All Lives Matter

[Tiberius]

I used to be an "All Lives Matter" proponent because my egalitarian beliefs automatically want to push for equality over focused inequality. I changed my mind when I read a really good (at least in my opinion) metaphor, which I'll repeat in a moment. Suffice to say, "All Lives Matter" is the overall goal, nobody disputes that. The reason the "Black Lives Matter" movement exists is to focus on the fact that at this moment in time, black lives are treated, or at least are seen to be treated as less valuable.

So anyway, onto the metaphor that changed my mind:

Suppose you are at a family dinner, and the patriarch / matriarch is serving up dessert. He/she heaps a portion of dessert onto everyone's plate except for your own. You complain "Hey, I didn't get any dessert, I should get some too." The rest of the family looks at you and hushes you. "EVERYONE should get dessert" they say.

The underlying point is that you're still left without dessert, but your family are too focused on the overall issue of everyone getting dessert to even notice / care about your plight.

It's fine to be egalitarian about things, and recognize that inequality affects most people in some way, but sometimes you need to view things through a narrow lens. You can't solve every inequality at once, so you need to do them one by one. That's why multiple groups exist.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am not stating that black lives do not matter.

However, when someone creates the slogan that "Black Lives Matter", it seems to me those making the statement think only black lives matter.

To make a relatively simple comparison:

Those who state "God bless America" think God only blesses America, when in fact wouldn't God bless the world?

Therefore, it is not just that black lives matter.  In fact, all lives matter.

Why did you interpret it as "only Black lives matter" instead of interpreting it as "Black lives matter too", I wonder? Your bias is telling.

P.S. Don't try and justify it. My question was rhetorical.

"Black lives matter" means "black lives matter" and the point is that black lives matter when a lot of people behave as if they don't. So, ergo, black lives matter too, is the point.

If the group was really the black supremacist group that you're pretending that it is then it wouldn't be called "Black Lives Matter" it would be called "Black People Are Superior." or "Fuck White People".

---

I fail to see any false conclusions in what I stated in my OP.

This is no surprise to me because you often fail to see your own logical errors on a daily basis. You also fail to recognize logical validity when you see it. I reckon your reason for these repeated failures is because you're not as remotely as smart as you at least come across as thinking that you think you are. You also at least come across as being a fan of brutal honesty so here it is.

[Brian37]

I am not stating that black lives do not matter.

However, when someone creates the slogan that "Black Lives Matter", it seems to me those making the statement think only black lives matter.

To make a relatively simple comparison:

Those who state "God bless America" think God only blesses America, when in fact wouldn't God bless the world?

Therefore, it is not just that black lives matter.  In fact, all lives matter.

Why did you interpret it as "only Black lives matter" instead of interpreting it as "Black lives matter too", I wonder? Your bias is telling.

P.S. Don't try and justify it. My question was rhetorical.

"Black lives matter" means "black lives matter" and the point is that black lives matter when a lot of people behave as if they don't. So, ergo, black lives matter too, is the point.

If the group was really the black supremacist group that you're pretending that it is then it wouldn't be called "Black Lives Matter" it would be called "Black People Are Superior." or "Fuck White People".

---

I fail to see any false conclusions in what I stated in my OP.

This is no surprise to me because you often fail to see your own logical errors on a daily basis. You also fail to recognize logical validity when you see it. I reckon your reason for these repeated failures is because you're not as remotely as smart as you at least come across as thinking that you think you are. You also at least come across of being a fan of brutal honesty so here it is.

^^^^^^^ BINGO

And if these ignorant idiots would pull their heads out of their asses and look at history they would know that while blacks have for 400 years gotten most of the brunt of this, and are still wrongfully looked at with suspicion, you can look at how even Irish and Italian migrants were treated when their mass migrations started. It is why many also forget up until the 1980s anti Semitism was widespread in America. Nixon not only profiled blacks but also did not trust Jews. It is also unfortunately why America turned away a boat full of Jews during WW2. 

The point is if you don't accept that inequities exist that society is doomed to repeat very horrible histories. 

"All lives matter" is simply ignorant because it is burring your head in the sand as an excuse to ignore that others are affected by the economy and justice system more negatively on average.

