In Defence of All Lives Matter

[Duvniask]

no one does

the whole point of black lives matter is that all lives DON'T and CAN'T matter until black lives matter (which they have not in the US for, oh, abt 500 years)

Someone saying the statement "all lives matter" does not contradict that statement, in fact it supports it. Try harder.

Maybe try harder at not taking all speech at face value. At face value it is an easily agreeable phrase, but that overlooks why someone would feel the need to say it in the first place and how it's used to dismiss the plight of Black people.

[Arzt0zka]

Someone saying the statement "all lives matter" does not contradict that statement, in fact it supports it. Try harder.

Maybe try harder at not taking all speech at face value. At face value it is an easily agreeable phrase, but that overlooks why someone would feel the need to say it in the first place and how it's used to dismiss the plight of Black people.

It never "dismisses the plight of black people", it simply outlines that the lives of all races matter due to each race and even if not facing their own challenges. Like I said i'm concerned about the number of people trying to fight the statement because of how harmless and agreeable it is.

[Vassenor]

Maybe try harder at not taking all speech at face value. At face value it is an easily agreeable phrase, but that overlooks why someone would feel the need to say it in the first place and how it's used to dismiss the plight of Black people.

It never "dismisses the plight of black people", it simply outlines that the lives of all races matter due to each race and even if not facing their own challenges. Like I said i'm concerned about the number of people trying to fight the statement because of how harmless and agreeable it is.

Then you're wilfully blind to how it gets used to silence.

[Senkaku]

no one does

the whole point of black lives matter is that all lives DON'T and CAN'T matter until black lives matter (which they have not in the US for, oh, abt 500 years)

Someone saying the statement "all lives matter" does not contradict that statement, in fact it supports it. Try harder.

ok here's an example that might help u:

imagine if you said "Soros is bad!", and I replied with "well, all Jews are bad"

in a technical sense I'm agreeing with you, but we both know in reality I'm really kinda contradicting and erasing what you're saying and advancing something kinda different

[Necroghastia]

Maybe try harder at not taking all speech at face value. At face value it is an easily agreeable phrase, but that overlooks why someone would feel the need to say it in the first place and how it's used to dismiss the plight of Black people.

It never "dismisses the plight of black people", it simply outlines that the lives of all races matter due to each race and even if not facing their own challenges. Like I said i'm concerned about the number of people trying to fight the statement because of how harmless and agreeable it is.

Again, think about why someone would say "All Lives Matter!" in response to another someone raising concerns that a particular group's lives do not seem to matter. What is the point of such a response?

[Arzt0zka]

It never "dismisses the plight of black people", it simply outlines that the lives of all races matter due to each race and even if not facing their own challenges. Like I said i'm concerned about the number of people trying to fight the statement because of how harmless and agreeable it is.

Then you're wilfully blind to how it gets used to silence.

I'm not, and you have also resorted to using vague arguments with no supporting pretense. Also it does not silence anyone because it shows the challenges that all races face whilst not putting down any of them which would delegitimize the phrase itself.

[Arzt0zka]

It never "dismisses the plight of black people", it simply outlines that the lives of all races matter due to each race and even if not facing their own challenges. Like I said i'm concerned about the number of people trying to fight the statement because of how harmless and agreeable it is.

Again, think about why someone would say "All Lives Matter!" in response to another someone raising concerns that a particular group's lives do not seem to matter. What is the point of such a response?

Well, do you honestly think that the phrase "all lives matter" is a white supremacist phrase or something? It is barely if never used to "silence" people bringing up the plights of one group or another. And in a way shows solidarity with the group facing problems.

[Necroghastia]

Then you're wilfully blind to how it gets used to silence.

I'm not, and you have also resorted to using vague arguments with no supporting pretense. Also it does not silence anyone because it shows the challenges that all races face whilst not putting down any of them which would delegitimize the phrase itself.

Please, tell me how "All Lives Matter" "shows the challenges all races face."
Tell me how it doesn't put down any of them when it sprang up as a response to people bringing up the challenges that a particular group faced, and is almost exclusively said by those who wish to dismiss these challenges as no big deal.

