NationStates

I've read a lot of articles by pro-Black Lives Matter groups about why they don't like the phrase All Lives Matter, but I've never seen anyone defend the All Lives Matter phrase instead. All the pro-Black Lives Matter arguments were all very repetitive, endless copying the same arguments and thinking of ALM as a strawman instead of questioning their own beliefs.

I am curious to see what supporters have to say on the matter. On the one hand, I understand that racial profiling and police brutality may be an issue but on the other, I see that law enforcement is necessary for any non-Utopian society and most police officers risk life and limb to save lives, not end them.

Any supporters of All Lives Matter are welcome here.

Stanmenistan wrote:I've read a lot of articles by pro-Black Lives Matter groups about why they don't like the phrase All Lives Matter, but I've never seen anyone defend the All Lives Matter phrase instead. I am curious to see what supporters have to say on the matter. On the one hand, I understand that racial profiling and police brutality may be an issue but on the other, I see that law enforcement is necessary for any non-Utopian society and most police officers risk life and limb to save lives, not end them.

Any supporters of All Lives Matter are welcome here.

So maybe you can explain how "Black Lives Matter" somehow implies that other lives don't.

Vassenor wrote:

Stanmenistan wrote:I've read a lot of articles by pro-Black Lives Matter groups about why they don't like the phrase All Lives Matter, but I've never seen anyone defend the All Lives Matter phrase instead. I am curious to see what supporters have to say on the matter. On the one hand, I understand that racial profiling and police brutality may be an issue but on the other, I see that law enforcement is necessary for any non-Utopian society and most police officers risk life and limb to save lives, not end them.

Any supporters of All Lives Matter are welcome here.

So maybe you can explain how "Black Lives Matter" somehow implies that other lives don't.

so can you explain why them hating us saying "all lives matter" is making them think that doesn't include them?

Adersfield wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So maybe you can explain how "Black Lives Matter" somehow implies that other lives don't.

so can you explain why them hating us saying "all lives matter" is making them think that doesn't include them?

Because it exists purely to shut down discussions about police racism.

Adersfield wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So maybe you can explain how "Black Lives Matter" somehow implies that other lives don't.

so can you explain why them hating us saying "all lives matter" is making them think that doesn't include them?

When you say "all lives matter" what is your political agenda? It is a slogan, right? It expresses some idea, a political idea or not. What is that idea to you?

Stanmenistan wrote:I've read a lot of articles by pro-Black Lives Matter groups about why they don't like the phrase All Lives Matter, but I've never seen anyone defend the All Lives Matter phrase instead. I am curious to see what supporters have to say on the matter. On the one hand, I understand that racial profiling and police brutality may be an issue but on the other, I see that law enforcement is necessary for any non-Utopian society and most police officers risk life and limb to save lives, not end them.

Any supporters of All Lives Matter are welcome here.

you don’t get to decide who is and isn’t welcome in a thread

Which year is this? Have I suddenly travelled back in time four years to 2016 when this was actually still relevant and in the news?

Adersfield wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So maybe you can explain how "Black Lives Matter" somehow implies that other lives don't.

so can you explain why them hating us saying "all lives matter" is making them think that doesn't include them?

probably because it entirely ignores the topic at hand and implies that black lives matter doesn't value all lives.

I'm going to steal an example which I have definitely misremembered.
So okay, say you're at a Thanksgiving dinner with your family, and someone's doling out the turkey. Everybody, you included, passes their plate to the end of the table to get a serving, and everybody but you gets back a heaping serving, while you're given nothing. You complain, "don't I deserve some? I did just as much work to help with the dinner as everyone else!" To which the server responds, "why does everything have to be about you? Everyone deserves a serving!" How do you think you would feel in this situation?

Vassenor wrote:

Adersfield wrote:so can you explain why them hating us saying "all lives matter" is making them think that doesn't include them?

Because it exists purely to shut down discussions about police racism.

Really ? I would assume that animal rights activists had claimed it decades earlier.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Because it exists purely to shut down discussions about police racism.

Really ? I would assume that animal rights activists had claimed it decades earlier.

