In Defence of All Lives Matter

[Rojava Free State]

Saying all lives matter people and neo nazis are one in the same is so disingenous, especially when you consider how diverse the people who say that phrase are. I've heard actual black activists utter those words.

I don't see anything in what he said that equated between those groups.

He said yes to your question "are those groups the same?"

[Diarcesia]

I don't see anything in what he said that equated between those groups.

He said yes to your question "are those groups the same?"

I thought he's agreeing that

By their actions and rhetoric the answer seems no.

[The Alma Mater]

Nobody was saying "all lives matter" until we said black lives did.

Technically that is false. The phrase has been used by animal rights and pro-life activists for decades.
But in context of when it is used nowadays you may well be right.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

"All Lives Matter" = "When the Looting Starts, the Shooting Starts"
"All Lives Matter" = "The Only Good Democrat is a Dead Democrat"
"All Lives Matter" = "If You Can Talk, You Can Breathe"

[Ostroeuropa]

Nobody was saying "Straight Pride" until we said "Gay Pride".

Nobody was calling themselves "meninists" until we became feminists.

Nobody was saying "all lives matter" until we said black lives did.

If your only reason for starting a movement is to take attention away from another movement, you might want to have a look at your real intentions behind it.

100% this. I've been saying this throughout the thread but couldn't find an elegant way of putting it. "All lives matter" is reactionary deflection, enough said.

Depends on the context. If the group shouting all lives matter only turns up to counter-protest BLM, or only turns up to black shootings, then yes, it's a reactionary movement.

If they're out there protesting police brutality in general, then no, it's not a reactionary statement.

The problem is that the rhetoric of "All lives matter" in relation to black lives matter is taking the narrow scope of BLM and criticizing it for its exclusionary and racist nature while not actually engaging in praxis that would give them the high ground.

If a group was out there protesting police brutality against the homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes, the mentally ill, and all vulnerable persons who suffer from this systemic violence, and then they turned up to black people getting shot chanting "All lives matter" and rejecting BLM for being racist (Which it is, less so than the status quo, but still racist), that would not be reactionary. That would be more progressive than BLM, which is race reductionist on the issue of police brutality to the point it excludes class, disability, and so on.

The problem is that the people chanting "all lives matter" aren't really doing that, they're vaguely gesturing to that as a preferable alternative, then using it to try and shut down BLM.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

That would be more progressive than BLM, which is race reductionist on the issue of police brutality to the point it excludes class, disability, and so on.

This is a stupid analysis of a movement based on a name.

[Ostroeuropa]

Nobody was saying "Straight Pride" until we said "Gay Pride".

Nobody was calling themselves "meninists" until we became feminists.

Nobody was saying "all lives matter" until we said black lives did.

If your only reason for starting a movement is to take attention away from another movement, you might want to have a look at your real intentions behind it.

The mens rights movement didn't exist until an active schism from feminism, so that's not really comparable to the others, as the founders were former feminists like Farrell, who was president of the national organization for women for ages. They don't call themselves meninists.

[Stellar Colonies]

How about Poor Lives Matter?

[Ostroeuropa]

That would be more progressive than BLM, which is race reductionist on the issue of police brutality to the point it excludes class, disability, and so on.

This is a stupid analysis of a movement based on a name.

Disagree. BLM emphasizes race in analysis of police brutality to the exclusion and marginalization of other factors, notably sex, disability, and class.

While they are inclusive in terms of *blackness*, they routinely fail to acknowledge or frame the discussion of state sanctioned violence appropriately because they are stuck within an adversarial view of race. (I.E, Black V White), rather than understanding Black is "Other" in much the same way disabled, male, and poor are "Other".

As such, the notion of a movement of Black folks, and disabled, poor, and male folks of all colors is not advanced by them, and the notion of arguing "All lives matter" from within a broad coalition of identities Othered by the state is beyond them due to their race reductionism. The rhetoric of BLM acts as though a white mentally ill person is in some sense not also subjected to the same level of state sanctioned violence as a black person.

While a black mentally ill person will be subjected to more of it, that's because of the intersection of those things, a stacking of the problems, rather than blackness having some kind of special grievance in a way that the rest of those "Othered" don't.

Similarly a mentally ill prostitute would face a stacking of "Othered" identities, and so on, and so on.