[Arzt0zka]

Someone saying the statement "all lives matter" does not contradict that statement, in fact it supports it. Try harder.

ok here's an example that might help u:

imagine if you said "Soros is bad!", and I replied with "well, all Jews are bad"

in a technical sense I'm agreeing with you, but we both know in reality I'm really kinda contradicting and erasing what you're saying and advancing something kinda different

Why are you trying to bring jews into everything I say? Also it has nothing to do with that because it's within the pretext of people thinking everyone's lives matter with a phrase, not a racist phrase.

[Vassenor]

Then you're wilfully blind to how it gets used to silence.

I'm not, and you have also resorted to using vague arguments with no supporting pretense. Also it does not silence anyone because it shows the challenges that all races face whilst not putting down any of them which would delegitimize the phrase itself.

You don't see how "but what about everyone else" is a problem when a group talks about the problems it faces? Seriously?

[Arzt0zka]

I'm not, and you have also resorted to using vague arguments with no supporting pretense. Also it does not silence anyone because it shows the challenges that all races face whilst not putting down any of them which would delegitimize the phrase itself.

Please, tell me how "All Lives Matter" "shows the challenges all races face."
Tell me how it doesn't put down any of them when it sprang up as a response to people bringing up the challenges that a particular group faced, and is almost exclusively said by those who wish to dismiss these challenges as no big deal.

The problem here is you immediately thinking of the phrase "all lives matter" as a bad one, which is genuinely scary considering many of the people who oppose its beliefs being about equality. And those who say it aren't putting down others beliefs or delegitimizing them, they are pointing out that all races face problems and that they can work together to make all races have a brighter tomorrow.

[Necroghastia]

Please, tell me how "All Lives Matter" "shows the challenges all races face."
Tell me how it doesn't put down any of them when it sprang up as a response to people bringing up the challenges that a particular group faced, and is almost exclusively said by those who wish to dismiss these challenges as no big deal.

The problem here is you immediately thinking of the phrase "all lives matter" as a bad one, which is genuinely scary considering many of the people who oppose its beliefs being about equality. And those who say it aren't putting down others beliefs or delegitimizing them, they are pointing out that all races face problems and that they can work together to make all races have a brighter tomorrow.

And once again, you fail to actually engage with anything I said.

[Duvniask]

Maybe try harder at not taking all speech at face value. At face value it is an easily agreeable phrase, but that overlooks why someone would feel the need to say it in the first place and how it's used to dismiss the plight of Black people.

It never "dismisses the plight of black people", it simply outlines that the lives of all races matter due to each race and even if not facing their own challenges. Like I said i'm concerned about the number of people trying to fight the statement because of how harmless and agreeable it is.

"never"

"it simply outlines"

This is what I'm talking about. It's quite the same thing as going to a gay pride rally and shouting about how uppity those darn faggots are for daring to draw attention to themselves. It's also like going to a march for breast cancer awareness and complaining that they are ignoring the plight of all other sick people or something. What do you actually hope to achieve by going up to someone who says "X₁ matters, we must do something" and saying "All X matters!". It's a childish response, precisely because it's just a way to dismiss concerns about specific groups by uttering a completely benign phrase that doesn't do anything and draws attention to nothing in particular.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that when you see someone saying "Save the Rainforest!" you say to yourself "ALL FORESTS MATTER", as if that statement is supposed to mean anything other than being a way to ignore rainforest destruction. What could you possibly gain by such a response beyond allowing yourself to ignore any concern about specific issues?

[Arzt0zka]

I'm not, and you have also resorted to using vague arguments with no supporting pretense. Also it does not silence anyone because it shows the challenges that all races face whilst not putting down any of them which would delegitimize the phrase itself.

You don't see how "but what about everyone else" is a problem when a group talks about the problems it faces? Seriously?

It's not to delegitimize it or water down the problems of another race, the way many people including myself see it as a form of group therapy with races. It makes people understand that perhaps if they were thinking before "this race is responsible for my problem" realize that other races face problems aswell and can relate to them.

[Arzt0zka]

The problem here is you immediately thinking of the phrase "all lives matter" as a bad one, which is genuinely scary considering many of the people who oppose its beliefs being about equality. And those who say it aren't putting down others beliefs or delegitimizing them, they are pointing out that all races face problems and that they can work together to make all races have a brighter tomorrow.

And once again, you fail to actually engage with anything I said.

Nice cop out.

