4 ms·

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 fundamenta

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...
    - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
      > I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception, trying to guess which groups may choose to be offended. I guess I'm old fashioned.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception Yeah, this was never the case for large swaths of people. Truly the good days in history, where Civil Rights activists noted that, ethically, segregation was problematic. Everyone agreed and racism was solved. They didn't need to worry about offending anyone, people just understood them. Legislation followed swiftly without much kerfuffle. There was no worry about offending the sensibilities of the "white moderate" (letter from a Birmingham Jail really showing up today!) Missing the days when you didn't need to worry about how your views were perceived is itself a privilege.

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...
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    > I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception, trying to guess which groups may choose to be offended. I guess I'm old fashioned.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception Yeah, this was never the case for large swaths of people. Truly the good days in history, where Civil Rights activists noted that, ethically, segregation was problematic. Everyone agreed and racism was solved. They didn't need to worry about offending anyone, people just understood them. Legislation followed swiftly without much kerfuffle. There was no worry about offending the sensibilities of the "white moderate" (letter from a Birmingham Jail really showing up today!) Missing the days when you didn't need to worry about how your views were perceived is itself a privilege.