In addition because of BLM's failure to tackle the sex aspect and acknowledge Males are especially targeted and subjected to violence by the state their goal of dismantling disproportionate violence directed at the people they advocate for is impossible.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

This is a stupid analysis of a movement based on a name.

Disagree. BLM emphasizes race in analysis of police brutality to the exclusion and marginalization of other factors, notably sex, disability, and class.

While they are inclusive in terms of *blackness*, they routinely fail to acknowledge or frame the discussion of state sanctioned violence appropriately because they are stuck within an adversarial view of race. (I.E, Black V White), rather than understanding Black is "Other" in much the same way disabled, male, and poor are "Other".

As such, the notion of a movement of Black folks, and disabled, poor, and male folks of all colors is not advanced by them, and the notion of arguing "All lives matter" from within a broad coalition of identities Othered by the state is beyond them due to their race reductionism. The rhetoric of BLM acts as though a white mentally ill person is in some sense not also subjected to the same level of state sanctioned violence as a black person.

While a black mentally ill person will be subjected to more of it, that's because of the intersection of those things, a stacking of the problems, rather than blackness having some kind of special grievance in a way that the rest of those "Othered" don't.

Similarly a mentally ill prostitute would face a stacking of "Othered" identities, and so on, and so on.

In addition because of BLM's failure to tackle the sex aspect and acknowledge Males are especially targeted and subjected to violence by the state their goal of dismantling disproportionate violence directed at the people they advocate for is impossible.

I'm sure that's a nice summary of Fox News reports but it has no bearing on reality.

[Rusozak]

100% this. I've been saying this throughout the thread but couldn't find an elegant way of putting it. "All lives matter" is reactionary deflection, enough said.

Depends on the context. If the group shouting all lives matter only turns up to counter-protest BLM, or only turns up to black shootings, then yes, it's a reactionary movement.

If they're out there protesting police brutality in general, then no, it's not a reactionary statement.

The problem is that the rhetoric of "All lives matter" in relation to black lives matter is taking the narrow scope of BLM and criticizing it for its exclusionary and racist nature while not actually engaging in praxis that would give them the high ground.

If a group was out there protesting police brutality against the homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes, the mentally ill, and all vulnerable persons who suffer from this systemic violence, and then they turned up to black people getting shot chanting "All lives matter" and rejecting BLM for being racist (Which it is, less so than the status quo, but still racist), that would not be reactionary. That would be more progressive than BLM, which is race reductionist on the issue of police brutality to the point it excludes class, disability, and so on.

The problem is that the people chanting "all lives matter" aren't really doing that, they're vaguely gesturing to that as a preferable alternative, then using it to try and shut down BLM.

Well yes, but for the most part it IS people counter-protesting BLM that are saying this. That's kind of the underlying point of the issue, context. Without context, yes, saying "all lives matter" is a fair statement to make. But it's being used as a dog whistle argument by reactionary groups to devalue BLM while still sounding like they aren't to someone unaware of the full context of the situation.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

How about Poor Lives Matter?

There is already the Poor People's Campaign that was started by Martin Luther King Jr. and yes they work deeply with Black Lives Matter.

[Ostroeuropa]

Disagree. BLM emphasizes race in analysis of police brutality to the exclusion and marginalization of other factors, notably sex, disability, and class.

While they are inclusive in terms of *blackness*, they routinely fail to acknowledge or frame the discussion of state sanctioned violence appropriately because they are stuck within an adversarial view of race. (I.E, Black V White), rather than understanding Black is "Other" in much the same way disabled, male, and poor are "Other".

As such, the notion of a movement of Black folks, and disabled, poor, and male folks of all colors is not advanced by them, and the notion of arguing "All lives matter" from within a broad coalition of identities Othered by the state is beyond them due to their race reductionism. The rhetoric of BLM acts as though a white mentally ill person is in some sense not also subjected to the same level of state sanctioned violence as a black person.

While a black mentally ill person will be subjected to more of it, that's because of the intersection of those things, a stacking of the problems, rather than blackness having some kind of special grievance in a way that the rest of those "Othered" don't.

Similarly a mentally ill prostitute would face a stacking of "Othered" identities, and so on, and so on.

In addition because of BLM's failure to tackle the sex aspect and acknowledge Males are especially targeted and subjected to violence by the state their goal of dismantling disproportionate violence directed at the people they advocate for is impossible.

I'm sure that's a nice summary of Fox News reports but it has no bearing on reality.

Can you demonstrate that BLM isn't race reductionist?