[Necroghastia]

And once again, you fail to actually engage with anything I said.

Nice cop out.

Coming from the guy who writes whole fanfictions to avoid engaging with people's arguments? What a compliment!

[Arzt0zka]

It never "dismisses the plight of black people", it simply outlines that the lives of all races matter due to each race and even if not facing their own challenges. Like I said i'm concerned about the number of people trying to fight the statement because of how harmless and agreeable it is.

"never"

"it simply outlines"

This is what I'm talking about. It's quite the same thing as going to a gay pride rally and shouting about how uppity those darn faggots are for daring to draw attention to themselves. It's also like going to a march for breast cancer awareness and complaining that they are ignoring the plight of all other sick people or something. What do you actually hope to achieve by going up to someone who says "X₁ matters, we must do something" and saying "All X matters!". It's a childish response, precisely because it's just a way to dismiss concerns about specific groups by uttering a completely benign phrase that doesn't do anything and draws attention to nothing in particular.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that when you see someone saying "Save the Rainforest!" you say to yourself "ALL FORESTS MATTER", as if that statement is supposed to mean anything other than being a way to ignore rainforest destruction. What could you possibly gain by such a response beyond allowing yourself to ignore any concern about specific issues?

"someone going to a gay pride rally and yelling about these uppity faggots" Nice straw man, nobody barely ever does that anymore.

"breast cancer" Nobody ever goes to a breast cancer awareness event and shouts "all diseases are bad" The only reason "all lives matter" exists is in order to make people realize that maybe some specific race isn't responsible for all your problems and can relate to you.

"all forests matter" Nobody has ever said that because forests don't have the mental power to hate other forests for what's happening to them because the other forest happens not to be on fire or getting logged.


Because I don't like to see people attempt to blame their problems on other races from both sides of the argument because "they don't understand my problems" it's a way of showing that other races are along side you in this fight and will support you instead of singularly focusing on one race which can leave open interpretation that the "evil whites" or "evil blacks" or evil whatever are causing all their problems. It's a way to bring people together.

[Arzt0zka]

Nice cop out.

Coming from the guy who writes whole fanfictions to avoid engaging with people's arguments? What a compliment!

I'll respond again when you post an actual argument like these other people who are trying to bring up points.

[Duvniask]

"never"

"it simply outlines"

This is what I'm talking about. It's quite the same thing as going to a gay pride rally and shouting about how uppity those darn faggots are for daring to draw attention to themselves. It's also like going to a march for breast cancer awareness and complaining that they are ignoring the plight of all other sick people or something. What do you actually hope to achieve by going up to someone who says "X₁ matters, we must do something" and saying "All X matters!". It's a childish response, precisely because it's just a way to dismiss concerns about specific groups by uttering a completely benign phrase that doesn't do anything and draws attention to nothing in particular.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that when you see someone saying "Save the Rainforest!" you say to yourself "ALL FORESTS MATTER", as if that statement is supposed to mean anything other than being a way to ignore rainforest destruction. What could you possibly gain by such a response beyond allowing yourself to ignore any concern about specific issues?

"someone going to a gay pride rally and yelling about these uppity faggots" Nice straw man, nobody barely ever does that anymore.

"breast cancer" Nobody ever goes to a breast cancer awareness event and shouts "all diseases are bad" The only reason "all lives matter" exists is in order to make people realize that maybe some specific race isn't responsible for all your problems and can relate to you.

"all forests matter" Nobody has ever said that because forests don't have the mental power to hate other forests for what's happening to them because the other forest happens not to be on fire or getting logged.

There's little point in arguing with someone who doesn't even understand the purpose of analogy: That is a ridiculous scenario that would never happen! Yes, that is the point, Jack. The current circumstances, which are of similar nature, are just as ridiculous and if you were consistent you would maybe see that your viewpoint is wrong.

Because I don't like to see people attempt to blame their problems on other races from both sides of the argument because "they don't understand my problems" it's a way of showing that other races are along side you in this fight and will support you instead of singularly focusing on one race which can leave open interpretation that the "evil whites" or "evil blacks" or evil whatever are causing all their problems. It's a way to bring people together.

