So Saying That "All Lives Matter" Is Derogatory?

[seanD]

Nonetheless, the fact whites appear to be getting shot by police more than blacks, and that whites are getting killed by blacks more than blacks by whites, "all lives matter" is actually a more reasonable social compromise (the message would actually be more factually accurate as 'white lives matter"), whereas "black lives matter" is based on a complete series factual and statistical inaccuracies. What liberals are essentially saying here is that we should abandon all fact and reason in place of pure emotion.

[Psychic Missile]

Ya know, if the BLM movement came as a decidedly peaceful protest, it would be really hard not to be receptive. The fact that there is so much violence associated with it makes it, in my opinion, counterproductive. The fact that one of the most recognized leaders of BLM has had to issue a "call for peace" following the murders of the three police officers in Baton Rouge suggests that even he knows it has gotten out of hand. It could, however, be a big step in the right direction.



If they're calling for solutions, there needs to be actual dialogue. But you can't dialogue with somebody who explodes simply because one acknowledges that ALL lives matter.

The majority of BLM protests are peaceful, so I don't think outlying occurrences should characterize the movement for anyone. "All lives matter" is not an acknowledgement. It's an obvious statement everyone agrees with. Instead, it is a dismissal or display of ignorance (due to privilege) concerning BLM. It makes perfect sense for people to get upset.

[seanD]

The majority of BLM protests are peaceful, so I don't think outlying occurrences should characterize the movement for anyone. "All lives matter" is not an acknowledgement. It's an obvious statement everyone agrees with. Instead, it is a dismissal or display of ignorance (due to privilege) concerning BLM. It makes perfect sense for people to get upset.

It's definitely a dismissal. Any intelligent person knows why it offends blacks. But on what grounds is it not a reasonable dismissal?

[Psychic Missile]

Problem is, it's based on a number of outright falsities. It was initially started in Ferguson and based on the lie of what happened to Michael Brown -- i.e. hands were raised when Brown got shot -- which was a lie. It's based on the implication that blacks are getting exclusively shot by police more than any other race, which is a lie. It purports the idea among the less intelligent members that whites are out to get blacks, which according to statistics, is another lie. And it ignores, and expects everyone else to ignore, the fact that blacks are killing other blacks in their own communities at an even greater rate, thus is an even bigger problem, which also totally contradicts the "black lives matter" mantra -- blacks lives are apparently only underscored when it's a white killing a black, thus shows blatant racial selectivity. I'm not sure if "all lives matter" is used to counter it specifically for those reasons I gave, but you can see why people have a hard time seeing the movement as having any real credibility.

Those aren't falsities. Michael Brown's death happened within the climate of a culture of racism within the Ferguson police force, and he became a symbol for people to rally behind. The "lie" was based on Dorian Johnson's account. Black people are shot and killed by police almost twice as much as would be suggested by their percentage of the US population. Institutional racism is mainly perpetuated by white people. Black on black violence is a result of institutionalized racism, so there's only so much activists can do. Changing local police policy is a much more easily obtainable goal. The people I see having a hard time seeing BLM as credible are the same people who typically do not find any liberal cause credible, so the actions of BLM don't seem to be relevant anyway.

EDIT:

It's definitely a dismissal. Any intelligent person knows why it offends blacks. But on what grounds is it not a reasonable dismissal?

Because the BLM movement is non-violent and their goal is reasonable. Why would anyone want to dismiss them outside of ignorance or malevolence?

[Tassman]

Are we really this clueless? Reminds me of what happened to Sanders when he suggested that all lives matter.

Of course all lives matter, but we already know that white lives matter, this is self evident...white society is the dominant culture after all. What the BLM Movement means is that black lives matter too, this is nowhere near as evident.

[seer]

Those aren't falsities. Michael Brown's death happened within the climate of a culture of racism within the Ferguson police force, and he became a symbol for people to rally behind. The "lie" was based on Dorian Johnson's account. Black people are shot and killed by police almost twice as much as would be suggested by their percentage of the US population. Institutional racism is mainly perpetuated by white people.

Right, because blacks are much more violent and commit a much higher percentage of violent crime, therefore Police have more interaction with the community where something can go wrong. And in such dangerous communities Police are probably more aggressive or more on edge.

[Starlight]

For a long while I thought BLM had chosen their name badly, and I thought they should have called themselves "Black Lives Matter Too!" just to prevent confusion. Now I think a better name for the point they are trying to make is "Black Lives Do Matter".

But I think that once you understand what their point is, their name makes perfect sense. They are concerned that the way police treat black people as trash when they interact with them or have them in custody, and that police regularly demonstrate through their actions that they simply do not care whatsoever about the lives of black people or their wellbeing. More generally, BLM is worried that society as a whole has been tacitly condoning this attitude and whenever people have read an article of a black person being killed, they've thought something like "meh, whatever, they were black and so probably a criminal and probably had it coming". It is in the context of that perceived denial of the value of black lives, that their response is to say "This is unacceptable, because black lives do matter. We as a society need to reaffirm that, and so re-evaluate our attitudes and treatment of black people." Thus "Black Lives [do] Matter".