Also lol, the notion of fox news talking about intersectionality and police brutality against the poor, prostitutes, mentally ill, and so on, ridiculous. You seem like you're stuck in an us V them mindset and don't want to acknowledge a left wing criticism of BLM.

Depends on the context. If the group shouting all lives matter only turns up to counter-protest BLM, or only turns up to black shootings, then yes, it's a reactionary movement.

If they're out there protesting police brutality in general, then no, it's not a reactionary statement.

The problem is that the rhetoric of "All lives matter" in relation to black lives matter is taking the narrow scope of BLM and criticizing it for its exclusionary and racist nature while not actually engaging in praxis that would give them the high ground.

If a group was out there protesting police brutality against the homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes, the mentally ill, and all vulnerable persons who suffer from this systemic violence, and then they turned up to black people getting shot chanting "All lives matter" and rejecting BLM for being racist (Which it is, less so than the status quo, but still racist), that would not be reactionary. That would be more progressive than BLM, which is race reductionist on the issue of police brutality to the point it excludes class, disability, and so on.

The problem is that the people chanting "all lives matter" aren't really doing that, they're vaguely gesturing to that as a preferable alternative, then using it to try and shut down BLM.

Well yes, but for the most part it IS people counter-protesting BLM that are saying this. That's kind of the underlying point of the issue, context. Without context, yes, saying "all lives matter" is a fair statement to make. But it's being used as a dog whistle argument by reactionary groups to devalue BLM while still sounding like they aren't to someone unaware of the full context of the situation.

I agree. It's being used to deflect from BLMs points by people who would not actually want to campaign against police violence at all. It would be different if it were a movement criticizing BLM for its race reductionist focus, but it isn't, it's people doing that in bad faith.

If BLM capitulated and began campaigning against police violence along all these axes, the same people currently chanting All Lives Matter would still oppose them, they'd simply find a new reason to.

[Ostroeuropa]

How about Poor Lives Matter?

There is already the Poor People's Campaign that was started by Martin Luther King Jr. and yes they work deeply with Black Lives Matter.

The Poor Peoples' Campaign, while good, campaigns on issues of economic justice rather than police violence.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

There is already the Poor People's Campaign that was started by Martin Luther King Jr. and yes they work deeply with Black Lives Matter.

The Poor Peoples' Campaign, while good, campaigns on issues of economic justice rather than police violence.

Right, I'm pretty sure they've said something or another about criminal justice in America over the past 60 years.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Can you demonstrate that BLM isn't race reductionist?

Yes, is this the only social media you're aware of?

[Ostroeuropa]

Can you demonstrate that BLM isn't race reductionist?

Yes, is this the only social media you're aware of?

It's poor etiquette not to provide a source when you're claiming to be able to do so.

[Ostroeuropa]

The Poor Peoples' Campaign, while good, campaigns on issues of economic justice rather than police violence.

Right, I'm pretty sure they've said something or another about criminal justice in America over the past 60 years.

Not particularly. The PPC are affiliated with CUAPB (Communities United Against Police Brutality), which is what BLM should be. It's also been around longer. So why BLM exists except to be race reductionist i'm not quite sure. To flip what Vassenor said back on them, BLM only appeared after CUAPB had been saying "All lives matter" for a decade, and the position BLM adopted is more regressive and less inclusive.

The cases CUAPB uses as examples:

Barbara Schneider, a white woman suffering from mental illness, was shot to death after Minneapolis police officers rammed through her locked apartment door and forcefully entered her bedroom. Their reason: she was playing her radio too loudly.
Artis Graham, a 35-year-old African-American man, died six days after being brutally beaten with flashlights and batons by St. Paul police officers while his hands were cuffed behind his back. He had been stopped for a traffic violation. Police allege Artis was fleeing police in his car.
Alfred “Abuka” Sanders, another African-American man, was gunned down on November 1, 2000 by Minneapolis police officers while trapped helplessly in his car in the alley near his home, after being followed by police and an Augsburg College security guard, for allegedly driving erratically. Police fired 33 rounds of ammunition at Alfred, striking his body at least 16 times. He was unarmed and had committed no crime.
Fong Lee, 18, was shot 8 times in the back by Minneapolis police officer Jason Andersen as he ran away after Andersen rammed Fong’s bike with his squad car. Police claim he was armed and a gang member but witnesses and his family dispute this and a video on the scene showed that his hands were empty. The gun found on the scene had been in police custody up until the incident and although Fong’s hands were bloody and damaged, none of his DNA was on the gun. Also on the scene was a state trooper who felt no need to draw his weapon.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Yes, is this the only social media you're aware of?

