5 ms·

All three of these phrases are political slogans. They are inherently associated with a set of political views, because they exist specifically to oppose anothe

All three of these phrases are political slogans. They are inherently associated with a set of political views, because they exist specifically to oppose another set of views and slogans. It’s unreasonable to echo a political slogan in public and then complain that people don’t assume your neutrality. You cannot say “it’s okay to be white” and expect others to consider it neutral, in much the same way that you can’t say “blood and soil”.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
It's the other way around: these phrases are neutral observations and reasonable opinions, perhaps reasonable reactions to insanity of well-known political slogans - importantly, it's something a random person can come up independently, without reading the exact words first. But at some point, these phrases rapidly become politicized, and this catches a lot of people off guard. You voice your thoughts, fully expecting the audience to consider it neutral, but it so happens that your words pattern-match to a phrase that became a political slogan somewhen in the last few months, and boom, your audience hates you. You just stepped on a political landmine[0]. It seems to me than in the past 5-10 years, social discourse became littered with such political landmines, and at this rate, it's very hard to keep up with the list of phrases that can blow up in your face. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25968760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25968760
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  That's only true in the sense that every phrase can be a "neutral observation" if you choose to ignore the context in which it is used and the associations it has. It's the same concept as dogwhistling at its core. Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability. I mean after all, who could disagree that "all lives matter" – it's obvious isn't it? I don't really accept it's all that hard to be aware of the implications of the language you use to communicate. I suppose you might theoretically step on a "landmine", but I'll tell you what – I am virtually certain that nobody who has said "it's okay to be white" to their audience has accidentally stumbled upon a neutral phrase with good intentions.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability. These are terms used earnestly in neutral ways by academics, professionals and bureaucrats from all over the political spectrum. Does anyone seriously thing the NHTSA or some sociology professor is dog whistling when they use words like "urban environments" or "law and order"? Yes, you can communicate a hidden message with them but you can communicate a hidden message with damn near any words in the english language if you want to.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The other side of this is that opponents always try to create negative associations for whatever they oppose. So then someone whose politics favors authoritarianism and centralization will propose some federal power grab, opponents will make arguments favoring local control and the authoritarians will try to tar them with slavery and Jim Crow even if the subject is unrelated, e.g. whether the FDA should be overruling the states on whether or not to ban a thing in their state. It's essentially an attempt to prevent anyone from taking the neutral position by making an accusation of guilt by association. Nazis are bad, Nazis built roads, therefore roads are bad.
- watwut 6y ago
  There was no "all lives matter" until there was "black lives matter" and people wanted to say they don't like the message. It is quite dishonest to claim that this phrase is neutral and not a political slogan.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - peytn 6y ago
    It’s a restatement of the first and most widely-known principle of the Unitarian Universalist Association [1]. I think that is why it resonates with many people. Those people are then caught off-guard when they use the phrase and find themselves labeled “racist.” I just don’t see how the vilification of a specific phrasing of a common sentiment moves us forward. To me it feels like playing power games with words. [1]: https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles/1st https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles/1st
  - drdec 6y ago
    I think you are forgetting what it was like when the "black lives matter" slogan was first becoming popular. If hadn't already been exposed to it, it was very easy to respond "incorrectly". For example, here's a case of a Democratic governor, running for president, getting caught by this: https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-lives-matter/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-l... And here is Hillary Clinton, falling into the same trap: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/417112956/hillary-clintons-three-word-gaffe-all-lives-matter https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/41711...
  - jstrong 6y ago
    > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
    - sokoloff 6y ago
ctdonath 6y ago
Political only insofar as they call out the disingenuous nature of their opponents' unopposable slogans. I absolutely can, and do, say "it's okay to be white" because there should be absolutely nothing inherently & politically wrong with my skin color - and the phrase was developed to bely the imputed virtue of those who reveal their true stance by freaking out over it. Do black lives matter? absolutely, of course. Is it okay for me to be white? why is your response to berate me for saying so?

TeMPOraL 6y ago

It's the other way around: these phrases are neutral observations and reasonable opinions, perhaps reasonable reactions to insanity of well-known political slogans - importantly, it's something a random person can come up independently, without reading the exact words first. But at some point, these phrases rapidly become politicized, and this catches a lot of people off guard. You voice your thoughts, fully expecting the audience to consider it neutral, but it so happens that your words pattern-match to a phrase that became a political slogan somewhen in the last few months, and boom, your audience hates you. You just stepped on a political landmine[0]. It seems to me than in the past 5-10 years, social discourse became littered with such political landmines, and at this rate, it's very hard to keep up with the list of phrases that can blow up in your face. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25968760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25968760

matthewmacleod 6y ago
That's only true in the sense that every phrase can be a "neutral observation" if you choose to ignore the context in which it is used and the associations it has. It's the same concept as dogwhistling at its core. Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability. I mean after all, who could disagree that "all lives matter" – it's obvious isn't it? I don't really accept it's all that hard to be aware of the implications of the language you use to communicate. I suppose you might theoretically step on a "landmine", but I'll tell you what – I am virtually certain that nobody who has said "it's okay to be white" to their audience has accidentally stumbled upon a neutral phrase with good intentions.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability. These are terms used earnestly in neutral ways by academics, professionals and bureaucrats from all over the political spectrum. Does anyone seriously thing the NHTSA or some sociology professor is dog whistling when they use words like "urban environments" or "law and order"? Yes, you can communicate a hidden message with them but you can communicate a hidden message with damn near any words in the english language if you want to.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The other side of this is that opponents always try to create negative associations for whatever they oppose. So then someone whose politics favors authoritarianism and centralization will propose some federal power grab, opponents will make arguments favoring local control and the authoritarians will try to tar them with slavery and Jim Crow even if the subject is unrelated, e.g. whether the FDA should be overruling the states on whether or not to ban a thing in their state. It's essentially an attempt to prevent anyone from taking the neutral position by making an accusation of guilt by association. Nazis are bad, Nazis built roads, therefore roads are bad.
watwut 6y ago
There was no "all lives matter" until there was "black lives matter" and people wanted to say they don't like the message. It is quite dishonest to claim that this phrase is neutral and not a political slogan.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- peytn 6y ago
  It’s a restatement of the first and most widely-known principle of the Unitarian Universalist Association [1]. I think that is why it resonates with many people. Those people are then caught off-guard when they use the phrase and find themselves labeled “racist.” I just don’t see how the vilification of a specific phrasing of a common sentiment moves us forward. To me it feels like playing power games with words. [1]: https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles/1st https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles/1st
- drdec 6y ago
  I think you are forgetting what it was like when the "black lives matter" slogan was first becoming popular. If hadn't already been exposed to it, it was very easy to respond "incorrectly". For example, here's a case of a Democratic governor, running for president, getting caught by this: https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-lives-matter/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-l... And here is Hillary Clinton, falling into the same trap: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/417112956/hillary-clintons-three-word-gaffe-all-lives-matter https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/41711...
- jstrong 6y ago
  > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
  - sokoloff 6y ago

ctdonath 6y ago

Political only insofar as they call out the disingenuous nature of their opponents' unopposable slogans. I absolutely can, and do, say "it's okay to be white" because there should be absolutely nothing inherently & politically wrong with my skin color - and the phrase was developed to bely the imputed virtue of those who reveal their true stance by freaking out over it. Do black lives matter? absolutely, of course. Is it okay for me to be white? why is your response to berate me for saying so?