It's no longer associated with that particular context, it's mostly used as a response to "black lives matter"

Cekoviu wrote:I'm going to steal an example which I have definitely misremembered.
So okay, say you're at a Thanksgiving dinner with your family, and someone's doling out the turkey. Everybody, you included, passes their plate to the end of the table to get a serving, and everybody but you gets back a heaping serving, while you're given nothing. You complain, "don't I deserve some? I did just as much work to help with the dinner as everyone else!" To which the server responds, "why does everything have to be about you? Everyone deserves a serving!" How do you think you would feel in this situation?

"Exactly, and I did not get any. So go do your job properly".

Black Lives Matter, White Lives Matter, Brown Lives Matter, Asian Lives Matter, Pacific Islander Lives Matter, and Native American Lives Matter. I was never a fan of the black lives matter movement for many reasons, but that being said, I'm also not a fan of "blue lives matter" because the police can't keep killing unarmed people and then pretend to be the victims when two cops die in NYC.

Yes Black Lives indeed matter. They dont matter more than others though, and some people, not most, seem to forget this point.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Adersfield wrote:so can you explain why them hating us saying "all lives matter" is making them think that doesn't include them?

probably because it entirely ignores the topic at hand and implies that black lives matter doesn't value all lives.

Funny, cause I still remember BLM's response when Vester Flannigan killed a news reporter. Talking about "its unfortunate but black people are victims of violence everyday." Like seriously show some damn respect. Now is not the time for your "I'm black and I'm a victim" talk, trying to outdo a dead reporter and cameraman in some sick Olympics of suffering.

Also remember how BLM had some racially segregated meetings. But they totally aren't a bunch of bigots despite having meetings where they asked white people not to come.

Cekoviu wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:Really ? I would assume that animal rights activists had claimed it decades earlier.

It's no longer associated with that particular context, it's mostly used as a response to "black lives matter"

"Black lives matter"
"All lives matter, so put down that chicken".

I can see how they would not like that being chanted against them.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:It's no longer associated with that particular context, it's mostly used as a response to "black lives matter"

"Black lives matter"
"All lives matter, so put down that chicken".

I can see how they would not like that being chanted against them.

Damn, were you born that savage or did it come as you aged?

Rojava Free State wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:probably because it entirely ignores the topic at hand and implies that black lives matter doesn't value all lives.

Funny, cause I still remember BLM's response when Vester Flannigan killed a news reporter. Talking about "its unfortunate but black people are victims of violence everyday." Like seriously show some damn respect. Now is not the time for your "I'm black and I'm a victim" talk, trying to outdo a dead reporter and cameraman in some sick Olympics of suffering.

Also remember how BLM had some racially segregated meetings. But they totally aren't a bunch of bigots despite having meetings where they asked white people not to come.

first of all, minorities, especially in situations where they are being threatened and targetted, deserve to have safe meeting spaces. If that means my white ass can't go to a meeting, GOOD. They deserve to not have to look at every white person and think, "are they here to be an ally or are they here to derail the conversation or heckle or even attack us?"

Second, Vester Flanagan has nothing to do with this. Period. The people who ASSOCIATED Flanagan with BLM and tried to pit all of it on BLM and accuse them of trying to start a race war is what prompted ANY response from BLM. They are WHOLLY separate.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Funny, cause I still remember BLM's response when Vester Flannigan killed a news reporter. Talking about "its unfortunate but black people are victims of violence everyday." Like seriously show some damn respect. Now is not the time for your "I'm black and I'm a victim" talk, trying to outdo a dead reporter and cameraman in some sick Olympics of suffering.

Also remember how BLM had some racially segregated meetings. But they totally aren't a bunch of bigots despite having meetings where they asked white people not to come.

first of all, minorities, especially in situations where they are being threatened and targetted, deserve to have safe meeting spaces. If that means my white ass can't go to a meeting, GOOD. They deserve to not have to look at every white person and think, "are they here to be an ally or are they here to derail the conversation or heckle or even attack us?"

Second, Vester Flanagan has nothing to do with this. Period. The people who ASSOCIATED Flanagan with BLM and tried to pit all of it on BLM and accuse them of trying to start a race war is what prompted ANY response from BLM. They are WHOLLY separate.

Racism is good when it's minorities?