It's poor etiquette not to provide a source when you're claiming to be able to do so.

It's not like you gave any sources for your completely subjective perspective on BLM either. "Black Lives Matter doesn't care about poor, white, disabled people!" Source?

[Ostroeuropa]

It's poor etiquette not to provide a source when you're claiming to be able to do so.

It's not like you gave any sources for your completely subjective perspective on BLM either. "Black Lives Matter doesn't care about poor, white, disabled people!" Source?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.
We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

I.E, their inclusivity is race limited due to their race reductionist view. They argue against police brutality against *black* disabled people. Not Disabled people.

I'll also note that you're arguing that something exists (I.E, that BLM has statements about police violence against disabled people and so on). I'm arguing it doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you, because i'm adopting the default position of skepticism. It's the "Invisible pink unicorn" thing.

I don't think you're going to get on here if you react this way to sources being requested by the way.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Right, I'm pretty sure they've said something or another about criminal justice in America over the past 60 years.

Not particularly.

Again, ignorant misrepresentation based on a complete detachment from reality caused by a media bubble. Probably Fox News.

https://twitter.com/MNPPCampaign/status ... 9902926850

https://twitter.com/MHFA_Instructor/sta ... 2478745602

https://twitter.com/unitedchurch/status ... 4684891144

https://twitter.com/MNPPCampaign/status ... 5917162498

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

It's not like you gave any sources for your completely subjective perspective on BLM either. "Black Lives Matter doesn't care about poor, white, disabled people!" Source?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.
We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

I.E, their inclusivity is race limited due to their race reductionist view. They argue against police brutality against *black* disabled people. Not Disabled people.

No it's not. How is presence = absence? This is stupidity speaking.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not particularly.

Again, ignorant misrepresentation based on a complete detachment from reality caused by a media bubble. Probably Fox News.

https://twitter.com/MNPPCampaign/status ... 9902926850

https://twitter.com/MHFA_Instructor/sta ... 2478745602

https://twitter.com/unitedchurch/status ... 4684891144

https://twitter.com/MNPPCampaign/status ... 5917162498

I don't watch fox news. Again, you're revealing a pretty tribalist worldview.

Systemic racism is something the PPC argues against, but their campaign is not centered on police brutality. It's also poor etiquette to cut a quote, here, let me get that for you. Wouldn't want you to get detatched from the reality of this conversation by ignoring it.

The PPC are affiliated with CUAPB (Communities United Against Police Brutality), which is what BLM should be. It's also been around longer. So why BLM exists except to be race reductionist i'm not quite sure. To flip what Vassenor said back on them, BLM only appeared after CUAPB had been saying "All lives matter" for a decade, and the position BLM adopted is more regressive and less inclusive.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Again, ignorant misrepresentation based on a complete detachment from reality caused by a media bubble. Probably Fox News.

https://twitter.com/MNPPCampaign/status ... 9902926850

https://twitter.com/MHFA_Instructor/sta ... 2478745602

https://twitter.com/unitedchurch/status ... 4684891144

https://twitter.com/MNPPCampaign/status ... 5917162498

I don't watch fox news. Again, you're revealing a pretty tribalist worldview.

Systemic racism is something the PPC argues against, but their campaign is not centered on police brutality. It's also poor etiquette to cut a quote, here, let me get that for you. Wouldn't want you to get detatched from the reality of this conversation by ignoring it.

And yet, your statement that the Poor People's Campaign is not involved with Black Lives Matter was false.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/



I.E, their inclusivity is race limited due to their race reductionist view. They argue against police brutality against *black* disabled people. Not Disabled people.

No it's not. How is presence = absence? This is stupidity speaking.

If I say I care about White People, All White people, including Disabled People, am I being inclusive, or exclusive?
Am I caring about Disabled people, or am I just caring about White people to the point that if they're white that's all that matters.

There is an absence of inclusivity in BLMs rhetoric on police violence. Their statements regarding other effected demographics (The poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, and so on) are only in terms of them emphasizing they are there for all black people. Not in terms of them representing all communities impacted by police violence.

They stand with black people, all black people, against police violence. They don't have an approach that includes other demographics subjected to police violence. That's race reductionism.