Black people are the ones suffering the most from institutionalized racism in the police force and in wider society. That is a statement of empirical nature and if you wish to dispute it, feel free to do so with real data. To use your own phrase, Black Lives Matter "simply outlines" that Blacks do indeed suffer a lot and it is as if their disproportionate plight is being ignored. Nowhere in the statement is contained the belief that all White people are evil or such nonsense. There is no need for a counter-statement that Whites are capable of relating to the suffering (that is obvious?). There's also no need to "bring people together" considering people of all races take part in the currently ongoing protests.

The point remains: "All Lives Matter" is a benign statement that has no purpose other than being a response to "Black Lives Matter", that is to say, a criticism that allows one to dismiss the latter for not being inclusive or whatever. The lack of "inclusivity" contained in the phrase itself is, as I outlined with the analogies, never a critique levied against other movements, precisely because it is ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous here.

[Arzt0zka]

"someone going to a gay pride rally and yelling about these uppity faggots" Nice straw man, nobody barely ever does that anymore.

"breast cancer" Nobody ever goes to a breast cancer awareness event and shouts "all diseases are bad" The only reason "all lives matter" exists is in order to make people realize that maybe some specific race isn't responsible for all your problems and can relate to you.

"all forests matter" Nobody has ever said that because forests don't have the mental power to hate other forests for what's happening to them because the other forest happens not to be on fire or getting logged.

There's little point in arguing with someone who doesn't even understand the purpose of analogy: That is a ridiculous scenario that would never happen! Yes, that is the point, Jack. The current circumstances, which are of similar nature, are just as ridiculous and if you were consistent you would maybe see that your viewpoint is wrong.

Because I don't like to see people attempt to blame their problems on other races from both sides of the argument because "they don't understand my problems" it's a way of showing that other races are along side you in this fight and will support you instead of singularly focusing on one race which can leave open interpretation that the "evil whites" or "evil blacks" or evil whatever are causing all their problems. It's a way to bring people together.

Black people are the ones suffering the most from institutionalized racism in the police force and in wider society. That is a statement of empirical nature and if you wish to dispute it, feel free to do so with real data. To use your own phrase, Black Lives Matter "simply outlines" that Blacks do indeed suffer a lot and it is as if their disproportionate plight is being ignored. Nowhere in the statement is contained the belief that all White people are evil or such nonsense. There is no need for a counter-statement that Whites are capable of relating to the suffering (that is obvious?). There's also no need to "bring people together" considering people of all races take part in the currently ongoing protests.

1st point is a giant circlejerk into "le argument is wrong because lol" so i'll do the second point.

Yes, blacks are under the most police scrutiny in the current day, and I never said i delegitimization the core message of black lives matter because it is a legitimate movement. I never claimed that blacks don't suffer and I never claimed that all of BLM thought whites were evil. The fact i'm trying to bring up is that simply excluding the other races in a movement like a edgy teenager locking there self in their room because "other people don't understand my struggle" isn't the solution to political issues. Another thing is your tag of "that is obivous?" within applachia whites are poorer then 80+% of black communities even within the inner city yet I barely ever see them do "white lives matter", the fact is that the way to bring a nation together isn't to have a ultranationalist segment of one race due to you heavily implying the movement is for that race, as is the case with the insides of BlM, nothing is wrong with the outside objectives and the majority of people. They are just protesters. Its like if white people tomorrow formed "white lives matter" and begun marching through a major city with 5% of them being known ultra - nationalists, isn't that concerning? I would prefer all lives matter over having one group with a nationalist contingent of around 5% because in a movement like all lives matter you can't have extremists who think all the other races are bad within the movement because it's all the races together. That's my point which you will most likely again bend and warp into me saying that black people somehow never have problems and that i shout over others problems.

[Duvniask]

There's little point in arguing with someone who doesn't even understand the purpose of analogy: That is a ridiculous scenario that would never happen! Yes, that is the point, Jack. The current circumstances, which are of similar nature, are just as ridiculous and if you were consistent you would maybe see that your viewpoint is wrong.


Black people are the ones suffering the most from institutionalized racism in the police force and in wider society. That is a statement of empirical nature and if you wish to dispute it, feel free to do so with real data. To use your own phrase, Black Lives Matter "simply outlines" that Blacks do indeed suffer a lot and it is as if their disproportionate plight is being ignored. Nowhere in the statement is contained the belief that all White people are evil or such nonsense. There is no need for a counter-statement that Whites are capable of relating to the suffering (that is obvious?). There's also no need to "bring people together" considering people of all races take part in the currently ongoing protests.