The response "all lives matter", is either missing the point or is actively hostile towards the BLM movement. If you're just naive about the BLM movement and you hear someone say "Black lives matter", then you might say "Of course they do. I think all lives matter. So obviously black lives matter. But I'm mildly concerned about the fact that saying 'black lives matter' sounds a little racist as if black lives were the only ones that mattered, so I'll say 'all lives matter' instead." But that person is missing the point that the BLM movement is trying to make. Such a person would likely agree that black lives do matter, and would thus be deeply concerned about the possibility that some police might treat black people as if their lives didn't matter.

But an "all lives matter" response can also come from a person who understands the BLM movement but who is hostile to it. So a racist who really likes the current situation, and who is quite happy seeing "those criminal thugs" gunned down in the street, and who really thinks that black lives don't matter, will instead want to emphasize the value of the lives of the police, of whites, or of anyone and everyone else, so long as they can take the spotlight away from the issues of racism and the treatment of black people. To such a person, an "all lives matter" slogan serves as a convenient topic-changer and discussion-ender and tool they can use to attack the BLM movement. It's the old "you're worried about racism? Well you're the real racist for bringing up the topic of racism!" trick that conservatives occasionally play.

And that's why "all lives matter" is a nonsensical response or derogatory - at best it indicates ignorance of what BLM are about, or it indicates outright racism. BLM's point is that "black lives do matter, and we as a society need to do something to ensure that black people are treated as if their lives mattered, and in particular treated by cops as if their lives mattered" and the possible responses to that range from "I agree that they do matter, and we need to check up on police and fix any problems" to "I agree black lives matter, but I don't believe that cops treat black people any different to white people, I think they shoot unarmed people of all races without justification equally" to "no, I don't agree that black lives matter". But an "all lives matter" response misunderstands the topic. And a picture like CP's profile conveys the idea of "I only care about cops, whom I support. Cops can do no wrong. BLM is wrong because it implies cops do wrong. I am not interested in hearing claims about police racism."

[Cow Poke]

The majority of BLM protests are peaceful...

There are plenty of instances of BLM protesters chanting "What do we want / dead cops - When do we want them? / NOW" and "Pigs in a blanket / Fry 'em like bacon".

The response of BLM? Crickets.

They should have loudly and clearly been denouncing violence all along.

[Cow Poke]

Black people are shot and killed by police almost twice as much as would be suggested by their percentage of the US population.

Prove it. And be sure to take into consideration the percentage of crime they commit.

[seer]

Institutional racism is mainly perpetuated by white people. Black on black violence is a result of institutionalized racism, so there's only so much activists can do.

Yet most of the major cities where poverty and crime and aggressive policing are most prevalent are cities that have been run by Democrats for decades, often Black Democrats. So it must be the Democrats, Black and White, that are fostering institutional racism.

[Cow Poke]

Black on black violence is a result of institutionalized racism, so there's only so much activists can do.

Wait... WHAT?

[seer]

Prove it. And be sure to take into consideration the percentage of crime they commit.

He won't - that is an inconvenient truth.

Cops killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. The majority of these victims had a gun or "were armed or otherwise threatening the officer with potentially lethal force," according to Mac Donald in a speech at Hillsdale College.

Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 13 percent of the population. But as Mac Donald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.

"," writes MacDonald.

MacDonald also pointed out in her Hillsdale speech that blacks "commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime" in New York City, even though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.

"The black violent crime rate would actually predict that more than 26 percent of police victims would be black," MacDonald said. "Officer use of force will occur where the police interact most often with violent criminals, armed suspects, and those resisting arrest, and that is in black neighborhoods."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5...-aaron-bandler

[Starlight]

There are plenty of instances of BLM protesters chanting "What do we want / dead cops - When do we want them? / NOW" and "Pigs in a blanket / Fry 'em like bacon".

That would be utterly astonishing if true. 5 seconds and Google tells me it isn't. Snopes debunks that first chant as happening once in 2014 prior to the existence of BLM. The second chant appears to have happened a grand total of once, and the protesters claimed it was a joke when asked about it.

So no, it is absolutely not true to say that BLM protesters regularly call for the deaths of cops. That's an utterly ridiculous claim to make.

[Cow Poke]

That would be utterly astonishing if true. 5 seconds and Google tells me it isn't. Snopes debunks that first chant as happening once in 2014 prior to the existence of BLM. The second chant appears to have happened a grand total of once, and the protesters claimed it was a joke when asked about it.

WHAT? "fry 'em like bacon" was a JOKE? And you BOUGHT THAT?

So no, it is absolutely not true to say that BLM protesters regularly call for the deaths of cops. That's an utterly ridiculous claim to make.

[Sparko]

Keep in mind how, while running for the presidential nomination, Martin O'Malley found it necessary to apologize for having the temerity to say ...

"Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

... at the Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix last year.

A chastened O'Malley would quickly mewl in contrition that his remark was "a mistake on my part and I meant no disrespect."

I hate it when these mealy politicians turn into whiny cowards and apologize for saying the right thing. At least we don't have to worry about that with Trump. I think that is what people like about him. He doesn't let the liberals "shame" him into backing down. He doubles down on his stance instead.