-lives-matter-reenact-g... [1]: congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120/cosponsors?searchResultViewType=expanded [2]: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/17/eric-swalwell-matt-gaetz-black-lives-matter-sot-keilar-nr-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/17/eric-swalwell...

joshuamorton 6y ago

That would be believeable if all lives matter didn't get thrown around by the same people who say blue lives matter and who systematically refuse to take action on police violence that affects everyone. You don't counter protest a movement you agree with because you dislike it's semantics. You use semantics as an excuse to ignore a movement that ultimately makes you uncomfortable. MLKs letter from a Birmingham jail being ever relevant.

curiousgeorgio 6y ago
Perhaps you could re-read the article this discussion is about. You're misrepresenting (and projecting other ideas onto) a viewpoint that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand. Semantics do matter, especially when specifics are used to highlight division, and that division is used to justify more violence (such as murders committed by the very people who are protesting).
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Which part do you disagree with? I made a few claims, which I'll summarize: - Politicians that state "all lives matter" by and large do not support action to reduce police violence in general. - Groups that state "all lives matter" often exist to directly counterprotest groups that state "black lives matter". - Groups that state that "all lives matter" often also state "blue lives matter" and espouse support for the police in favor of protestors. Do you disagree with those statements? If you agree with those statements, why would someone who believes that police violence is a problem choose to associate themselves with the police over other people protesting police violence? It is more pragmatic to support the group that causes you more concern, if you have two concerns that are temporarily at odds. Ergo, if you, aware of the above, say "all lives matter", you know that you are associating yourself with people who condone police violence against everyone. This would imply that you believe the "danger of racism" in the BLM movement is of greater concern than police violence. Please critique my logical progression there. To be clear, while you may have only the best intentions when you say "All Lives Matter", it is naive to believe that everyone else who says the same does. When you choose to use a politically charged slogan you should be aware of the message that sends. You ultimately cannot choose how people will interpret your words, and that they see your words by their association instead of your intention is not the recipients fault.
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    I disagree with almost everything you just said. You're saying that "because X group said Y and X group also does Z, Y supports Z". Your premise is based on a genetic fallacy, and your argument implies a false dichotomy. Your claims are hasty generalizations with insufficient evidence.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. I don't support everything Joe Biden does, but I still throw my support behind the democratic party because there are only two realistic options in the US today, and the other one is far worse. If you're going to choose to say "All Lives Matter", you are choosing to involve yourself in a binary. And ignoring the context of that binary (that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that came about only in response to the statement/movement "Black Lives Matter") is done at one's own risk. > Your claims are hasty generalizations with insufficient evidence. So you disagree that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that only came into being post-"Black Lives Matter"? Edit: On Blue Lives/ All Lives people minimizing violence against black people[0]. And Tim Scott, who is known for being an "All Lives Matter" proponent, opposes ending Qualified Immunity (and indeed his proposed bill on police reform does almost nothing). Whereas Colorado's QI-ending bill was sponsored by Leslie Herod, who joined a Black Lives Matter march. In the House, the Qualified-Immunity ending bill[1] is sponsored by only Democrats, among them many who are openly pro-Black Lives Matter, and, well Republicans don't seem to be[2]. Swallwell supports ending QI, Gaetz does not. Swallwell says Black Lives Matter. Gaetz refuses to say that, instead saying that All Lives Matter. Is that enough evidence? [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/us/all-lives-matter-reenact-george-floyd-black-lives-matter-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/us/all-lives-matter-reenact-g... [1]: congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120/cosponsors?searchResultViewType=expanded [2]: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/17/eric-swalwell-matt-gaetz-black-lives-matter-sot-keilar-nr-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/17/eric-swalwell...