1st point is a giant circlejerk into "le argument is wrong because lol" so i'll do the second point.

No? I'm explaining to you that you do not understand the point being made. Now you're asserting, with a smug demeanor of completely unearned superiority, that this is a circle-jerk.

Yes, blacks are under the most police scrutiny in the current day, and I never said i delegitimization the core message of black lives matter because it is a legitimate movement. I never claimed that blacks don't suffer and I never claimed that all of BLM thought whites were evil. The fact i'm trying to bring up is that simply excluding the other races in a movement like a edgy teenager locking there self in their room because "other people don't understand my struggle" isn't the solution to political issues.

Your version of reality is a fanfic. No one is excluding other races from the movement to address the fact that Black people suffer from discrimination, anymore than someone at a breast cancer march is excluding people without disease (and with other diseases) from participating in the movement to help breast cancer patients.

Another thing is your tag of "that is obivous?" within applachia whites are poorer then 80+% of black communities even within the inner city yet I barely ever see them do "white lives matter",

Source?

And again, no one is saying Whites don't also suffer from poverty and all these other social ills, no more than a breast cancer march is saying no one else suffers from disease. If you're concerned about poverty in Appalachia, it should be good motivation to start a movement to address such poverty, no?

the fact is that the way to bring a nation together isn't to have a ultranationalist segment of one race due to you heavily implying the movement is for that race, as is the case with the insides of BlM, nothing is wrong with the outside objectives and the majority of people. They are just protesters.

The movement is to address the concerns of people of that race, because that race just so happens to be the one having it the worst. That is not ultranationalist.

Its like if white people tomorrow formed "white lives matter" and begun marching through a major city with 5% of them being known ultra - nationalists, isn't that concerning?

Whites are not at the bottom of the social hierarchy in the United States, and you know that. They don't need a movement to address racial disparity as much as Blacks do. You should also know that.

I would prefer all lives matter over having one group with a nationalist contingent of around 5% because in a movement like all lives matter you can't have extremists who think all the other races are bad within the movement because it's all the races together. That's my point which you will most likely again bend and warp into me saying that black people somehow never have problems and that i shout over others problems.

Given that Black Lives Matter is meant to address systematic racism against Black People, trying to replace it with "All Lives Matter" is quite nonsensical. The aims of the movement are such that it seeks to address the concerns of the Black community. Separate movements against such things as police brutality and poverty in general are not lesser for that, although Black people tend to suffer disproportionally from these things, which is why there is overlap.

Try to consider this again. Do you criticize the inclusivity of the breast cancer march or a march for HIV-patients because there might be people in it who think they are specially entitled to receive better treatment than others? Do you propose a movement to address all diseases? I don't think you would, because what's the point of diffusing the attention? There is a clear group who suffers disproportionally from a problem, the movement is there to address precisely that, so why criticize it for that?

Let's conceive of two scenarios:
1) All you dislike is the name "Black Lives Matter" and want to replace it with "All Lives Matter"; why do you want to draw attention away from the fact that is is, indeed, Black people who have it the worst?
2) You dislike the focus on Black community issues and want a movement that seeks to address the concerns of all races to whom those problems apply; that's strange, given that we should strive to bring people a similar standing in society and Black Lives Matter seeks to do just that. There will still be poverty and police brutality to combat, but this concern is first and foremost about racial disparities.

[Washington Resistance Army]

All Lives Matter in itself is a fine statement but more often than not the people making it don't understand the point behind Black Lives Matter.

[Satuga]

I feel like this is the same situation that we had with the "Black Reperations" thread before. So I think this line of thinking is the most beneficial. Instead of focusing on police brutality towards the black population, why don't we focus on police brutality as a whole? Since blacks are affected more by police brutality if we focus on it as a whole then it will still proportianally help the black population more would it not?

[Diarcesia]

I feel like this is the same situation that we had with the "Black Reperations" thread before. So I think this line of thinking is the most beneficial. Instead of focusing on police brutality towards the black population, why don't we focus on police brutality as a whole? Since blacks are affected more by police brutality if we focus on it as a whole then it will still proportianally help the black population more would it not?

Yes

[Centai Mal]