It would be like WW2 Germans saying, "Arian Lives Matter". 

I agree, when blacks use "Black Lives Matter", they are not saying "blacks are superior to whites". They are rightfully saying "Stop trampling on us, stop ignoring us, just listen to us".

This ignorance is also why I get very pissed at people talking about Hispanics as if they come from a different planet, or that Arabs come from a different planet. Most humans are NOT violent and when they migrate, MOST simply are trying to survive. 

Blacks have every right as any human would, to stand up for themselves and neither they or whites that support them are trying to act superior. There still remains inequity and unless that is addressed, our future will get worse for more and more.

[Foxaèr]

I used to be an "All Lives Matter" proponent because my egalitarian beliefs automatically want to push for equality over focused inequality. I changed my mind when I read a really good (at least in my opinion) metaphor, which I'll repeat in a moment. Suffice to say, "All Lives Matter" is the overall goal, nobody disputes that. The reason the "Black Lives Matter" movement exists is to focus on the fact that at this moment in time, black lives are treated, or at least are seen to be treated as less valuable.

So anyway, onto the metaphor that changed my mind:

Suppose you are at a family dinner, and the patriarch / matriarch is serving up dessert. He/she heaps a portion of dessert onto everyone's plate except for your own. You complain "Hey, I didn't get any dessert, I should get some too." The rest of the family looks at you and hushes you. "EVERYONE should get dessert" they say.

The underlying point is that you're still left without dessert, but your family are too focused on the overall issue of everyone getting dessert to even notice / care about your plight.

It's fine to be egalitarian about things, and recognize that inequality affects most people in some way, but sometimes you need to view things through a narrow lens. You can't solve every inequality at once, so you need to do them one by one. That's why multiple groups exist.

That analogy makes zero sense to me, because clearly the family does not understand the point of "everyone should get dessert".

All lives matter to me because clearly I believe all lives on this planet matter, not just one set of lives segregated by the phrase "Black Lives Matter".

[Thumpalumpacus]

By saying "all lives matter", you're glossing over the fact that going by how the police interact with blacks in America, their lives would seem to have less value to the police. "Black lives matter" is, in this context, a badly needed reminder, not a dismissal of the lives of non-blacks.

Sensitive much?

[Edwardo Piet]

I used to be an "All Lives Matter" proponent because my egalitarian beliefs automatically want to push for equality over focused inequality. I changed my mind when I read a really good (at least in my opinion) metaphor, which I'll repeat in a moment. Suffice to say, "All Lives Matter" is the overall goal, nobody disputes that. The reason the "Black Lives Matter" movement exists is to focus on the fact that at this moment in time, black lives are treated, or at least are seen to be treated as less valuable.

So anyway, onto the metaphor that changed my mind:

Suppose you are at a family dinner, and the patriarch / matriarch is serving up dessert. He/she heaps a portion of dessert onto everyone's plate except for your own. You complain "Hey, I didn't get any dessert, I should get some too." The rest of the family looks at you and hushes you. "EVERYONE should get dessert" they say.

The underlying point is that you're still left without dessert, but your family are too focused on the overall issue of everyone getting dessert to even notice / care about your plight.

It's fine to be egalitarian about things, and recognize that inequality affects most people in some way, but sometimes you need to view things through a narrow lens. You can't solve every inequality at once, so you need to do them one by one. That's why multiple groups exist.

That analogy makes zero sense to me, because clearly the family does not understand the point of "everyone should get dessert".  

All lives matter to me because clearly I believe all lives on this planet matter, not just one set of lives segregated by the phrase "Black Lives Matter".

Hmmm.

From now on I shall definitely be referring to you as either Mister Obtuse or Captain Myopic but I can't decide which

---

By saying "all lives matter", you're glossing over the fact that going by how the police interact with blacks in America, their lives would seem to have less value to the police. "Black lives matter" is, in this context, a badly needed reminder, not a dismissal of the lives of non-blacks.

Sensitive much?

Yep.

I mean, the whole point is that "all lives matter" includes black lives matter. Being hypersensitive to "Don't forget us!"and misinterpreting it as "We're all that matters!" is so inane.