Marxist Germany wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:first of all, minorities, especially in situations where they are being threatened and targetted, deserve to have safe meeting spaces. If that means my white ass can't go to a meeting, GOOD. They deserve to not have to look at every white person and think, "are they here to be an ally or are they here to derail the conversation or heckle or even attack us?"

Second, Vester Flanagan has nothing to do with this. Period. The people who ASSOCIATED Flanagan with BLM and tried to pit all of it on BLM and accuse them of trying to start a race war is what prompted ANY response from BLM. They are WHOLLY separate.

Racism is good when it's minorities?

You clearly don't know what racism is.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:Racism is good when it's minorities?

You clearly don't know what racism is.

Racism is bigotry towards somebody based on their ethnicity or skin colour.

It has nothing to do with power structure, despite what some might claim. The last person of an ethnicity who hates the majority is still a racist, even though the institutional power is stacked against them.

On the original topic, the phrase 'all lives matter' in its usual context is obviously neither racist nor bigoted. Of course all lives matter. However, it's hard to ignore that it's a catch-cry to oppose the BLM movement and often used in that context, not in its more literal context.

No one defends "All Lives Matter" because everyone knows there's nothing to defend about it, it's just a rejection of "Black Lives Matter" and its opposition to police brutality. It's an anti-message, an exclusionary phrase, "I'm not with them." But who are you with? "Not them."

Ifreann wrote:No one defends "All Lives Matter" because everyone knows there's nothing to defend about it, it's just a rejection of "Black Lives Matter" and its opposition to police brutality. It's an anti-message, an exclusionary phrase, "I'm not with them." But who are you with? "Not them."

That's how I read the general political use of it, despite the literal meaning of the phrase, too.

If they truly were a movement about all lives mattering, they's be trying to save all lives. Perhaps by promoting investigations into illegitimate police shootings of people of any race including black people.

It's an understandable response to the more extreme fringes of BLM. But in interpreting the fringes as representative of the whole it's largely arguing against strawmen and doesn't have much to add to the debate.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Funny, cause I still remember BLM's response when Vester Flannigan killed a news reporter. Talking about "its unfortunate but black people are victims of violence everyday." Like seriously show some damn respect. Now is not the time for your "I'm black and I'm a victim" talk, trying to outdo a dead reporter and cameraman in some sick Olympics of suffering.

Also remember how BLM had some racially segregated meetings. But they totally aren't a bunch of bigots despite having meetings where they asked white people not to come.

first of all, minorities, especially in situations where they are being threatened and targetted, deserve to have safe meeting spaces. If that means my white ass can't go to a meeting, GOOD. They deserve to not have to look at every white person and think, "are they here to be an ally or are they here to derail the conversation or heckle or even attack us?"

Second, Vester Flanagan has nothing to do with this. Period. The people who ASSOCIATED Flanagan with BLM and tried to pit all of it on BLM and accuse them of trying to start a race war is what prompted ANY response from BLM. They are WHOLLY separate.

Oh so then are you okay with white people having their own safe spaces or is this a one way street? You're opening a very dangerous can of worms when you start setting up racial safe spaces. It sounds an awful lot like segregation, and frankly I don't see how a movement is gonna get alot of white support when it tells white people to stay away. You do understand that under your logic, I could set up a, idk, safe space from Jews right? No jews allowed in Utica after sundown anymore, because as Arabs and Hispanics we deserve a "safe space."

I'm sure you're okay with being excluded as a white person, but unlike you if someone said to me "you're not allowed here because you are hispanic," I would go out of my way to deliberately mess with the bigots by grabbing every brown man in this city and heading there. Racists don't deserve a safe space, so says many a person and I'm sure you have said it one time or another, so if you need a safe space for your race, then no quarter for you in my world.

like 20 posts in and this is already a shitshow

OH BOY, THIS IS GONNA BE WORSE THAN THE TRANS THREADS....

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:Racism is good when it's minorities?

You clearly don't know what racism is.

No, you clearly don't so let me inform you.

Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Also, the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Who am I gonna take more seriously? Websters dictionary or this deliberate misdefinition of a word by SJWs so when some angry black guy yells "man I just wanna shoot some crackers," they can say he isn't a racist piece of dog shit and potential domestic terrorist.