Cordel One wrote:Galloism wrote:So, to go back to the usage of "house on fire" to disparage and diminish other groups problems or involvement in police brutality.
Everyone should ignore black lives matter and embrace men's lives matter. I should ignore this because this is not the house that's on fire. Or at least, it's a minor kitchen fire while the other cause is a raging inferno.
Is that what we're supposed to do? Because if we're not concerned except for the house that's on fire, this is clearly the one that's on fire in the most extreme and demonstrable fashion.
Disproportionate brutality against men should be stopped, but this doesn't mean BLM should be abandoned. Look at your own graph, black men have to worry about it more than double white men.
Anyways, it's true that men are the subject of some biases that need to end, along with the idea of "alpha males".
But when it comes to the "house on fire", which has the greatest discrimination?
Or, put a better way, which would eliminating discrimination have greater impact - treating black people (highest impacted race) like asians (lowest impacted race), or treating men (highest impacted sex) like women (lowest impacted sex)?