If all doors were supposed to remain locked at night but everyone neglected to lock automatic doors then saying "automatic doors should be locked" wouldn't mean "stop locking all other doors and only lock automatic doors", lol. It would mean people are forgetting about the automatic doors. Saying that "black lives matter" means "only black lives matter" is as silly as saying that "automatic doors should be locked at night" means "stop locking all doors apart from automatic ones." lol.

P.S. I deliberately made the analogy involve objects rather than persons because I believe that it's easier for people to think clearly and without bias when they depersonalize their metaphors.It's so much easier to think rationally and be objective about objects than it is about people. Because whose gonna get emotional about automatic doors? Lol.

[bennyboy]

That analogy makes zero sense to me, because clearly the family does not understand the point of "everyone should get dessert".  

All lives matter to me because clearly I believe all lives on this planet matter, not just one set of lives segregated by the phrase "Black Lives Matter".

Are you really this dense? It seems like you are, yet you are able to operate a computer. Hmmmm.

"Black lives matter" because some people act like they don't-- for example cowardly cops who shoot black kids with no good cause. It needs to be said.
Not "All lives matter" because nobody is acting like white people's lives are unimportant. It doesn't need to be said, because it's already implied in the way we operate.

[SteelCurtain]

At this point Kit is just being obtuse for either lulz or because he's too much of a coward to admit when he was wrong. Either way, I feel like the issue has been explained 20 times, in several different and excellent manners, and he's still clinging to the "they're saying that other lives don't matter" line.

[Thumpalumpacus]

At this point Kit is just being obtuse for either lulz or because he's too much of a coward to admit when he was wrong. Either way, I feel like the issue has been explained 20 times, in several different and excellent manners, and he's still clinging to the "they're saying that other lives don't matter" line.

Well, yeah.

He's got to feel right somewhere, come on now.

Remember, this is the guy who wrote that he was sad Dylan Roof didn't have a higher body-count. Kitty has a track record in this regard.

[Rev. Rye]

I used to be an "All Lives Matter" proponent because my egalitarian beliefs automatically want to push for equality over focused inequality. I changed my mind when I read a really good (at least in my opinion) metaphor, which I'll repeat in a moment. Suffice to say, "All Lives Matter" is the overall goal, nobody
disputes that. The reason the "Black Lives Matter" movement exists is to focus on the fact that at this moment in time, black lives are treated, or at least are seen to be treated as less valuable.


So anyway, onto the metaphor that changed my mind:

Suppose you are at a family dinner, and the patriarch / matriarch is serving up dessert. He/she heaps a portion of dessert onto everyone's plate except for your own. You complain "Hey, I didn't get any dessert, I should get some too." The rest of the family looks at you and hushes you. "EVERYONE should get dessert" they say.

The underlying point is that you're still left without dessert, but your family are too focused on the overall issue of everyone getting dessert to even notice / care about your plight.

It's fine to be egalitarian about things, and recognize that inequality affects most people in some way, but sometimes you need to view things through a narrow lens. You can't solve every inequality at once, so you need to do them one by one. That's why multiple groups exist.

Of course, with that in mind, I honestly get the impression that saying "Black lives matter" isn't much better in this regard. Taking the dinner metaphor to its logical conclusion, it's like replying "of course, you'll get dessert" AND NEVER ACTUALLY GETTING IT. And then, when it's over, you ask about it and they actively deny having denied you of your dessert.

To be honest, if they really mattered on any socially meaningful way, the movement wouldn't need to keep reminding people of the fact. And, of course, the point of the phrase is generally treated as a reminder to the powers that be of a fact they seem to have forgotten. Except I don't think they've forgotten it. I think they just don't care. And they probably never did. Hell, that was the point of the Ice-T video "No Lives Matter" I linked to earlier.

What the phrase should be is "WHY DON'T BLACK LIVES MATTER?" It goes right for the jugular and points out the problem in an unambiguous way that bypasses the whole semantical niggling we've spent all this time trying to unpack, and it's a lot less empty a statement than either "black lives matter" or "all lives matter."